Amiga500Couldn’t have made it more reliable without completely redesigning the airframe and wings,
And so…?
Like the A-D Hornet to the E/F Hornet?
plus adding new engines, radar, avionics, weapons, EW and so on.
See above.
Could all that be sold as an engineering change proposal? Dubious. Block I Supers drew heavily on legacy Hornets for radars, sensors, avionics, EW and even to a degree, engines and airframe components.
It was sold as a mod for the Hornet and it was anything but. Different radar, different sensors, avionics, EW, engines and airframe.
Nothing alike apart from similar silhouette!
The scale of work would have dwarfed even that done to go from Hornet to Super Hornet…
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish and the USN would have ended up with a much better aircraft into the bargain!
Amiga500Well Amiga500 if you had bothered to go back through PhantomII’s 7431 posts you will find he is a USAF pilot.
As I half expected tbh. Especially when the old “have you flown it” line is trotted out.
Poor pilots not realising just how immaterial they are in the whole scheme of things.
An aircraft can sustain an Xg turn regardless of who is in it (assuming one guy isn’t 100 kgs heavier than the other :D).
The fact is if you want unrefueled range and payload the aircraft that should of been retained is the Grumman A6E Intruder, many went to AMARG with only a tiny fraction of their carrier cycles used being late build models.
There probably wouldn’t be too many would disagree with that!
Late in its career the F-14 did some amazing things bomb hauling but you can’t get around the fact that it was a maintenance hog in comparison to the Super Hornet.
Indeed.
Tell me, if you bought a car built from a design in the 70s, would you expect it to require more or less maintenance than one designed in the 90s?
The USN is very happy with the SH for good reason, firstly its cheaper and easier to operate/maintain and secondly its open style avionics architecture makes the intigration of new systems easy.
Of course! Its 30 years younger!
My truck is that the money burned on the SH program could have made the F-14 every bit as reliable and it would have better performance to boot.
Bigger radar, more range, higher intercept speeds, more airframe volume for added avionics (i.e. internal jamming kits)
I’m comparing what the SH is to what the F-14 could have been.
Amiga500What payload on target?
The magazines, flowers and sweets they dropped on the Taliban.
What payload do you think?
I can not read any weight to compare it to the SH. I am not your personal search engine! 😉
Then you’ll just have to trust I am right.
If you doubt that, you can go look it up for yourself.
Amiga500My point was that your loadout suggestion with two AIM-54’s has no room for the LANTIRN pod.
Yeah. On an F-14D.
Just imagine if they’d bothered to spend a fraction of the money they wasted on their Super Hornets and add the LANTIRN pod as an extension onto the back of the TCS on the F-14.
Oh, all of a sudden that pylon is free.
So, what is your experience with the Super Hornet? You appear to be very knowledgeable on both the F-14 and F/A-18,
None, again, designed before I was on the scene.
and so I assumed surely you must have flown them both to be making such masterful comparisons.
Its called reading technical reports (and knowing how to interpret them), as well as having a strong knowledge* base to back it up.
The YF-17 and F/A-18 (all variants) are quite an example of how not to design a wing… mind you, so was the F-4! Although it band-aided out to be all-right-ish.
*knowledge is not knowing a few numbers from wikipedia
and so I assumed surely you must have flown them both to be making such masterful comparisons.
I mean I would assume that time in the F-14D with the F110 engines would give you enough information to make real accurate assessments of what a Tomcat with the D model updates plus more fancy computers and modern control surface balances would perform like…
Are you one of those old clowns that has sailed on a boat a few times, painting the deck or some other menial task, then uses that as justification for saying they know what they are talking about?
[‘cos if you were on the boat and were anything else, you’d not be arguing with my points on their relative kinematic performance]
For that matter, do you actually think it is the pilots flying the aircraft that judge their performance, or the telemetry produced from their flights? Do you really think the pilots start a stopwatch and start turning to measure turn rate (for example)? :confused:
All judgments of aircraft performance are made using telemetry produced from flights. Therefore actually flying them or not is completely irrelevant as long as the pilots that did fly them were competent.
Amiga500In short, a GeNX powered A330 would be a low risk, low cost way to undercut the 787, and Airbus could do such a program quickly.
I assure you they could not.
Airbus (like Boeing) currently have a shortage of engineers.
As I’m sure your aware; the original A350 was an A330 fuselage with a new wing/engine combination. The airlines completely rejected it.
The A350-800 will underlap the A330-300 while being somewhat above the A330-200.
Perhaps CPD will look at a re-engine in the future, especially considering the life of the A330F. But Airbus have their hands full until A350 or A320 re-engine are complete (that is A350 all variants or A319/20/21 all finished).
Definitely not saying it can’t or won’t happen, just saying it’ll def not happen quickly. 2018 at a minimum unless they are willing to put other projects on the back-burner.
Amiga500The un-refueled radius of an F-14D carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000 pound LGBs, two Phoenix missiles, and two Sidewinders, plus 675 roundsof 20mm, and two, 280 gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles.
That was me quoting someone else from… air forces monthly I think it was – an article on the F-14D in Afghanistan.
Any idea what said Tomcat would use to guide said LGB’s??
You answer it yourself in the next paragraph 🙂
Last images I remember seeing from sorites during OEF, it was more common for them to go out with a pair of tanks (267-gallon…not 280), one or two AIM-9’s, a LANTIRN pod, TWO LGB’s (or JDAM’s or a combination) and perhaps one additional AAM…
Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night
I’m just curious what is your experience with the Tomcat?
Hands on? None whatsoever. The F-14 was designed long before I was on the scene.
Amiga500My guess is that the F-18 upg25 for Swiss AF has overcome some of the limitations you suggest above.
There have been no changes to the aerodynamic platform that I am aware of.
