"This is not good Mav!"

[SAFD46Truck]

I know it's time..but this saddens me, my favorite jet is retiring. :(

'Top Gun' Jets Retired By U.S. Navy
F-14s To Be Replaced By Super Hornets

POSTED: 4:52 pm CST March 10, 2006
UPDATED: 6:18 pm CST March 10, 2006

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The last two squadrons of the Tomcat -- the sleek, Cold War fighter jet -- returned home from their final deployment Friday, two decades after the warplanes were glamorized in the 1986 Tom Cruise movie "Top Gun."

All 22 Tomcats of fighter squadrons VF-213 and VF-31 arrived in style, flying together in a wedge formation over Oceana Naval Air Station as hundreds of sailors and their family and friends cheered. Some wore T-shirts reading "Tomcats Forever" and a banner proclaimed, "Last Fly-In, Baby!"

"We're putting the premier fighter to sleep," said pilot Lt. Jon Jeck, 32, as he held his 3-year-old son Collin. "It's a staple of Americana."

The Navy plans to replace the F-14, a two-seat fighter with moveable swept-back wings, with the F/A-18 Super Hornets.

The F-14 entered service in the early 1970s to defend aircraft carriers from Soviet bombers carrying long-range cruise missiles.

"If you want to think about airplanes that have defined the air age, this would have to be on the short list," military analyst John Pike said.

After the Cold War, the Navy became less concerned about defending carrier groups and transformed the F-14 into a bomb-dropping fighter jet, said Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria research center on security issues.

"But it was not designed as a bomb hauler," Pike said. "They would rather have a new plane ... than try to teach an old cat new tricks."

The F-14 squadrons that returned Friday were from the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, which has been on a six-month deployment for the Iraq war. The Roosevelt was to return Saturday to nearby Norfolk Naval Station.

[Dave1983]

Sad, but its "reason for being" no longer exsists. I would be willing to bet the F-15 is next (at least the interceptor version) as soon as the F-22 is fully deployed. The "Strike Eagle" will probably hang around a while.

[EFD840]

Sad, but its "reason for being" no longer exsists. I would be willing to bet the F-15 is next (at least the interceptor version) as soon as the F-22 is fully deployed. The "Strike Eagle" will probably hang around a while.

You're right, but there's one significant difference. The Raptor is going to be superior to the Eagle right out of the box. Super cruise, thrust vectoring, reduced radar signature, equal or better range, etc.

I don't think the same can't be said for the Superbug (F/A-18E and F).

[Steamer]

Isn't the Navy supposed to get their own variant of the Raptor?

[Dalmatian190]

F-22 I believe is Air Force only, replacing the F-15 role of absolute air superiority and occassionally deliver a bomb.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the kitchen sink replacement for the F-14/F-16/F-18 and all the A-series including the A-10 Warthog. Has conventional Air Force, Marine Corp "jump jet", and Navy Carrier variants. Almost as stealthy and nimble as a F-22, bigger selection of weaponry (even has a 25mm cannon like the Warthogs for taking out tanks). I believe it's scheduled to be the first plane to (publicly) sport a weaponized laser around 2010 (to shoot down anti-aircraft missles).

It'll be a cool bird if they pull off the kitchen sink approach!

[mcaldwell]

Hey, It sounds like it'll be the Quint of the Skies! :D

[Dave1983]

Hey, It sounds like it'll be the Quint of the Skies! :D


LMAO!! That must be one strange looking bird, what with a ladder on top. :D

[Dave1983]

F-22 I believe is Air Force only, replacing the F-15 role of absolute air superiority and occassionally deliver a bomb.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the kitchen sink replacement for the F-14/F-16/F-18 and all the A-series including the A-10 Warthog. Has conventional Air Force, Marine Corp "jump jet", and Navy Carrier variants. Almost as stealthy and nimble as a F-22, bigger selection of weaponry (even has a 25mm cannon like the Warthogs for taking out tanks). I believe it's scheduled to be the first plane to (publicly) sport a weaponized laser around 2010 (to shoot down anti-aircraft missles).

It'll be a cool bird if they pull off the kitchen sink approach!


Some good info on the F-35 here.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

My only question is, what about a pure interceptor for the navy? Both the F-18 and F-35 have interception as a secondary roll, and with the F-14 gone, they dont have a pure fighter. Maybe they feel dont need one.

[doughesson]

I served in a DDG when in the Navy.My ship's job was to shoot down aircraft that got past the CAP and threatened the carrier or battlegroup.
Short version:Terrier SM Block Two-The long arm of the law.

[DaSharkie]

You're right, but there's one significant difference. The Raptor is going to be superior to the Eagle right out of the box. Super cruise, thrust vectoring, reduced radar signature, equal or better range, etc.

I don't think the same can't be said for the Superbug (F/A-18E and F).

Sure it can. Because in order to be stealthy its weapons must be carried internally. In doing so, it has to carry less weapons. Not a good trade off if you ask me.

That means that in order to eliminate the same number of targets, you have to fly more missions, which increases flight hours, wear & tear, fuel, costs, and exposure for the crews.

The Super Hornet was meant to replace the Tomcat anyway. The Tomcat is a superior interceptor, but that is its only job. When grunts on the deck need close air support, you need an airframe that can do it.

Still sad to see her go though.

[DaSharkie]

On another note, the Corps just stood up its first operation squadron of V-22 Ospreys this week. About time we replaced a 50 year old helicopter.

[Dalmatian190]

I haven't seen anything about other Fighter programs in the pipeline -- looks like the F-22 & F-35 class will be the backbone for the next 30-40 years.

As for Air Superiority over the fleet...

Only Russia & China offer serious if remote risk of conflict, combined with decent air power. Russia in Europe has an awful long way to fly in most places to threaten the fleet.

China...

Japan has *a lot* of F-15s -- Mitsubishi built like 1/4 of all the F-15s ever built with a run of like 220 that Japan operates. Japan has like half as many in service as the USAF, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts within 10 years they'll get Raptors.

