Super Hornet: Why so many critics?
- Thread starter Bosta
- Start date
SH is a great AC, most of the critics don't really understand it's capabilities. It really is an all new AC that happens to look like the Hornet. That said, it's nowhere near the interceptor that the Tomcat is, and a lot of people are critical of it's capabilities as a fleet defender/interceptor (which it wasn't designed to be).
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The F-14 for all it's capability was hardly ever actually involved in combat. F-14's for example shot down 1 single Mil-Mi-8 during the Gulf War. That was the extent of it's operational involvement. F/A-18A/B/C/D series fighters shot down more aircraft whilst on STRIKE missions than the pure fighter aircraft did...
This is why the US Navy has opted for multirole fighters rather than pure fighter aircraft. And anyway who cares? The F/A-18E/F series fighters are no slouches in the air to air game either, particularly when the fleet is equipped with APG-79 AESA Radars. The F-14 can't carry AMRAAM either and was limited to AIM-9 and AIM-7 in it's later years...
The F/A-18 A/B/C/D series fighters have proven their A2A capabilities over the years. The F/A-18E/F is a better WVR than the earlier series due to greater lift, thrust and flight control systems and a better BVR fighter, (or soon will be) due to it's greater capability AESA radar...
The Super Hornet, may not exceed F-22 in pure A2A combat capability, but it's more than a match for most aircraft... I doubt the US Navy will ever fight anywhere the F-22 won't anyway, so it really becomes a moot point, if you accept that.
The F-22 will be gunning for the enemy's top fighters in such a scenario anyway, so the greater strike capability of the Super Hornet would prove advantageous I should think. Obviously the US Navy does too...
This is why the US Navy has opted for multirole fighters rather than pure fighter aircraft. And anyway who cares? The F/A-18E/F series fighters are no slouches in the air to air game either, particularly when the fleet is equipped with APG-79 AESA Radars. The F-14 can't carry AMRAAM either and was limited to AIM-9 and AIM-7 in it's later years...
The F/A-18 A/B/C/D series fighters have proven their A2A capabilities over the years. The F/A-18E/F is a better WVR than the earlier series due to greater lift, thrust and flight control systems and a better BVR fighter, (or soon will be) due to it's greater capability AESA radar...
The Super Hornet, may not exceed F-22 in pure A2A combat capability, but it's more than a match for most aircraft... I doubt the US Navy will ever fight anywhere the F-22 won't anyway, so it really becomes a moot point, if you accept that.
The F-22 will be gunning for the enemy's top fighters in such a scenario anyway, so the greater strike capability of the Super Hornet would prove advantageous I should think. Obviously the US Navy does too...
The primary mission of the Tomcat was fleet defense- it was designed to intercept long range Soviet bombers armed with AShM's. This threat no longer exists, so in that sense, the mission has changed.SABRE said:
JSF will be a better interceptor than the SH, due to LO and better TW ratios and endurance. But it is still not in the same class as the Tomcat performance-wise. Though it is not a declared capability, the JSF is expected to have a limited supercruise ability in the transonic range, i.e. Mach 1.2-1.3.
AD- there were other combat kills for the F-14, 2 Libyan SU-22's in 1981, and 2 MiG-23's in 1989. But you are right about Iraq- the F-14 didn't see much service in ODS or OIF.
So it was not able to carry the Phoienix missile?Aussie Digger said:
From my limited understanding, the SH is criticised becuase it should have been in service when the origional F-18 came into service. However, cost cutting and limited budgets didnt allow for it. As it has alraedy been said, its a good multirole fighter, but, some argue that its too much to pay for just an 'upgrade'
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The F-14 did carry the Phoenix missile, but it hasn't done so for several years and the Phoenix is completely retired from service whilst the F-14 is still soldiering on. F-14's were never capable of carrying or firing AMRAAM and this limited their capability. Super Hornets were never designed or able to carry Phoenix's AFAIK.
The last of the A's were retired last October (IIRC). VF-32 is currently at sea with the Truman, and will transition to F-18's when they return.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17409
VF-31 and VF-213 will go on cruise late this year or early in 06 and transition when they return. VF-101 (the training squadron) will be done by around September, and VF-11 and VF-143 will complete transition this spring. The plan is for all of the B's and D's to be phased out by the end of 06.
M.A.T.S. has a complete list.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-squadron.htm
All of the AIM-54's are out of service of course, which leaves the Tomcats with just Sidewinders and Sparrows.
End of an era.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17409
VF-31 and VF-213 will go on cruise late this year or early in 06 and transition when they return. VF-101 (the training squadron) will be done by around September, and VF-11 and VF-143 will complete transition this spring. The plan is for all of the B's and D's to be phased out by the end of 06.
M.A.T.S. has a complete list.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-squadron.htm
All of the AIM-54's are out of service of course, which leaves the Tomcats with just Sidewinders and Sparrows.
End of an era.
Personally, I really like the SH over the Tomcat. Greater maneuverability, range, weaponry will make it a leading edge performer in any air service that it enters. I'm just hoping that it'll come up here soon enough.