The F-18 should have pretty decent acceleration, perhaps better than the Gripen considering it has a much better TWR.
It won’t accelerate better when turning (due to the drag), the T/W differences (even though they are secondary to T/D) only become significant when the Gripen is heavily loaded (i.e. not point defence counterair missions).
You might also want to consider at the wing loading (then further include the added lift of a canard as opposed to the down-force of an elevator).
The gripen should be significantly better at retaining its energy and also better at regaining it in any turning situation. Straight lining to build energy is probably not recommended practice in a dogfight. 🙂
It will probly bleed energy faster, but the ability to turn at high AOA and also regain energy quicker should compensate.
IMO, I disagree.
POssibly, but then the F-18 might get into position better and therefore achieve first look/shot.
Again, I really cannot see how that is possible. The Gripen already has a low RCS, which has been commented on post red flags.
The Gripen (as was slated for supply to the Swiss) has much more advanced avionics/radar, allowing better target identification earlier and also having better datalinking capabilities so the shooter can passively maneuvre to firing position.
And dodging modern AAMs such as the Aim 9x would be rather hard, no matter how much energy these birds have.
Possibly. But I’ve learned over time that missiles tend not to quite meet the powerpoint slides of their makers.
Around and below 350kts, I think the F-18 will rule, esp. vs. the Gripen.
Maybe.
As pointed out before, the Swiss, considering the topography involved, probly emphasize WVR more than BVR, where the EF might lose some advantage, and the Gripen, especially so. WVR and a slower, turning fight might have been the great equalizer here.
C’mon, my first post clearly talked about energy maneuverability!
Where do you get the slow turning fight from? Speed or quick PE->KE is life.
Amiga500Well if the rumours about the operational evaluation of the 3 planes are to be beleived, the Gripen isn’t doing that well compared to the Hornet.
I have real difficulty believing the data within that link.
Energy maneuverability is the cornerstone of modern ACM doctrine. It is well accepted that the YF-17, F/A-18 A-C and F/A-18 E/F are not good at maintaining energy levels (which they somewhat compensate for with excellent point-ability at high AoA). However, pointability is no substitute for maneuverability, if you’ve no KE (and cannot quickly generate it), then you will have real issues trying to out maneuvre any incoming missiles.
The Gripen has a helmet mounted sight, as does the Eurofighter (here). So both can aim off-bore weapons just as well as any F/A-18 and both have better kinematic performance to evade any counter shots.
It is hard to see the reasoning for the Gripen being behind the F/A-18 and it is even harder to see the reasoning for the Eurofighter only being marginally ahead.
Amiga500Really? Against the Taliban even the A-6 is still an option to drop bombs. Maybe you mean if it was with out air-refueling support. For the SH and the F-14D it has to be so just in case for safety reasons.
No. I mean payload on target.
Maybe you will give the details about the carrier and its units tasked.
No. I won’t. If you want, you can go look it up for yourself. I am not your personal search engine.
When the F-14D did not make use of it in some missions it does not mean it had not been there at all and without it the related savings. 😉
See 1st paragraph.
Amiga500In short you stick to data only, when that seem to support your opinion.
No – I actually included that in an edit to show the fallacy of considering weight only.
The experts of the USN thought otherwise about that and the F-14 “Bombcat” never became a real option to the SH.
I hope that is not the foundations of your defense of the SH?
The procurement geniuses that brought you the A-12, the Seawolf, the DDG-1000, the F-111B, the F-35… the list just goes on and on.
Which of the two aircraft (SH and -14D) could drop bombs in Afghanistan more effectively? Here is a clue… it wasn’t the bug.
Amiga500we sill have to disprove that “French engineers are better than British engineers”
In my experience, they are very different.
Obviously this is not applicable to everyone, but by and by large the French are probably a bit stronger on theoreticals, but have a harder time coping with change.
As in, the French will do better if the plan works… if the plan goes to crap, then the British will tend to shine.
Amiga500@Amiga500
Since it fit perfectly into your expample, as beeing much larger than anything else, but have less drag then both SH and F-14.(fuel/Weapons weight alike)
Really?
I’d be surprised if there was a significant difference in drag between the Su-27 and the F-14.
I’d be very surprised if the F-14 didn’t have better low speed drag performance with the wings out.
Although I suppose, the Flanker does have one helluva big wing…
Amiga500To compare that with the data of the F-18E, like t/w-ratios and range.
T/W is for amateurs.
T/D* is where its at, and that is where the F-18 (all variants) is crap.
*over the flight envelope.
You can start arguing performance on the basis of weight only if you want – it’ll be a one-person argument though as I won’t be entering it.
Here is a ludicrous example, if aircraft A is 50% lighter than aircraft B but has a 50% higher drag count than aircraft B…. which one will fly further on the same fuel? (assuming roughly equal engine sfc).
Compare the fuel fraction of a max loaded E/F with a -14, the E/F is 0.481, the -14 is 0.480. Yet… which one will fly much farther? (assuming munitions load and max internal fuel only)
Amiga500Someone claimed the FBW and FADEC will generate care-free handling of a dated design.
No. Someone did not claim that.
Add a FADEC and FBW, along with a rebalancing of the aero-surfaces and you’ll achieve carefree handling.
Quite a difference.
You change your tail volume ratio, and all of sudden you are talking a completely different aircraft from a stability and control perspective.
Amiga500In all seriousness and without biasim & technical details (aircraft capabilities) pushed aside, the Typhoon package looks to be the better overall buy, I must say.
D’you reckon?
I’d be worried about the additional chance of politicians getting involved over other matters down the line.
More countries = more politicians = increased chance of ****-ups.
Whereas the Rafale comes from a single country, with reduced f**kwit overhead accordingly.
Sign In
