F14 vs F18F

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"

rstro wrote:

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"


The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
rstro wrote:

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't
even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"


The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.


Better strike aircraft perhaps but it being a better fighter is doubtful.

As I understand it the problem with the F-14 is maintainability,
it just needs to many hours of maintenance for each flying hour.

Keith

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
rstro wrote:

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18 can't
even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"


The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

John

Yes and no. Far more maintainable. Better hi AOA performance (not
practical in a real world sense). Better weapons system integration,
particularly in cockpit ergonomics. Maybe better bringback capability (not
sure on this one).

Poorer range/endurance/speed. Poorer energy maneuverability.

In a practical sense, the F-18 can be turned around more quickly than the
F-14 and has better availability (less down for parts/maintenance jets).
Its weapons/avionics are thoroughly up to date (by comparison, the Navy
never even funded AAMRAM integration with the F-14 ... criminal IMO), the
F-14 less so.

The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a new
airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its functional.
Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall scheme
of things.

R / John

ah--
so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
would really like to know what the aircrews think....

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
rstro wrote:

Ok let's see what you experts are made of.... other than the sake of
politics, why would the Navy "replace" F14 Tomcat with the F18 Super
Dud???
Unless the navy has kept some performance numbers secret--the F18
can't
even
carry the Tomcats drop tank!--I understand the operational cost --but
hell
the F18 can't carry half the weapon load, nor has the range.

"Lucy--you have some splainin to do!"


The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

John

Yes and no. Far more maintainable. Better hi AOA performance (not
practical in a real world sense). Better weapons system integration,
particularly in cockpit ergonomics. Maybe better bringback capability
(not
sure on this one).

Poorer range/endurance/speed. Poorer energy maneuverability.

In a practical sense, the F-18 can be turned around more quickly than the
F-14 and has better availability (less down for parts/maintenance jets).
Its weapons/avionics are thoroughly up to date (by comparison, the Navy
never even funded AAMRAM integration with the F-14 ... criminal IMO), the
F-14 less so.

The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a new
airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
functional.
Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
scheme
of things.

R / John

"rstro" wrote in message
et...
ah--
so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
would really like to know what the aircrews think....

Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons platform
is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
ships for many decades to come.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"rstro" wrote in message
et...
ah--
so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
would really like to know what the aircrews think....

Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons
platform
is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
ships for many decades to come.


At least he didn't call them boats.

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a new
airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
functional.
Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
scheme
of things.

It would have been nice to see what would have come from a serious look at
the Tomcat-21. Grumman offered it but I don't believe it got a serious
shake, the Navy was determined to get the F-18 E/F from what I recall.

"Brian" wrote in message
...

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a
new
airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
functional.
Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
scheme
of things.

It would have been nice to see what would have come from a serious look at
the Tomcat-21. Grumman offered it but I don't believe it got a serious
shake, the Navy was determined to get the F-18 E/F from what I recall.

The Navy made a well reasoned decision and they are to be commended.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:25:33 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
. ..

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
The F-18E/F (which really shouldn't be called an F-18 at all ... its a
new
airplane) is "good enough" to get us to the F-35. Its new. Its
functional.
Its here. Its mediocre performance is inconsequential in the overall
scheme
of things.

It would have been nice to see what would have come from a serious look at
the Tomcat-21. Grumman offered it but I don't believe it got a serious
shake, the Navy was determined to get the F-18 E/F from what I recall.

The Navy made a well reasoned decision and they are to be commended.

depends on how you look at it, with the super bug all the navy got was
the A-7 replacement they been looking for, for the last 20 years. the
Tomcat 21/quickstrike/(F/A-14D) was a A-6 replacement. But the real
replacement for the A-6 would and should have been the F-14C of the
70's