That covers the north. Phillipines is awful well positioned to run F-22s out of from the south.

Islands tend to make unsinkable aircraft carriers :D That's my guess if the world ever turns to crap in the far east -- F-22s out of Japan with JSDF & USAF and the Philliipines with USAF to provide air domination over the Navy guys running attack sorties.

[Dave1983]

Short version:Terrier SM Block Two-The long arm of the law.

Terrier!? Bro, been out a while huh. ;)

Here is the new "long arm of the law". The RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) system, the navys newest can of whup-ass.

http://navysite.de/launcher/ram.htm

[Ladder8]

For some really neat videos of Tomcats...

Google "Fighter Fling" and go to Patrick Savignon's (sp) website.

If you don't have broadband, find someone that does - Fighter Fling 2004 (Last Fling - Baby!) is nearly half a gig - but well worth the download.

[VinnieB]

Some good info on the F-35 here.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

My only question is, what about a pure interceptor for the navy? Both the F-18 and F-35 have interception as a secondary roll, and with the F-14 gone, they dont have a pure fighter. Maybe they feel dont need one.

You really don't need one anymore. There are enough picket capabilities in the Navy and land based AA and AAA are 100% better today than 20 years ago. As are early warning systems. The JSF is to be able to handle any air threat in the world. And the F-18 is an awesome platform. The key to all of this is Pilot training. Our future advisaries don't have the capable pilots that we have. I am willing to go out on a limb and say pound for pound, thier best pilot is no better then our average pilot. I'll take an expert pilot in a multi role platform than a mediocur pilot in a single rolled system anyday...ie....F-18 v. MiG-29 or Su-37.

[Dave1983]

You really don't need one anymore. There are enough picket capabilities in the Navy and land based AA and AAA are 100% better today than 20 years ago. As are early warning systems. The JSF is to be able to handle any air threat in the world. And the F-18 is an awesome platform. The key to all of this is Pilot training. Our future advisaries don't have the capable pilots that we have. I am willing to go out on a limb and say pound for pound, thier best pilot is no better then our average pilot. I'll take an expert pilot in a multi role platform than a mediocur pilot in a single rolled system anyday...ie....F-18 v. MiG-29 or Su-37.

No doubt, just seams strange that they wont have a strict, air to air bird. I guess in a pinch they could tweak the F-22 a bit. Beef up the landing gear and mount a hook, though Im not sure how well the Raptor handles at the low air sppeds needed for carrier landings.

Who knows, the need will probably never come along anyway.

[MalahatTwo7]

I served in a DDG when in the Navy.My ship's job was to shoot down aircraft that got past the CAP and threatened the carrier or battlegroup.
Short version:Terrier SM Block Two-The long arm of the law.


Ya me too, DDG was my first ship, then I "upgraded" to FFH! Fast 'n Furious HELO! :D

[EFD840]

You really don't need one anymore. There are enough picket capabilities in the Navy and land based AA and AAA are 100% better today than 20 years ago. As are early warning systems. The JSF is to be able to handle any air threat in the world. And the F-18 is an awesome platform. The key to all of this is Pilot training. Our future advisaries don't have the capable pilots that we have. I am willing to go out on a limb and say pound for pound, thier best pilot is no better then our average pilot. I'll take an expert pilot in a multi role platform than a mediocur pilot in a single rolled system anyday...ie....F-18 v. MiG-29 or Su-37.

That's a dangerous assumption to make. The Su-27/30/33 family is an impressive series. Just how good, nobody knows because it isn't battle tested except in the Ethopia/Eritrea war of the late 1990s where it faced and defeated MiG-21s, 23s, and 29s. In 2004, USAF F-15s flew exercises against the Indian AF, which operates the Su-27/30. Our official response was that we were 'surprised' by its performance. Do a google and you'll see that other folks say the Eagles got their clocks cleaned. The truth is probably somewhere in between, but the Sukhois obviously made a very good showing. Is a Sukhoi as good as an F-22? Of course not - but if they're really on a par with the Eagle (or just close), how many would it take to overcome a Raptor? China is now building them and has the capability to turn them out by the thousands. We're planning on building 180 Raptors.

Still, my problem with the premature retirement of the Tomcat isn't that the fleet now lacks an interceptor. Neither the Tomcat nor the Super Hornet is in the same league as the Raptor, JSF, or modern Su-30 so they will have to work in concert with the Aegis ships for fleet area defense. What angers me is that the government is weeing on us and telling us it is raining. No real effort was made to upgrade the F-14 ala F-15E. The plane already had the range and lifting capability. The F-14D, which has a very significant attack capability with laser guided bombs, has over double the combat raidus of the F-18E with a similar payload. It is also much, much faster - for that matter, most everything in the air is faster than the Hornet. A Tomcat with new engines, radar, GPS guided munitions and AMRAAM capability would have created a viable strike fighter capable of holding its own in the air to air realm. The Tomcat's demise has one and only one cause - it is expensive. Even a modernized 'cat would still require a lot more man-hours to maintain and it still has a two man crew so personnel costs and requirements are much greater. I don't hate the Hornet. As a replacement for the A-7, it is fantastic but it is being used as a stopgap so that funding will be available for the Osprey and JSF, which are the future of Naval air power. I just wish the Navy would admit it.

[EFD840]

Dang double post!

[MalahatTwo7]

As a sailor I think I mostly have to agree with 840. Yes the surface-to-air capabilities of most ships is pretty awesome but the fact is, an a/c coming in fast and low "below the deck" is quite capable of getting in. Anti air defence is wonderful, but unless you are in a fleet of 10 plus ships, without air support you are still, as Stephen from Braveheart put it.. "...The Almighty says he's pretty sure he can get me outta this, but you..... You're ...(chUCKED)."

