JoeinTXYeah, it would certainly have to be the -17……the Do-17 that is.
Granted, for 1935 it was pretty spectacular, but for 1940 it was already past it’s prime.
Risking 4 (or five) crewmen to deliver a 2000 lb bomb load at 225 mph with little armor protection and the most meager of defensive armament makes it the most failed of the mainstream types of the war in my opinion.
The B-17? Well, the original idea behind the B-17 was to create a fast, long range medium bomber that could attack invading fleets at a distance from the shores of the U.S. or it’s possessions. Keep the bombload the same but add another pair of engines for speed and the appropriate fuselage/wing size to support the extra fuel and weight…ouila, the B-17 was born. Now despite the fact that it never really was intended as such, when the time to go to war came it had the needed range, the ability to be produced in numbers, and well…it looked like a heavy bomber so off it went.
Tough, had the defensive qualities of a cactus, and did I mention tough….?
JoeinTXI agree, the Super Etendard was purely political. Now, there’s definitely reasons behind taking political considerations into making a major purchase, I don’t begrudge them that.
However, virtually all of the other aircraft availabe would have been much better for their needs. The Jaguar M would have been an all-around better performer with better range and payload. The A-7 wasn’t much less of an aircraft than the SE in air-to-air missions. It was slower, but it it would have had the same avionics capability while being able to carry larger AAM load to the target. Both used IR missiles soley in the A-to-A role. The A-7 would have been a much better shipping striker with greater range and dramatically better payload. The Skyhawk would have been the perfect aircraft for them: small size, performance, range, payload…..
JoeinTXNo reason to jump on the F-4 here…
The plane was designed using some misguided principles but was able to survive this, adapt, and become a very successful aircraft despite the fact.
As much as we try to re-invent the wheel, the Phantom was the original multi-role aircraft and it’s performance in the role is still a benchmark today.
The F-15 of today has only marginally improved on the idea while using technology that the F-4 could easily accept.
Dont’ get me wrong. The Mirage series were excellent aircraft and have their place. Likewise, the F-15 is a great airplane.
But, let’s not try to compare the Mirage III to the F-4 because they are two entirely different aircraft….
JoeinTXSeriously, I doubt that the Sao Paulo will ever embark any combat aircraft other than the A-4.
First, the ship is 40 years old. It was acquired for peanuts with only limited updates to make it service ready. Likewise, the A-4s were bought for very little and they are an extremely good fit for a vessel like this.
Before any serious talk of new aircraft for the Sao Paulo, one must first decide of whether the ship will be viable for much longer…? If the maintenance costs rise (as the certainly will) then the ship will not be in service for much more than a decade. Any use in spending several hundred million dollars on new carrier aircraft for a ship which is destined for the scrapyard in a rather short period of time? Second, if the Brazilian goverment doesn’t want to spend money of new AF aircraft, why would they be so ready to throw money at a different plane for short term carrier use….?
Any discussion of future Brazilian naval aircraft HAS to include the reality of a new carrier to replace the Sao Paulo. Is there any possiblity of the Brazilians buying a new ship (Principe de Asturias, Garibaldi, or even Chakri Nrubet class..) in the foreseeable future?
A V/STOL carrier would make perfect sense due to cost and a real assesment of future threats, and likewise the potential to buy good second-hand aircraft like the AV-8B or GR.5/7 to would make sense. However, is there any serious consideration being discussed or funding proposed for such a thing??? Any discussion of future Brazilian CTOL purchases for the Sao Paulo (or any ship for that matter) at this point is simple fantasy….
JoeinTXI agree….this thing only has two engines on it.
Look at the shadows-the left hand nacelle’s shadow is merged with the fuelage meaning the sun is over the aircraft’s left side. Look at the other side. If their were two engines on the starboard wing, you would have two distinct shadows with a noticeable gap between the inner one and the fuselage. But, their is only the one noticeable shadow on that side and the “bump” in the concrete isn’t enough to really break the shadow-line of the wing, much less hide an entire nacelle.
