Replies

As for Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, I have only met him once at a Congressional DoD related function, he was in VF-96 about four years after my Father left the squadron. Since he's been in Congress he has done outstanding work and has my utmost respect. But any Navy fighter pilot in Congress is AOK by me... Good info on the way Fighter selection happened with you, from the 1950s Navy transistion to jets the top ~10% of the entire classes graduated were able to pick fighters, since there were a lot more carriers and squadrons in those cold-war days. McCain should have gotten a downcheck, but was 'informally' protected by the 'elites' in the BuPers circle of influence.

As to the F-14A/B/D vs F-18E/F controversy, it is nice to have the opinion of a Tomcat driver, since the pilots eval should count the most. There are quite a few online air sites which discuss the F-14 vs F-18E/F but the main complaint against the F-14 seems to be the airframe age, the 3 to 1 maintenance hour ratio compared to the F-18E/F. From what I understand the AIM-53C Phoenix (BVR) missile is aging and is more of a limit on the the continued long-range engagement capability of the F-14 than its airframe/avionics.

I read in the press that VFA-41 sent a detachment of F-18Fs from the squadron to get into the Iraqi Freedom operation, just to function as TANKERs as you indicated. Quite a start for a fighter platform in one of the best USN squadrons. As you were a Tomcat driver, I was interested in your data that the current 'Black Aces' (who publicly profess how happy they are with the F-18F over there old F-14As) who like the F-14 more. If the Navy was smart they would re-engine and upgrade the avionics to make all F-14D+ levels and keep at least one squadron per Carrier Air Wing just to keep the Fleet Air Defense role alive. The Super Hornet just doesn't have the legs (or missiles) of the F-14 Tomcat, but I'm preaching to the choir... Heck the F-18E/F doesn't even have the range of the old F-4S before they retired.

Since I have your ear, what do you think of the US Navy/Marine Air Wing "blending" where to get the maximum utility and coverage out of a shrinking number of Navy Squadrons the Marine squadrons will be a permanently attached to Navy Air Wings. It seems that the Navy is trying to stretch its fixed wing assets by supplementing Air Wings with Marines squadrons, to get some use out of their F-18C/D platforms. My personal opinion is to keep them seperate so that the Marines Air Wings (and their squadrons) are alway available as resources for the MEF to which they are normally attached. The only justification I can see for this move is to get the most out of the Marine airframes and pilots until the Marines completely transition to JSF F-35Bs (vertical take-off/landing), and fly completely on LPH/LPAs and forward land deployment. At that point I would not expect to see anymore Marine squadrons operating off of US Navy large deck carriers, but who knows... I still cannot figure out the JSF F-35Cs of the Navy. The ultimate Fleet composition looks like 60% F-35Cs and 40% F-18E/Fs for the 'strike fighters'. Why not go all F-35Cs if the Navy believes in them so much, or is it just a somewhat stealthy bomb-truck? But maybe a single seat, single engine aircraft might not be ideal for a USN fighter?

Unfortunate about Art Scholl, it appears that they never found his aircraft after it went down on the last hop of the filming day. As to the Air Force, a close friend of the family was another Naval Aviator - Ron Andreson who did an two year pilot exchange with the US Air Force. His comment that 'anyone can fly high and fast, but it takes real skill to fly low and slow...' comes to mind :-)).

Nice talking to you...

dvwjr

Duke was one of my instructors. As for the Tomcat, the wing boxes will last 100 years. They were very much overdesigned. What the Tomcat needs, is to go beyond the D, into an unstable, fly-by-wire design that would allow sustained 9G performance at Mach. The Phoenix (AIM-54) needs updated (and cheaper) electronics, but could be kept around. If you get rid of the hydralics, and go fly by wire, you also get rid of the number 1 maintanance problem with the Cat. We need an Electric Tomcat with inlets that hide the turbofan blades from radar also. Top it off with the F-119, and you have the best thing going.

I think it is a good thing to get MarineAir more time at the boat. All the services are blending to a degree, and the Marines have been short changed at blue water opportunities. I do not understand or agree with the F-35. A single engine is not a good idea, and we are going to lose a lot of them for no good reason. High performance turbofans are like glass. They do not like harsh treatment, and you dont get more harsh than carrier ops. I've brought 4 Cats aboard on a single engine, once at night. Had I a single engine, at least one of those times, I might be dead. The Navy needs a big-ass, fuel-haulin fighter, and not these little birds that cant go anywhere when you start hanging stuff on them.

I had hopes that the Navy would grab the F-23 after the fly-off. It has the look and lines of a Navy beast. I would have stayed in for a chance to fly that thing. The Hornet and F-35 are not going to be enough for the duration, and if the Tomcat actually goes kaput, then we should see another big ass Navy fighter in the not too distant future.