ALSO it is very dangerous to rely on "electronic" warning systems. Firstly they are only as good as the on-watch watch keeper. Secondly they can be fooled. CAP with visual acquisition capability there is the assurance that things are Ok. Not to mention the feeling of "first-line-denfence" that the CAP provides. Its sorta like having the Recce Dorks out front of an advancing division. {I say "Dorks" with tongue-in-cheek:) [First in-LAST out HUUUUAAHH] } They get the first contact and report back. If they get wiped, thats not a wonderful thing, but something is learned.... DONT GOT THERE (unless you really have to).




As an (aside) no one is able to accurately track ANY propellor driven a/c. And virually NO jet is able to slow down enough to engage...... I would love to see an air to air engagement with something like a Tiger Moth (and there are still a few around) and say a Tomcat or an Eagle. That would be a show and then some {0f patience at least :D}

[EFD840]

Of course your right Malahat. I was speaking more about fleet air defense of a USN carrier group. If you're a frigate navy, any attempt to operate outside of friendly air is probably going to be just as unhealthy today as it was in 1944.

[CaptainGonzo]

Posted by Rick the Malahat Rabbit...

As an (aside) no one is able to accurately track ANY propellor driven a/c. And virually NO jet is able to slow down enough to engage...... I would love to see an air to air engagement with something like a Tiger Moth (and there are still a few around) and say a Tomcat or an Eagle. That would be a show and then some {0f patience at least }

As far as tracking...

During the Democratic National Convention held in Boston in 2004, the FAA set up a TFR (temporary flight restriction) around Boston's Class B airspace. The only aircraft allowed to fly within 36 mile radius of Boston wehre commercial airliners, military aircraft, medevac and police helos.

A pilot with his own airfield decided to take his Piper Cub up for a quick spin after doing a little tweaking to the engine. The Piper Cub is a tandem two seater aircraft that flies "low and slow"... much like the DeHavilland TigerMoth

Within minutes of his short hop around his airfield at little more than treetop altitude, he was paid a visit by the FAA and FBI. He was nailed by an Air Force AWACS flying a racetrack pattern above Boston.

As far as the battle between the Moth and the Tomcat...a Phoenix missle fired from 100 miles away.... the Moth would be swatted! ;)

[MalahatTwo7]

The real beauty of Tigers and Cubs is their glide ratio, shut that wee li'l motor down, and suddenly no more heat source. :)

A quick check of your Pheonix missile says it was developed specifically for the Tomcat..... wonder if it will be taken out of service too.

[CaptainGonzo]

The real beauty of Tigers and Cubs is their glide ratio, shut that wee li'l motor down, and suddenly no more heat source. :)

A quick check of your Pheonix missile says it was developed specifically for the Tomcat..... wonder if it will be taken out of service too.

When the FAA and FBI arrived at this gentleman's hanger, the engine was still warm! He claimed that he had just started it and never flew, but the radar images downloaded from the AWACS and a neighbor's testimony ( note: don't piss off the neighbor!) had him dead to rights. What part of the TFR "no fly zone" did he misunderstand?

I believe the Phoenix is a radar guided, "fire and forget" missle, so once it locks on, it's target is history.

The Navy will probably adapt the avionics ( if they haven't already) to enable the SuperHornet to fire the pheonix, adding to it's "sting".

[Dave1983]

The Navy will probably adapt the avionics ( if they haven't already) to enable the SuperHornet to fire the pheonix, adding to it's "sting".

Perhaps. But the thing to keep in mind is the F-14 was actually built to carry the AIM-54 (Phenoix), not the other way around. The F-14 program was an answer to the threat of soviet "backfire" bombers, which could attack from a much longer range. And its not just the missile, its the radar that goes with it, which is the longest range search/track radar on any aircraft other then AWACS or the navys Prowler.

One other thing. Somebody mentioned cost. When the Pheonix went on line in '74, it was known as the "million dollar missile". I can only imagin what they cost today. Thats alot of $$$ for one shot.

[Dave1983]

It is also much, much faster - for that matter, most everything in the air is faster than the Hornet.

Boy, you nailed that one. I did some checking last night and was surprised by what I found. The F-18 is even slower then the old F-4 Phantoms! :eek:

Some interesting numbers:

F-18: 1190mph

MiG-29: 1520mph
MiG-31: 1860mph
Su-27: 1550mph
Su-35: 1550mph

So, the F-18 is between 300-500 mph slower then any potential enemies. Im no fighter ace, but that cant be a good thing...

[EFD840]

A quick check of your Pheonix missile says it was developed specifically for the Tomcat..... wonder if it will be taken out of service too.

The Phoenix has been gone since late 2004. As Dave said, it was designed for use against massed bomber formations. It wasn't used very often in combat, and its record wasn't very good when fired against manuvering fighter-sized targets. All of the Tomcat's air-to-air victories in USN service were scored using Sidewinders or Sparrows. Interestingly, Iran may have scored some victories with its Tomcat/Phoenix combo in their war with Iraq (where the Tomcat was much feared by its adversaries). Iran also used the 'cat as a mini-AWACs and modified it to carry and launch Hawk surface to air missles when their supply of Phoneix AAMs ran out. It was 'fire and forget' to a certain extent. During fly-out to the target, the launch aircraft fed it course correction information. At a certain distance, it went active and was then on its own. The AMRAAM works in a similar fashion. It isn't like a Sidewinder, which self guided the second it leaves the rail but it is much better than the Sparrow, which requires guidance all the way to the target.

Gonzo's right about tracking small planes. Ground based air search radars might sometimes have problems but modern platforms like the E-3 or JSTARS will track the movement. Maybe you couldn't get a Sidewinder, AMRAAM, or Sparrow to lock up but a good old fashioned gun run (thankfully the F-22, unlike the UKs new Eurofighters, still has one) will deal with a low and slow quite nicely. In the 1991 gulf war, fast jets scored a few gun kills against helos. Why waste a missle when cannon shells are so much cheaper!?

[EFD840]

Boy, you nailed that one. I did some checking last night and was surprised by what I found. The F-18 is even slower then the old F-4 Phantoms!