All that aside, why would you do this???
I know the explanations above try, but why go to all the trouble of removing the outers? Just for a unit hack? It would be a lot easier to leave it alone and fly it as it was.
Save weight? Why????
There wasn’t a shortage of twin-engined aircraft around for training purposes, so…?
Curious indeed……
JoeinTXUh, well… The Martin B-57 was a U.S. produced version of the Canberra, so the resemblance is obvious.
The Canberra was an outstanding aircraft and production, even as the B-57, was a sould testament to this…..
JoeinTXAs for the Leo IIs, what is your proof of this??? I find nothing, zilch, indicating any transfer of Leopards to Albania….much less any info regarding new-build tanks.
As for the bis’s….Can you provide a source for their actual operation in the Albanian AF?
Also, you say that so much of your info comes directly form the Albanian MOD, but I visited that sight and I can’t find any mention of the Ukrainian Migs or of Leopards…? So, what gives? The A-MOD less informed about their equipment purchases than you are?
JoeinTXIt would appear that much of Shqiponja’s info may come straight from this site: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/albania/albaf2.htm#aircraft
However, the above info hasn’t been updated in 2 years, so..?
Also, http://www.mig-21.de/English/Albania.htm would seem to indicate some question as to the F-7 or potetnial Mig-21s status. And, as when it come to posting pics, it’s very tough to determine when they were actually made-this pic of an F-7 from ’92 looks very similar to the one posted above….
JoeinTXPolitics to get funding and pass muster with Congressional or Pentagon beaurueacrats, of course….
Also, as with things like the “F”-117, they are done to mislead or muddle conjecture….
JoeinTX“Have you not read ACIG or something? Phoenix was credited with more kills on Mig-23s, Mig-21s, Mirage F-1s, Mig-25s than any other AAM in the World with possibly except AIM-7 in Israel. This missile was more than proven. This is why the F-14 is far by the best BVR fighter in it’s generation, with Mig-31/R-33S somewhere around there, which are unproven….”
Oh, yeah, the Phoenix did have some success..but, you can hardly call the episodes above as being against first-rate opponents with the best training. Could a Phoenix hit a hapless Arab Mig-21 flying a general path who has little in the way of advanced warning and poor training in evasive tactics at 60 miles range..? Sure, like fish in a barrel in this scenario as so often was the case.
“The F-14 Tomcat was designed to carry a million dollar missile, the AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-54 has a range of over 100 miles and sole purpose was to destroy Soviet bombers. ..” of the Tomcatter’s Association.
The purpose of the Phoenix was as a weapon agianst larger aircraft at great range which would have had marginal ability to physically avoid it. Are you telling me that the Phoenix was a particularly “agile” missile.??? No. The “C” model had much improved ability agianst targets such as cruise missiles….but at rather less than 100 miles and a cruise missile does not offer much in the way of defensive maneuvering either.
“Space enough. And the E/F is a structurally 70% new aircraft. Same could have been done with a F-14S. It wasn’t performance, it wasn’t costs, it was politics….”
“…not enough space!?!?! the Tomcat is so much bigger, mind you. the volume in the nose taken up by the AWG-9 was humongous. i bet you could put an APG-77 in there, and some F-22 CIPs, and ALR-94, and have room to spare. okay i may be exaggerating, but there was definitely space enough for off-the-shelf F-22 components without having to spend money developing APG-79..”
It was the Tomcat’s internal arrangement which limited in volume. Don’t forget, the Tomcat is a late 1960’s design. Does the basic shell of the F-14 fuselage have a large volume? Yes sir, quite a bit. But, the task of reworking the internal layout to accomodate what the Navy wanted would have a major one. Wiring, for one, was a cited issue.
When the decision to dump the A-12 was followed by the abandonment of the NATF, the Navy had to find a new tactical aircraft that could take some slack from both. There wasn’t a great deal of time to spend on this venture either-it had to come about rather quickly. So, there was a “Super” Hornet that MD proposed which could offer improvements in A-C performance particularly in the attack regime while improving the A-to-A performance enough to satisfy the powers that be. The only other proposal was the ST-21.
