JoeinTXIf we’re talking modern, in production then this is it:
1. F-22
2. Typhoon/Rafale………half a dozen in one hand, six in the other.
3. Su-30/33 vs. the F-18 E/F. The Sukhois have speed and range, the SH has advanced avionics/radar and high-alpha characteristics to match TV.
4. J-39/F-16 Block 52+…..similar all-around ability.
5. F-2/J-10…..similarly pitched with peculiar traits.
After this we have rebuilds and future types not in service……
JoeinTXYes, an odd looking DC-10/747 amalgamation here.
Why not just and old airframe of one or the other to give the firecrews a bit of reality? Is a DC-10 going to burn the same as a A-300 or a 747 the same as an A-319?……….no.
Weird……….
JoeinTX…. Yeah, and new information I don’t is … where? The A-10 is only, in my opinion, the sexiest and best plane ever!! I never said it was going away. I said compare COSTS. Those reasons you gave are why I personally believe, the F-22 couldn’t dogfight the A-10… couldn’t take down if it launched everything at it.
Are you high?
The F-22 could eleminate the A-10 whithout the ‘Hog pilot so much as knowing it was there.
The A-10 is very much like the Stuka…..devastating with air supremacy but a sitting-duck in hostile airspace. The A-10 can turn very well in extreme close combat, but, any number of modern aircraft can track and launch upon it well before it even knows it’s being so.
CAS is changing……GPS and weapons such as the SDB are making close support as much the realm of the loitering platform as the classic “mud-mover” especially against militia-type opponents.
It has it’s place and that’s why a few hundred are being updated for operations in the future…….but only after the F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16, etc have secured the airspace for them to do so. As well, so much of it’s job will be taken up by UAVs to the point that its replacement will be a battlefield launched unit under the immediate control of the commander on the ground.
JoeinTXPossibly, along the lines of the USAF F-4E’s development, but how many Tomcat kills resulted from the use of the M-61….?
None.
I am one to think that a gun is nice to have…..light, limited ammo, etc…but the number of gun kills in the last 30 years is damn few and far between.
I don’t think the swing-wing Phantom proposal (-T) was necessary to replace the Tomcat. Simple advances in aerodynamics, radar, weapons, and engines incorporated into the Phantom airframe on a budget would have still been enough airplane to keep the Russians thinking twice about attacking USN CBGs.
The Phoenix? A long-range anti-bomber weapon. The Phantom could have incorporated the weapon and radar physically. Whether it be 4 Phoenix on the conformal stations or just two on the inner pylons, the F-4 could have done it. It’s effect on performance can be debated and reasonably so.
All together, an improved Phantom would have easily satisfied Navy needs until the F-18 and Super Hornet hit the scene along with the A-6/A-7. What would a souped-up Phantom for less money have contributed than the more expensive Tomcat?
Range? Speed? Payload? No………
JoeinTXThe Tomcat is deader than a doornail, guys, let’s let if RIP and move on, eh……..:rolleyes:
JoeinTXThe posters above have pointed out all of the key reasons as to why a dedicated, single-mission pallet carrier is not on the USAF’s radar screen.
Unless we are facing some impending pallet-carrying shortfall, call it a “pallet gap” I suppose, that the Russians and Chinese are getting the best of us on…….I see no rational reason for this idea. Besides, as noted above, the DOD contracts with civil air cargo carriers when surge/specialized transport is needed so I’m suppose they have all that they think they need.
JoeinTXSchorsch, your post is dead-on.
F-14, very likely, is the most overrated Western aircraft of the Cold War era. It is great to look at, but, it’s overral contribution is still negligible.
Thus, my post above. The Phantom could have achieved any and all the Tomcat did given equivalent attention and with less money spent.
F-4s the star of “Top Gun”….? Not nearly as photogenic as the F-14 and don’t fight that snippet….
JoeinTXThe F-14 was special, but, not irreplaceable.
Close fight? The Super Hornet eats the F-14’s lunch.
Long range fight? Old Tomcat radar and new SH radar are combarable in the outset, but, SH tracks more targets more reliably. Throw in E-2C and AEGIS and the like, the CBG is better covered than ever before.
Weapons? F-14 had the Phoenix with extraordinary range but little combat proof. Super Hornet with -120 loses some range but has better kill-capability.
Range? Tomcat has better range than SH…….. but it is a larger aircraft.
Speed? All out, F-14 has top speed no question. What about acceleration? Equal here.
Mutlirole capability? From the get-go, the SH was prescribed as all-purposed and designed so. The Tomcat was ATA and nothing else for 25 years.
My personal opinion is the F-18E is a good aircraft, will beat the F-14 thanks to the AIM-9X, can fight any rival even the Su-30 or the Chinese J-10, it is as agile as the F-18A but carries more warload.
This is a great summation of the new Rhino. The SH has fantastic alpha characteristics and can maneuver on its thrust as opposed to airspeed. It can carry more than it’s predecessor over a longer range. It has shorter legs than the F-14 or A-6, but, can do more jobs from a single airframe. It’s slower than the Tomcat, but, faster than any other type it will see over the seas apart from the -29k or Indian Su-30……..neither of which it will ever fight.
For the early 21st Century, the SH is the perfect aircraft for USN needs and hundreds remain to be built regardless of the preoccupied carping we see here…
JoeinTX…was there a lot of fanfare when the F-4 Phantom was retired from U.S. service in the 1996?
No, there was not the same to-do about the Phantom’s withdrawal for the reasons that other posters have cited above.
but I’d say the F-4 had a larger impact on American military aviation than the F-14
You are completely, totally, without a doubt, 1000% correct here. The F-4 was the ultimate Cold Warrior who did everything for everybody and is still doing it for others after the F-14’s demise.