Man I LOVE the Phantom! When I was a kid, there was a squadron of RF-4Es and later F-4Ds based 30 miles from my home. To me, nothing says power like a low flying F-4 with smoke billowing out those GE J79 engines...

Anyhow, enough of the nostalgia. The Hornet is slow, slow, slow. In addition to the top speed in afterburner, many sources say it is flatout subsonic below 10,000 feet. If they're right, it cannot go supersonic down low even in full afterburner which poses another problem. If you've got to rely on afterburner to go fast you have a fuel problem. A plane that runs out of gas on the way home is just as dead as one that ate a missle. Oh, and by the way, the Navy is also retiring the S-3 (its tanker) and instead relying on Hornets to buddy tank.

So, the F-18 is between 300-500 mph slower then any potential enemies. Im no fighter ace, but that cant be a good thing...

Speed kills. One big reason the F-22 is looked on with fear by potential enemies is it's ability to supercruise (go supersonic without afterburner). If it gets in trouble, it can clear the area, if it is after you I hope your insurance is paid up...

Before someone starts talking about avionics, training, weapons, etc. I acknowlege that an extreme deficiency in any of those areas can negate this truism but if you're fighting that guy then you'll win regardless of what you're flying. I'm talking about situations where the foes are otherwise similarly matched.

[Dave1983]

Man I LOVE the Phantom! When I was a kid, there was a squadron of RF-4Es and later F-4Ds based 30 miles from my home. To me, nothing says power like a low flying F-4 with smoke billowing out those GE J79 engines...[/I]

Not wanting to date myself, but I can recall watching the Blue Angles when they still had the F-4. WAY cool! When I lived in Ohio, for a time we lived just outside of Wright-Patterson AFB, back when it was a SAC base. Used to have B-52s fly over all the time. Talk about loud.:cool:

Is the navy getting rid of all the S-3s or just the tanker version? The S-3 is the navys top anti-submarine platform, I can belive they would do away with thoese as well. As for the tankers, the A-6 has a tanker varient as well. But with the JSF comming on-line, I doubt the A-6 will be around much longer either.

[EFD840]

Not wanting to date myself, but I can recall watching the Blue Angles when they still had the F-4. WAY cool! When I lived in Ohio, for a time we lived just outside of Wright-Patterson AFB, back when it was a SAC base. Used to have B-52s fly over all the time. Talk about loud.:cool:

Is the navy getting rid of all the S-3s or just the tanker version? The S-3 is the navys top anti-submarine platform, I can belive they would do away with thoese as well. As for the tankers, the A-6 has a tanker varient as well. But with the JSF comming on-line, I doubt the A-6 will be around much longer either.

Dave, I hate to tell you but you're dating yourself. ;)

The S-3 lost its ASW role in 1999/2000. It now performs mostly tanker, anti-surface strike, and general maritime patrol roles. They will probably be completely retired in the next 3 or 4 years. The demise of the Soviet SSN (nuclear attack sub) fleet reduced the importance of long range, carrier based ASW. Long range ASW is now limited to the land based P-3 Orion and its successor - which is to be a jet based on the Boeing 737. Inner zone ASW is handled by the Oceanhawk, Seahawk, and a new variant of the H-60 that combines the dipping sonar of the Oceanhawk with the antisurface abilities of the Seahawk. Truth be told, the biggest threats today are mines and diesel boats so the helos probably make the most effective platforms.

The A-6E last grabbed a wire in 1997. The only variant left flying today is the EA-6B Prowler, a stretched 4-seat electronic warfare variant. The Prowler's days are probably numbered too because an EW variant of the FA-18F is under development and is or will soon be in testing.

Since you brought up the B-52, it is worth noting that not all the classics get an early place in the boneyard. Current AF plans talk about the B-52 serving until 2030. If it makes it that long, it will have served for 78 years from the day of its first flight.

[Dave1983]

Dave, I hate to tell you but you're dating yourself. ;)

That and I need some newer books. ;)

I can see a time when a carriers airwing is made up of just F-35s, a couple different varients of the F18 (AEW, EW) and helos.

[DennisTheMenace]

On another note, the Corps just stood up its first operation squadron of V-22 Ospreys this week. About time we replaced a 50 year old helicopter.Yup! And they could be "In Country" by the first of July! Awesome Baby!

[RareRamAir]

an EW variant of the FA-18F is under development and is or will soon be in testing.

E/A-18G "Growler"

[EFD840]

That and I need some newer books. ;)

I can see a time when a carriers airwing is made up of just F-35s, a couple different varients of the F18 (AEW, EW) and helos.

Close, I think it will be F-35s, one mixed squadron of F-18Fs and Gs for strike and EW, Hawkeyes for AEW, and helos. If the need for longer range ASW returns, it will probably be a variant of the Osprey. An ASW version was planned early on, but it has been shelved for now.

If you want to keep up with military aviaton worldwide and get nice features on historic aircraft no longer in service, International Air Power Review (http://www.airtimepublishing.com/airPower.phtml) is the best $60.00 you will ever spend.

Dennis and Sharkie are right about the Osprey. Most all my posts in this thread have had a negative tone but thanks to the Marines, all news is not bad in the world of Naval airpower. In less than a decade, the Osprey, AH-1Z Super Cobra, and VSTOL J-35 will turn the eight Wasp class amphibious assault ships into the second most powerful carriers afloat.

[CaptainGonzo]

Author Dale Brown had a vision of the V22 Osprey as a complete weapons platform in his novel "Hammerheads".

He was an F111-B "Aardvark" crewdog...

[scfire86]

Sort of a side topic.

With all the hi-tech challengers that have come its way. The B-52 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm) Keeps chugging along.

When the last B-2 is taken to the AF Museum in Dayton, it will be a B-52 that flies the crew home.

Trends come and go, the classics endure.

[Dalmatian190]

In less than a decade, the Osprey, AH-1Z Super Cobra, and VSTOL J-35 will turn the eight Wasp class amphibious assault ships into the second most powerful carriers afloat.