Well, let’s not forget that the F-14 was no longer in production at this point while the Hornet was. MD could offer the improved Hornet, even if it was a 70% change in structure, and do so more economically and likely quicker. Northrop Grumman would have had to do some redesign work to the ST and then restart production. MD could offer the redesign and count on a trained workforce which could quicly switch to E/F production without much issue….which is what happened.
As for “politics”….what were the political reasons that the Super Hornet was chosen over the ST? Are we talking internal USN politics where the Navy had decided against the ST because they felt it was dated, less likely to meet production and cost projections??? Congressional politics?
JoeinTXAs to the upgraded F-14s, this was never a real possibility. First, the basic Tomcat airframe did not possess the built-in necessary “growth space” or usable internal volume that the Super Hornet did. Basically, to incorporate the technology in the F-14 that has been done with the E/F would have required a significant redesign of the aircraft’s interior-not a cheap prospect at all. Upgrade it all you want, but you still have 30-plus year old airframes being remanufactured at a rather high price versus an entirely new aircraft.
The A-6F? Well, that was cancelled in 1989 in deference to the planned A-12….which itself didn’t materialize.
“I’m looking foward to the day when USN F/A-18E/Fs were to encounter IRIAF’s Phoenix-armed F-14s while the former is on CAP over the Persian Gulf area.
I really pity the SH pilot/s then! Imagine, being shot down by the plane that your own country has retired!..”
Now, what exactly can the F-14 do versus the E/F? Is the Phoenix a proven ultra-long range weapon against tactical aircraft? Uh, no. The Phoenix was designed for use against larger, slower flying aircraft which had limited maneauverability at distance-i.e., big Russian AVMF Tu-16s attempting to get close enough to fire AS-2s, AS-4s, AS-5s, etc at the general center of a battle group. But, not so much against Su-30s with tactical anti-ship missiles.
So, when you realize that the effectiveness of the Phoenix against modern threats is questionable and when you understand that the primary weapon of a modern F-14 against this type of threat would in fact be the AIM-120 anyway, what differences are there between the Tomcat and the Super Hornet?
First would be speed. Undeniably, the Tomcat is a faster plane and the E/F is a Mach 1.5 airplane with a decent weaponload. Does the Tomcat reach preferred launch range quicker with the AMRRAM than the E/F? Yes. But, the Tomcat’s 6 Phoenixs are 50/50 at best and then it’s down to the AMRAAMS-which it only packs 2 anyway. The Super Hornet arrives a little later, but with 4-plus missiles which are more likely to achieve a kill in this scenario. Winner?
Also, look at the basic airframes themselves. The Tomcat may beat the E/F to the spot, but it will show up much sooner on the enemy’s radar screen due to it’s structure. The F-14’s right angles and aluminum body glow like a Christmas tree on the Flanker’s radar screen at around 60 miles. The E/F is blessed with a lower RCS due to basic design and the materials used, so who has a better chance of getting into firing position with their AMRAAM before detection? At best, it’s a tossup in which case the Super Hornet’s AESA will be the determining factor.
Now, the “tanking” argument is just ridiculous. Let’s see, how many Navy aircraft hve doen this job before without a bit of concern…? The A-4, the A-7, the A-6, oh, and the F-18 A/D…
The “Buddy” refueling job is something that various Navy aircraft have performed for decades. So, the E/F is doing this job now? Tell me, what other navy airframe is available for this job? The KA-6? Gone from the inventory. The KS-3? Slipping into history as the aircraft is being withdrawn. That doesn’t leave just a whole lot of aircraft which can perform the fast-jet AA refueling job, does it?
This is no reason for surprise, it’s simply doing what most other Navy tactical aircraft have been asked to qualify in doing.
JoeinTXThe Super Hornet is in a tough spot here….