Here’s the ironic part. The service that made the F-14 famous, the U.S. Navy, was arguably is less need of a replacement for the F-4 than was it’s USAF counterpart. I dare say that USN CBGs could have been ably protected through the end of the Cold War by the Phantom at much less cost to the taxpayer and the same end result. The F-18 would have still arrived at the same time and provided the same “lo” complement to the F-4 that it did the F-14. The A-6/A-7 were still there in the same capacity until replaced by the Hornet. The Phantom’s job was primarily against land-based strike/bomber aircraft, not tactical fighters although it could find the occasion.
It may upset the Tomcat-ers, but, imagine the money spent on developing the F-14 used rather to update and develop the F-4 with modern radars and weapons through the years and the end result isn’t all that different. Oh, and an airplane still cleared and capable for multi-role missions as opposed to the Tomcat which was strictly ATA during the vast majority of it’s service life. Well, apart from the “sex appeal” angle, that is. Would the Libyan MiGs and Sukhois still have been intercepted and shot down? Uh, yeah. Would the Russian Badgers and Bears still have been wary of getting too close or successfully launching an attack against the carriers? Uh, yes.
On the other hand, the USAF was definitely looking at confronting WARPAC’s newest fighters over the battlefield and in need of supreme ATA performers…..thus the F-15 and F-16. Their job was fighting through the waves of aircraft and besting them at shorter ranges. In this role, the F-4 was in need of replacing.
So, 1970, USN skips the -14 entirely and invests part of that money in developing the F-4’s radar and weapons and then inducts the Hornet in the early 1980s. Is any harm done? No. These Phantoms are still more capable than anything else flying from a carrier and master of the ocean skies.
In the end, quite honestly, the F-14 did really little that it’s predecessor couldn’t have but at a higher cost and with a more limited scope. The F-14 is special, but, it was certainly not indispensible.
Sorry Cruise fans, but, the original Rhino still is more airplane when based upon what was done when and where for how long by how many…
JoeinTXI am surprised at all of this F-111-less phobia from the Auss.
First, Australia is not in immediate threat of invasion. Indonesia is a powerhouse and all, but even they won’t attempt a land attack on Australian interests.
Second, the F-35 delivers the same internal payload as the F-111 at a greater range than the -18 C/D and similar to the E/F. It’s less detectable than the F-111 or E/F and the new MRTTs add a whole lot to the F-35’s effectiveness.
Third, the F-35 can carry that same normal air defence load-out as the E/F but do it at longer range and less chance of being spotted by the attacking force.
The way I see it, the F-35 is the best compromise of the two types in service especially when it can be obtained at a near one-for-one basis which is rare in today’s world.
100 F-35s combined with A330s and UAV/UCAVs and modern AEW is quite a force to deal with and a serious upgrade over today.
I’ve read Kopp’s stuff and he’s of the belief that Australian survival depends upon the F-111. If so, then Aussie-land only has another 20 years or so of existence after all of the patching and stitching is wrung out of the 50-year old airframes because there is no direct replacement for -111….not even the Strike Eagle.
Save the money….retire the Aards….get the F-35s and AEW aircraft and UAVs and be many times the better for it in the end.
JoeinTXI throw in for the JASDF or the RoKAF in this category. Considering equipment, technology, and numbers these two get the nod…..
Sweden-technoligcally advanced but small and no combat experience.
Greece/Turkey-some of the more powerful air arms in the world and very close to the top tier. NATO participation and regular near-war scenario between the two give reasonable combat readiness.
Saudi Arabia-smaller numerically, but they have modern equipment and some combat experience.
South Africa-small and no notable combat in 15 years but modern equipment.
Egypt-M2000s and F-16s in decent numbers.
Australia-Hornets and F-111s now but in transition.
JoeinTXKind of unlikely right now.
As noted above, the Argentines could get rather quick replacement in the form of ex-U.S. F-18s or F-16s for little money and have a dramatic increase in capability to boot.
Many of the A/B Hornets and Falcons sitting in storage are rather low-hour machines which can be refurbed with relative ease.
JoeinTXHey, if the Japanese are able to pull-off the C/P-X program…..more power to them.
Still, domestic aerospace design has been a problem for them. Reproducing other designs has gone well. The F-1 met very limited success and the F-2, as much as I like it, is now in a financial crunch with performance questions.
I’m not saying the Japanese can’t do it……….they just haven’t proven so yet. Prove me wrong, Japan, and allow these aircraft for foreign sale when you do so. Get some return on costs and develop further your abilities.
JoeinTXMorocco has been a Mirage customer in the past, so, that precedent is set.
But, as noted above, they tried to get second-hand F-16s a few years ago and the Saudis weren’t interested in footing the bill. Why, now after having just agreed to a huge deal for the Typhoon themselves, the Saudis are willing to fork over several more billion dollars more for Rafales than they were for used F-16s for the Moroccans is puzzling. Could be politics or good-will, but not good financial sense. :confused:
JoeinTXThe Lightning is one of the most underestimated fighters of all time? Personally, I think alot of people are going to eat crow after this baby enters service……………………
Agree 100%. So many have hopefully, but ignorantly, tagged this airplane with the “mud-mover” label as if it were only an A-10 replacement. But, they conveniently forget the performance parameters requiring F-16/18 class agility, dramatically advanced radar capability, internal weapons capability, and advanced AAM capability.
Stealth…a 40k lb donk….supercruise….range out to next Tuesday….etc.
Rafale? Nice for the French, but not close.
EF? Nice for the Euros, but not close.
After that, all else is simply a proposal and years down the road.
But them, buy them, buy them……..no one will have anything close for 20 years to come….
Sign In