You know, we kind of forget about those guys...

What we call "amphibious assault ships" are basically what the rest of the world calls an aircraft carrier. And I'm not sure if any other single navy runs 8 of them! Britain maybe?

What we call an Aircraft Carrier, France's Charles de Gaulle is the only foreign one even playing in the same league...

[scfire86]

Hate to be a buzz kill. But I have a hard time getting too worked up over super gizmachi hardware when the folks doing the fighting and dying are having to apply for food stamps to feed their families.

I realize we need weapons. But I would like compensation for those who use weapons systems to be a bit more in line with those who make weapons systems.

[DaSharkie]

I truly hope that the Osprey turns out OK. Lots of people piss and moan about her, but she is no different than any other aviation platform put into service before.

Can't wait to see how she performs in my future issues of Leatherneck.

The Corps also got Congressional approval last year to purchase a whole bunch of BRAND NEW AH-1Z Super Cobras and UH-1 Hueys. Add to that the new specs out there for the CH-53 replacement things are going well for the Corps. We have the new KC-130J coming on board as well.


My brother in law flies on a B-52 (not the pilot) and I would love to make it to his base to see the bird again. Have to love an airframe that will be flying 100 years after she first started on the drawing boards (1947).


My favorite though is the AC-130. Nothing will give a Grunt any more warm and fuzzies than seeing that baby lighting up some scumbag terrorists. :eek:

[EFD840]

You know, we kind of forget about those guys...

What we call "amphibious assault ships" are basically what the rest of the world calls an aircraft carrier. And I'm not sure if any other single navy runs 8 of them! Britain maybe?

What we call an Aircraft Carrier, France's Charles de Gaulle is the only foreign one even playing in the same league...

Nobody else has anything like a Wasp or even a Tarawa. The UK has HMS Ocean, which is based on the design of their Invincible class light carriers but built for the amphibious assault role. It carries helos and could carry Harriers but it doesn't have the ability to support them on a sustained operation. It would be useful as an additional deck. The RN used a container ship for this purpose in the Falklands war - until it met an Exocet and took most of the force's heavy lift helos to the bottom of the South Atlantic. Most of the world's carriers (UK, Italy, Thailand, Spain, India) operate ships of a similar design, carrying 8-12 Harriers and a similar number of Helos. They're based on a Carter-era vessel called the "Sea Control Ship" and are the big fish in their ponds. They can't compare to an American LHA because the air wing is smaller and the ship can't deliver the same sized assault force. Most of these nations also have dedicated amphibious assault ships with well decks, but they carry at most 3 or 4 helos so there's no built-in air support element.

The de Gaulle is king of the all the other 'real' carriers mostly because the Rafale fighter is now operational. A few years ago, they were still flying Crusaders (a plane the US retired during the Vietnam war). Russia has a carrier that should be better than any not flying old glory but everything you read says it is a wonder the thing still floats. Brazil also operates one of the French carriers the de Gaulle was designed to replace. Its air wing of heavily modernized A-4 Skyhawks make it a potent ship in its environment. All of these ships can operate 30-40 fixed wing aircraft (Brazil's doesn't normally carry anywhere close to this number but it would if bullets started flying).

The UK and France are developing a class of three ships (2 RN, 1 FR) that will be larger than the de Gaulle but still 1/3 smaller than an American CVN. The UK ships will carry 40+ JSFs in addition to helos. These will be ships capable of power projection as opposed to mere fleet protection. Interestingly, they're supposed to be conventional rather than nuclear power.

Can anybody tell I'm into this stuff? :D

[EFD840]

I realize we need weapons. But I would like compensation for those who use weapons systems to be a bit more in line with those who make weapons systems.

You'll get no argument from me.

[Dave1983]

In less than a decade, the Osprey, AH-1Z Super Cobra, and VSTOL J-35 will turn the eight Wasp class amphibious assault ships into the second most powerful carriers afloat.

You know, we kind of forget about those guys...

What we call "amphibious assault ships" are basically what the rest of the world calls an aircraft carrier. And I'm not sure if any other single navy runs 8 of them! Britain maybe?

What we call an Aircraft Carrier, France's Charles de Gaulle is the only foreign one even playing in the same league...

Well, if my info's not too far out of date (boy do I need to stop by a bookstore) Her Majestys Navy is the only one to have an actual "Wasp" type ship and then only one (HMS Ocean).

They also have the 3 ASW cariers (of Falklands war fame) that operate Harriers and helos. Ive read of plans for them to get back into the fleet carrier club, but I think its only talk right now.

The Italians have one small ASW type like the British, as does Spain. I read that Inda was trying to buy one of Russias, since they cant afford to keep it.

Other then the US, France with the Charles de Gaulle are the only ones with a standard (fleet) carrier, but on a size equal to the US carriers of the '50s (ie Forrestal). Nothing like the Nimitz class.

The USSR actually had its first fleet carrier in the water (Kuznetsov), before they fell apart. I think they still have it, rusting away in some backwater. The rest of their air capable ships are toast:cool:

[Dave1983]

Most of the world's carriers (UK, Italy, Thailand, Spain, India) operate ships of a similar design, carrying 8-12 Harriers and a similar number of Helos.

Brazil also operates one of the French carriers the de Gaulle was designed to replace.


The UK and France are developing a class of three ships (2 RN, 1 FR) that will be larger than the de Gaulle but still 1/3 smaller than an American CVN.

Interestingly, they're supposed to be conventional rather than nuclear power.

Can anybody tell I'm into this stuff? :D

You beat me too it (or I type to slow, or both).

Didnt know the Thai's had a flightdeck. Then again, didnt no they had a navy (LOL). Sounds like India did grab that Russian ship.

Hope the Brits get back in. I mean, they pretty much came up with the carrier idea in the first place.

I would say cost is the reason they wont be nukes. With the excpetions of the US carriers and some SSNs/SSBNs, I dont think you will see anymore new nuclear powered ships.