First, it was designed to replace two entirely different types of aircraft-the F-14 Tomcat and the A-6 Intruder. Now, what is the best way to reconcile a Mach 2 plus fleet defense interceptor with a subsonic bomb-truck while having it both economical to produce and available in a rather short period of time …?
Second, I believe that the biggest problem that Super Hornet-haters have with this aircraft is that it is technically “replacing” the Tomcat. Is the Super Hornet equal to the Tomcat in the role of interception? Is it as fast? Is it as sexy? Has it had a starring role in a Hollywood movie? No, not quite. However, has the role of the Tomcat changed since the end of the Cold War? Yes. How much did the role of the A-6 change in the modern environment? Not much, because attack has been even more important than ever over the last decade. Ironically, I don’t hear A-6 fans complaining about the Super Hornet’s lack of range or payload versus the Intruder even while this likely the most important job the E/F will perform over it’s life. Why is this?
Next, let’s look at changing threats. The F-14 was designed almost purely to defend the CBGs against long range Soviet land based anti-shipping bombers armed with long range, nuclear cruise missiles. How many potential threats today possess such a capability? Modern threats to the U.S. carrier are tactical aircraft and ship/sub based attacks. The advent of Aegis type destroyers and cruisers have vastly improved the anti-aircraft and anti-missile capability of the average battle group. The anti-submarine threat is being addressed now and the Super Hornet has no role here.
So, in the face of changing threats and evolving roles, a pure fleet defence interceptor was no longer a priority but extended air defense against likely threats is. The Super Hornet with AESA and advanced AMRAAM is capable of this. The last big threat the CBGs face are missile equipped Chinese H-6s. Can Super Hornets, Hawkeyes, and the Aegis classes deal with this? Yes…
Rest assured, the anti-Super Hornet people are acting strictly on emotion and not on fact. The F-18 E/F will likely prove to be one of the more economical and problem free aircraft to serve the Navy while also having the most demanded of it of any modern era aircraft.
Get over it, Tomcat-fans. It’s time has passed and it’s role is largely gone. I have no worries the the Super Hornet will perform well and let us all sleep quietly at night…..
JoeinTXI have to agree with the comments regarding the embargo made above. The best way to spread freedom is to let the opressed peoples of those lands get a taste of what free living is. Obviously, 40 years of economic embargo hasn’t done much but resinstill a nationalistic pride in much of the population and the old-time hardliners love to use it as an example of U.S. cruelty upon them. Ultimately, it is Castro and the few dozen “real” Communists remaining in power on the face of the Earth that are Cuba’s problem, but let the people see the money that can be made and watch political reform sweep the island-well, at least when Fidel is dead and buried anyway.
As to Communist Cuba giving up it’s military….well, fat chance. They will let gas stations run dry and markets empty even more than they already are so that the military can fight over the few scraps left as long as Castro has his way. Like most Communist countries, Cuba is not about egalitarian living, or worker’s welfare, or whatever else they contrive as their reason to exist, no……it’s about the political security of the ruling clique and the continued ignorance of it’s population to the outside world…
JoeinTXWell, the F-15E will be around for some time to come…
Being the latest version of the Eagle built, it will most certainly have some priority in being shifted to Reserve/Guard duty in the coming years as F-22s or F-35s come into frontline service. The are currently around 212 in service and I see them maintaining a presence in the USAF for years to come.
As well, the F-15K was just picked by the ROKAF to fill a gap and there is a prospect for follow on orders, so, it appears there is some production life left in the airframe…..
JoeinTXThere was an aircraft in the works to replace the E-2/C-2/S-3 but the acronym for it escapes me right now. There hasn’t been much word on it lately although I read recently that it was still an active program. With the retirement of the Viking from active ASW and the switch to mainly helo ops, much of the impetus for a whole new airframe has faded. The E-2 is still in production and it is far cheaper to produce newer or modified variants of it for AEW and COD than anything else. Nonetheless, I believe you will still see some Vikings operating in the tanker and COD role in the meantime as the airframes do still have some use…
Sign In