IMHO, the Tomcat was created after the Phoenix missile...as such, the Tomcat was nothing more than a missile platform. As Highsea stated, the original slow moving bombers the Russians would have used for fleet attacks aren't around anymore and as such there is no need for a missile that to my knowledge wasn't even fired once in an actual operation??
I'll give the 14 this much...it was great at airshows on an overcast day...
Attila
IMHO, the Tomcat was created after the Phoenix missile...as such, the Tomcat was nothing more than a missile platform. As Highsea stated, the original slow moving bombers the Russians would have used for fleet attacks aren't around anymore and as such there is no need for a missile that to my knowledge wasn't even fired once in an actual operation??
I'll give the 14 this much...it was great at airshows on an overcast day...
Attila
The AIM-54 Phoenix was created to be the primary missile for the F-14, so the AC predates the missile by about 4 years. The TU-22M Backfire wasn't exactly slow moving (at Mach 1.9), which is why the combination of F-14 and AIM-54 was needed. That is what I meant by the threat no longer exists, though- since there is no longer a Soviet Union, there isn't much chance of a wing of TU-22's coming over the horizon.Attila said:
In fact, the Super Hornet/AMRAAM combination does not have the speed and range that the Tomcat/Phoenix had. The Tomcat is in all respects a superior interceptor as compared to the Super Hornet (but waaay more expensive to operate). The AIM-54 is very antiquated in comparison to the AIM-120, but it did have a greater range.
This doesn't mean the US CSF's are defenseless, the Super Hornet/AMRAAM combination is still very effective, and newer fleet defence missiles like SM-2 also fill in some gaps. But I am sorry to see the Tomcats go, they have always been my favorite Navy jet.
The US never fired the AIM-54 in combat, though Iran has claimed several kills with it in the Iran-Iraq war (some sources say 40, but I find that hard to believe).
Incidentally, Boeing has been working on a Block 3 Super Hornet as a hedge in case the JSF gets delayed. Many new forward fuselage components, and much better stealth compared to the E/F.
The AWG-9 radar and the Phoenix was originally intended for F-111B which was cancelled (the airforce took over the program). Instead, the navy choose the F-14 and the radar and the missile were fitted in the F-14 instead. It is better saying that the missile was not specificaly intended for the F-14 or F-111B, but instead it was intended to be the primary weapon system that will armed the principal navy carrier based long range interceptor.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Hey Awang, has there been any further developments with the proposed Malaysian acquisition of Super Hornets? Last I heard they wanted to trade in their existing F/A-18C/D Hornets as part payment for new build Super Hornets?
rafale_2k5
New Member
BTW how many SHs does Malaysia really have!!!!!!!
New forward fueselage components that give it better stealth technology?
I've thought about this one for a while but couldn't imagine what they could have done given the SH's design, unless they made it more like that of a Raptor??
As for the Phoenix, I always wondered what it would have looked like on an F-4 since they were responsible for fleet defence in the late 60's and early 70's. Does anyone know if they ever did some firing trials with them??
Attila
I've thought about this one for a while but couldn't imagine what they could have done given the SH's design, unless they made it more like that of a Raptor??
As for the Phoenix, I always wondered what it would have looked like on an F-4 since they were responsible for fleet defence in the late 60's and early 70's. Does anyone know if they ever did some firing trials with them??
Attila
rafale- The RMAF operates 8 F-18D's. Currently only the US operates Super Hornets.
attila- the Block 3 changes are very hush-hush right now. There is no public information available. What I have heard is that there are more changes on the nose and leading edges, possibly higher thrust engines, and CFT's, among other things. The Block 2 already has a completely new forward fuselage, partly to support the new systems, but also to reduce parts count and improve maintainability. The new forward fuselage was introduced into production in 2003. All of the Super Hornets with the new forward fuselage are capable of being refitted with the AN/APG-79 radar.
There is much that can be done to reduce RCS, reshaping, more composites, sawtooth edges, more RAM, eliminate resonance cavities, improving the external weapons and pylons, etc. A lot of this has already been done- the Block 2 has more RCS reducing technology than any other non-stealth fighter today.
attila- the Block 3 changes are very hush-hush right now. There is no public information available. What I have heard is that there are more changes on the nose and leading edges, possibly higher thrust engines, and CFT's, among other things. The Block 2 already has a completely new forward fuselage, partly to support the new systems, but also to reduce parts count and improve maintainability. The new forward fuselage was introduced into production in 2003. All of the Super Hornets with the new forward fuselage are capable of being refitted with the AN/APG-79 radar.
There is much that can be done to reduce RCS, reshaping, more composites, sawtooth edges, more RAM, eliminate resonance cavities, improving the external weapons and pylons, etc. A lot of this has already been done- the Block 2 has more RCS reducing technology than any other non-stealth fighter today.
that's the plan, but there still some problem though. i'm not sure wether it's a budget or something about the offer itself. i should inform u that the RMAF current F/A-18D didn't have a proper ECM suite, that AN-something. various request by the malaysian government to acquire the latest ECM system was rejected by congress. i guess this limitation make RMAF think twice before purchasing SH, though i hope it will come true though.Aussie Digger said: