[El Sordo]

A bump for Bombcats.

Doin' the Super-Hornet Dip!

[dis.kevin]

The Navy should have never let the A-6 go. That was the best medium attack all weather aircraft ever produced.

[stainlessbanner]

Bump for the JSF!

[WhiskeyPapa]

Wasn't the A/F-18 almost dropped during development because of its lack of legs? And isn't the F-18 a development of the F-17 from the mid-70's? It's impossible to kill these lousy aircraft programs. Don't start me on the Osprey.

And not only that--but I think F-18's are pretty homely, especially compared to an F-14.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

In 1975, an A-7 Corsair II was mounted on a pedestal outside the now closed Navy Master Jet Base, Cecil Field, Florida. On the base of the pedestal was a large bronze plaque bearing the inscription: “The main battery of the fleet.”

There used to a plastic kit of the A7 marketed that called it "The fist of the fleet."

But wasn't the A7 a disappointment also?

Walt

[Southack]

[Poohbah]

This whole piece ignores the (extremely substantial) costs of RDT&Eing a new Tomcat, and it wouldn't enter the fleet until 2012 at the earliest.

Once again, NAVAIR partisans push for an airplane that the budget will not support. Didn't we learn our lesson with the A-12?

[Blueflag]

the author spends a lot of good time defending his point, which is well made. He speaks of the area AND radius of influence. (dropping by 23%) What he doesn't appear to talk about as well is the loss of the Phoenix AAM along with the Tomcat. The "Slammer" is a fine missile, but it doesn't have the range or punch of a Phoenix. Also, I understand a modern vectored thrust aircraft can defeat any Slammer the pilot sees in time. Not so with the Phoenix.

Emotionally, I love the Tomcat, and it is definitely the 'baddest' looking aircraft when viewed nose on and loaded out. If the Buf can fly for 50 years, fo can the Tomcat.

[TaxMe]

Isn't the newly awarded Lockheed JSF scheduled to replace both the F14 and F18? If so, why not a comparison of the JSF's capabilities vs. the F14. Perhaps the JSF is too early in development to make any reasonable comparisons. Thoughts anyone?

[Wm Bach]

A-7 Corsair II was mounted on a pedestal outside the now closed Navy Master Jet Base, Cecil Field, Florida.

I used to drive through those gates all the time in the 80's. I didn't realize they closed the base. Pity.

[Incorrigible]

[NC_Libertarian]

The long-range A-6 bomber has gone forever

[Al B.]

FYI

[gcraig]

"To complete the picture of mission distances, the S-3s would have to dash back to the CVs, hot-refuel, and meet the raid coming out of Afghanistan, which would be much in need of JP-4 cocktails."

Huh? Navy jets use JP5.

"The F-14D can pick up the A-6 role..."

NOTHING can pick up the role of the Intruder. I was a VA-165 Boomer in Desert Storm and our airplanes kicked serious @ss.

"Remember that there are - or there can be - 24 F-14Ds on a ship such as the John C. Stennis (CVN-71)."

The USS Roosevelt is CVN-71.

"Although the Navy has been working very hard to correct F/A-18E/F OPEVAL problems, it is worth summing them up: the production of the F/A-18E/F is significantly overweight with respect to its specifications (30,000 pounds empty weight). This is far in excess of what one would expect for a variant of an existing F/A-18 A, B, C, or D."

Huh? The F/A-18A, B, C, or D have a 1 to1 thrust to weight ratio. Each of the GE F404 Turbofan engines has a 16000 lb thrust rating, which places the jet at around 32,000 lbs. Your argument is slightly overstated. I do most vehemently agree with your position that unless we seriously alter our thinking about Naval Aviation post Clinton we will be in deep kimshi. I've worked on F/A-18 and A-6 aircraft as an electrician and avionics tech in the USNavy and have a thing for both airplanes. Thanks for the great article!

[Carry_Okie]

Great article, written by guys who seem to have their priorities straight: winning wars and saving money.

I see yet another argument for the approach they recommend. We are entering an age when smart drones could be part of the air attack mix. The longer range fighter/bomber could then act as a forward control platform utilizing its RPV assets as part of either the dogfight or to deliver ait-to-surface ordinance.

Why not rework and improve an existing platform under those circumstances? Good move.

[hattend]

Bump for later when I have time to download the pictures.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

“We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them.”

That's all I need to hear on this issue.

[CyberCowboy777]

Both aircraft doing great!

F-14S taking part in the large bombardment of Iraq

[185JHP]

Hmm. Slower, less range, less ordnance. Could the choice of the Hornet have anything to do with it being easier to fly when the pilot lacks a physical characteristic long associated with Naval aviators - a chest that's got hair on it?

[nightdriver]

"Pick one and design toward it. If you want a V/STOL, design one, but don’t try to make it into a tri-service fighter/bomber."

In other words, keep the Robert F. McNamaras and his bean-counting clones out of the business of designing military aircraft!!