Sure, Id say your into this stuff a bit. ;)

[DennisTheMenace]

Hate to be a buzz kill. But I have a hard time getting too worked up over super gizmachi hardware when the folks doing the fighting and dying are having to apply for food stamps to feed their families.

I realize we need weapons. But I would like compensation for those who use weapons systems to be a bit more in line with those who make weapons systems.A 15-20 years of experiance line worker on the F/A-18 makes about the same as a 15-20 year O4-O6 that is flying the bird when you add in BAQ/BAS and flight pay. Now the CEO that running Lockheed-Martin is making 20-40 times the pay of the CNO or Commandant.

[EFD840]

Sounds like India did grab that Russian ship.

India's is the former HMS Hermes, flagship of the RN's Falklands operation. She also operates Sea Harriers, not the US designed AV-8B, so other than the flag not a whole lot changed when India took ownership. They still keep talking about buying a Russian deck or building one but nothing ever seems to come of the talk.

The Thai ship is a tad smaller - I think it only carries about 12 aircraft evenly split between helos and ex-USMC then ex-Spanish AV-8A (or GR.3 for the UK types) Harriers. They're nowhere near as capable as the current AV-8B.

My wife doesn't think I'm into it, she thinks I'm obsessed with it.

[Dave1983]

The Thai ship is a tad smaller - I think it only carries about 12 aircraft evenly split between helos and ex-USMC then ex-Spanish AV-8A (or GR.3 for the UK types) Harriers. They're nowhere near as capable as the current AV-8B.

Found some info...

Chakri Nareubet (small VSTOL carrier)

Displacement: 11,300 tons full load
Dimensions: 182.5 x 30.5 x 6.15 meters (599 x 100 x 20.2 feet)
Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 cruise diesels, 12,874 bhp, 16.7 knots;
2 LM2500 boost gas turbines, 44,250 shp, 26.2 knots
Crew: 601
Aviation: full length flight deck with skijump, 2 elevators;
6 AV-8S Harrier, 4 SH-60 Seahawk
Hangar: 100 x 20.5 meters
Troops: 675
Radar: SPS-52C 3-D air search
Armament: 2 Mistral SAM positions, 2 12.7 mm MG

Small Spanish-built CVV; also fitted for amphibious assault,
disaster relief, and has accomodations for the royal family.
Due to economic problems, the ship has remained almost completely
inactive since delivery.


They also have some small frigates and corvetts, patrol boats and landing craft.

[DonSmithnotTMD]

How does this effect the real world -- large navies and air fleets read well in Tom Clancy but our underfunded and incorrectly prioritized land forces are the ones who are carrying the battle and still will in the event of WWIII.

[EFD840]

Well Don, I haven't for once said that naval and air forces were a replacement for ground power. I will say here and now that while naval and air forces cannot win a land conflict, they certainly can lose one.

The absence of air superiority (or for that matter, parity) doomed the Axis powers in WWII, the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean conflict, and the Iraqi army in 1991. Our total Naval dominance from mid-1943 forward doomed the Japanese held islands in the Pacific. In each case, the losing side's land component was vastly numerically superior but combat power is useless if it cannot get to the fight. Air power was the difference.

Naval power assures the ability to deliver, in a timely fashion, an effective ground force and supply it for sustained operations. All those Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and Hummers you see in Iraq didn't drive there. Some came by C-5 but most came by sea. Furthermore, the ability to place an American aircraft carrier anywhere in the world within 2 or 3 days and follow soon thereafter with a Marine Expeditionary Unit ready for operations guarantees us the ability to respond to any need.

It is far from nothing more than fodder for Clancy.

[DaSharkie]

How does this effect the real world -- large navies and air fleets read well in Tom Clancy but our underfunded and incorrectly prioritized land forces are the ones who are carrying the battle and still will in the event of WWIII.

This effects the real world because these smaller carriers like the Iwo Jima exist to transport Marines into harm's way.

They carry a battalion of Warriors (plus whatever else is in the flotilla) to transport distance where the LCACs, LAVs, LVTPs, CH-46s, CH-53s, UH-1s, and V-22s can drop them into battle. They also transport Marine Harriers and AH-1s to provide close air support to the ground pounder fighting for his life.

In recent years the Navy and Marine Corps have combined the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) with Carrier Battle Groups to become a more powerful, all-encompasing war-making flotilla.

Remember, Marine Air exists for one sole purpose - to support the Infantryman on the ground.

With the vast majority of the world withing a hundred miles of shore these vessels and weapons systems are necessary. Despite the touting of the 82nd & 101st Airborne Divisions being on ready status, it is the Marine Expeditionary Unit - Special Operations Capable (MEUSOC) that will be deployed most likely in any conflict first.

Just a matter of logistics and capabilities.

[PattyV]

He was an F111-B "Aardvark" crewdog
Australia is still flying them :o
We had to invent a new way to put replacement patches on to the surface without rivots. Otherwise the planes would be 90% rivets by now. But before you get too shocked, they have been outrageously modified and can keep up with most modern planes. However they are so old that replacement parts dont exist and the RAAF is resorting to canabilism.
I think we are getting some new joint strike fighters but im not sure how many; they just cut their order because of the problems with the developement not meeting Australia's needs or something like that. If you have never seen a Pig do a dump and burn then you are missing out. One word: 'Awesome'
A dump and burn is what happens when they dump fuel whilst using their afterburners; the fuel is ignited and there is a god aweful roar and flames up to 20-30m long shooting out the back. :D
Dump and burn (http://www.f-111.net/images/dumpburn2.jpg)

[EFD840]

Australia is still flying them

And America should be - they're yet another casualty of budget cuts. The modernized 'vark was the very best strike aircraft in the gulf but it isn't multirole like a Strike Eagle so it was off to the boneyard for the Earth Pig. The RAAF was the big beneficiary of the retirement - they bought a whole lot of airframes for spares so the 'vark will be a common site down there until the JSF comes online.

Patty, yours are fantastic anti-shipping platforms too. They're capable of carrying four harpoons, giving one F-111 the power of a Perry class frigate.

[scfire86]

As an (aside) no one is able to accurately track ANY propellor driven a/c. And virually NO jet is able to slow down enough to engage...... I would love to see an air to air engagement with something like a Tiger Moth (and there are still a few around) and say a Tomcat or an Eagle. That would be a show and then some {0f patience at least :D}
Your kidding right? As was pointed out AWACS CAN pick up low and slow targets. In the scenario described at the DNC helicopters could pick up the slack. Or more than likely a jet would turn around for a head on shot and use something else radar controlled.

"Too close for missiles Mav, I'm switching to guns."

[cityfire7]

Patty, yours are fantastic anti-shipping platforms too. They're capable of carrying four harpoons, giving one F-111 the power of a Perry class frigate.

EFD,

Hold your tongue!!!! You may hurt the feelings of us FFG-7 guys out here. Imagine, having an entire ocean-going warship compared to ONE aircraft!!!!

(Shuffling off to sit back in my corner)

[CaptainGonzo]

EFD,

Hold your tongue!!!! You may hurt the feelings of us FFG-7 guys out here. Imagine, having an entire ocean-going warship compared to ONE aircraft!!!!

(Shuffling off to sit back in my corner)

There are more aircraft at the bottom of the ocean than there are ships in the air! :D

[cityfire7]

There are more aircraft at the bottom of the ocean than there are ships in the air! :D

Good point!

[arhaney]

I thought this was the only fighter/bomber ever made......... :D :D :D

[arhaney]

Another "Classic" shot.

[EFD840]

I thought this was the only fighter/bomber ever made......... :D :D :D

You know something arhaney, you're pretty smart (for a guy from Mississippi). ;)

Phantoms Phorever!!!

[arhaney]

Since we are speaking of aircraft and there's a couple of us "Good ole boys" on here..........a joke for you all..... :D :D





Bubba and Earl, two hunters from Arkansas got a pilot to fly them to Canada to hunt moose. They bagged six.


As they started loading the plane for the return trip home the pilot said the plane could take only four moose.

The two good old boys objected strongly. "Last year we shot six, and the pilot let us put them all on board; he had the same plane as yours."


Reluctantly, the pilot gave in and all six were loaded. However, even on full power, the little plane couldn't handle the load and went down a few moments after take-off.

Climbing out of the wreck Bubba asked the Earl, "Any idea where we are?"

"Yeaaah, I think we's pretty close to where we crashed last year.."

[spearsm]

F-22 I believe is Air Force only, replacing the F-15 role of absolute air superiority and occassionally deliver a bomb.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the kitchen sink replacement for the F-14/F-16/F-18 and all the A-series including the A-10 Warthog. Has conventional Air Force, Marine Corp "jump jet", and Navy Carrier variants. Almost as stealthy and nimble as a F-22, bigger selection of weaponry (even has a 25mm cannon like the Warthogs for taking out tanks). I believe it's scheduled to be the first plane to (publicly) sport a weaponized laser around 2010 (to shoot down anti-aircraft missles).

It'll be a cool bird if they pull off the kitchen sink approach!

You know, I just don't believe that they will replace the A-10 with the F-35. It just can't be done. Not with this bird. We are talking a "Meat and Tators" aircraft that has more than proven itself in close air support while taking an ungodly amount of flack and replacing it a million dollar laptop? Nahhh. :)
The way that I look at it is take a cookie sheet(with a 30mm gatlin) and a laptop-sit them side by side and place one round in the middle of both. Which one will be able to be up and running with a few hammer blows? :D :D

"Go ugly early"

I think the warthog will be around for a while longer....look at the B-52. Ole baby still kicking. :cool:

I know the 35 is a replacement for the f-16 (sniff,sniff)
I guess I am just sentimental...I just don't get a good feeling about this.



Alan. Don't make me break my favorite.......Ole Thunderchief the THUD! :D

[Dalmatian190]

With one big flaw in the B-52 / A-10 comparisons...A-10s actually get shot down. And I'd suspect scavenging from others to simply repair damaged ones claim even more airframes.

While I'm sure parts of the equation is figuring some of the load can go to helicopters, and I'd assume at least the Marine's variant of the F-35 with the vertical capabilities will be considerably more maneuverable at low air speeds than traditional jets...

I'd guess another part is if we ever saw a large scale need for the A-10s or a similiar role redeveloping, it's such a simple aircraft it wouldn't take long to develop and bring a production line up to speed.

Sure, probably update the engines to get more fuel efficiency from 30 year newer technology; tweak some of the materials & surfaces for "semi-stealthy" to reduce the radar profile.

Hehehe...I was going to write "fly-by-wire" so you'd have fewer hydraulic lines vulnerable to flack...then I wondered if it would be possible to "fly-by-wireless" so you don't even have wires from the joystick to the actuators :D

Oh, and you'll need a big generator since the next generation after the A-10 will have a freaking laser beam. (cue mini-me...)

[CaptainGonzo]

With one big flaw in the B-52 / A-10 comparisons...A-10s actually get shot down. And I'd suspect scavenging from others to simply repair damaged ones claim even more airframes.

The Big Ugly Fat Frackers got shot down too.

From http://www.nampows.org/B-52.html

A total of 10 B-52s went down inside the borders of North Vietnam. 61 total crewmembers. 33 survivors became POWs and were released at the end of the war. 28 of the downed 61 warriors perished.

Fourteen other B52s went down outside of North Vietnam. Seven were due to combat. Seven were “operational losses,” which occurred while B52s were enroute to combat areas in Vietnam.


Ninety-four B-52s still actively flying with the USAF. All are B-52Hs built in 1960-62. The Vietnam and Desert Storm veteran B-52s (B-52D and B-52G) have all been retired. The B-52Hs have taken their place and took part in post Desert Storm missions over Iraq (Note: one B52G, 59-2593 crashed returning from a Desert Storm Mission). 184 Combat missions were flown during Operation Allied Force in Kosovo. Currently, all B-52Hs are based at two U.S. Bases. The 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana and the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB, North Dakota. The B-52Hs are scheduled to retire in 2040.

More BUFF info...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress

[scfire86]

Alan. Don't make me break my favorite.......Ole Thunderchief the THUD! :D
I'm with you Spears. I was always partial to The Hun (http://www.f-100.org/hun.shtml). AKA the Supersabre.

[VinnieB]

I'm with you Spears. I was always partial to The Hun (http://www.f-100.org/hun.shtml). AKA the Supersabre.

Hey....weren't they earth magnets?

[scfire86]

Hey....weren't they earth magnets?
More like real expensive shovels.

But they look cool. Definitely a 50's design.

[EFD840]

I'm with you Spears. I was always partial to The Hun (http://www.f-100.org/hun.shtml). AKA the Supersabre.


SC, thank you so much for that link. My father was the recipient a USAF sponsered all expenses paid tour to beautiful Phan Rhang in 68/69 with the 35th TFW. There's a page on the site showing his unit in theater - he will really enjoy seeing them.

[arhaney]

More like real expensive shovels.


:D :D :D :D


All of the "100 Series" are pretty neat aircraft in my book.

[scfire86]

SC, thank you so much for that link. My father was the recipient a USAF sponsered all expenses paid tour to beautiful Phan Rhang in 68/69 with the 35th TFW. There's a page on the site showing his unit in theater - he will really enjoy seeing them.
Damn. Some people have all the luck. I have always had to pay my own way whenever I travel. :D

And to an exotic locale no less. It's not like they sent him to Lodi. The last contest I saw for trips to that place the winner got a free weekend, ane the loser got two free weekends.

[spearsm]

SC, thank you so much for that link. My father was the recipient a USAF sponsered all expenses paid tour to beautiful Phan Rhang in 68/69 with the 35th TFW. There's a page on the site showing his unit in theater - he will really enjoy seeing them.

Ditto. Father was with the 354th TFS at Takhli- 66-67
WILD WEASELS!!!!

YGBSM :D :D

[Dalmatian190]

Holy @#%^!!!!

Gonz especially will appreciate this: Tell me this doesn't look like **** from Battlestar Galactica!

Russian Su-33(?) demonstrating 3-D Thrust Vectoring engines. I'd seen a short video of the F-22 which has (according to this) 2-D vectoring and thought that was neat...

But watch this sucker:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/69832/russian_demo_flight/

[EFD840]

I haven't watched the video but it is probably the cobra. Did he pull the nose past vertical and continue in level forward flight?

It is very impressive and something that a western fighter cannot duplicate.

[CaptainGonzo]

Holy @#%^!!!!

Gonz especially will appreciate this: Tell me this doesn't look like **** from Battlestar Galactica!

Russian Su-33(?) demonstrating 3-D Thrust Vectoring engines. I'd seen a short video of the F-22 which has (according to this) 2-D vectoring and thought that was neat...

But watch this sucker:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/69832/russian_demo_flight/


Holy FRACK is right! That was in-fracking-credible flying! :cool:

[Dalmatian190]

EFD...

He did a lot more stuff then just that! Watch the video when you get the chance.

[EFD840]

I just watched the video. There's absolutely no western design that can mimic that show. The video is a good example of what I consider dangerous thinking by our national leaders. We've assumed for years that our stuff was always going to be qualitatively superior to any enemy. We thought that about Japan in the years leading to WWII. The reality was very different. The basic version of this aircraft is now being built under license by China. Tell me again how we know dedicated air superiority fighters aren't needed anymore...

Ditto. Father was with the 354th TFS at Takhli- 66-67
Dad was at Phan Rhang for almost all of 69, working on Sabres and B-57 Canberras.

And to an exotic locale no less.
With a fantastic floor show. I showed him the F-100 site tonight. He immediately pointed at the picture captioned "Rocket Attack on Phan Rhang Jan 69" and said "That was my second night in country". Welcome to Vietnam Mr. Nummy, we hope enjoyed the evening fireworks.... Thanks again SC, he loved seeing pics from his old unit.

[arhaney]

And now for the perfect bomber.............My favorite, the B-58 Hustler!

[arhaney]

EFD840, you ever go to the Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker? It's been years since I've been. Perhaps a summer trip is in order...... :D

[DaSharkie]

While you are at Rucker, take a couple hour trip West to Pensacola to the Museum of Naval Aviation.

http://naval.aviation.museum/intro.html

[EFD840]

EFD840, you ever go to the Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker? It's been years since I've been. Perhaps a summer trip is in order......

It has been a while since I've been too.

While you are at Rucker, take a couple hour trip West to Pensacola to the Museum of Naval Aviation.

Arhaney, if you're talking road trip, this is the ticket. The Blue Angels finish their season every year with a weekend show in P-Cola. Every time I've attended, there have also been many guest stars flying - everything from Wildcats to Harriers. Take in the show, tour the fantastic museum, and did I mention the fishing is usually great too...

If Golden age and WWII are your thing, Kermit Weeks' Fantasy of Flight (http://www.fantasyofflight.com/) in Polk City, FL is tops.

[DennisTheMenace]

Holy FRACK is right! That was in-fracking-credible flying! :cool:
Yep, should we ever go to war at an air show, we might be screwed.

[arhaney]

I've been to both museums in the past, both are top rate.. I haven't been to Fort Rucker since they moved the museum.

We used to go to the fly-in at Lakeland Florida, saw some of Kermits warbird but have never been to his museum.

[tanker5117]

:D :D :D :D


All of the "100 Series" are pretty neat aircraft in my book.


these are known as the "Century Series Airplanes". There were some really awesome aircraft back in those days. here is a link for them.

http://yolo.net/~jeaton/century/airplane.htm


f104 Startfighter.....Man Guided missle :D


Tanker

[TCFire]

Always been a fan of the "Gunfighter" F-8 Crusader. Goin' to guns and commencing ACM!