Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
quote:
Originally posted by maxpontiac:
1 - I am no Hornet or Tomcat expert, and don't clame to be. But I was under the impression that the Navy brass were all pleased with the Hornets overall performance. Please feel free to correct me.
2 - Forget about the JSF? Why is that? The aircraft has met or exceeded goals in which it was designed for, and when you factor in the new generation of stand off weapons, the F-35 fits the bill. Regardless of that however, I do not understand why the F-35 was not given TVC from the get go, even though upgrades are always possible.
3 - Seeing the "impossible" happen with the F-117 was a clear indicator that the 25 year old tech has reached its end. But wow, the Nighthawk was an impressive aircraft. With the F-22, I believe it will be the last great man fighter the US produces, with UCAV's taking the forefront.
1. It really depends on who you talk to. Hornet guys and much of the "brass" will swear by the thing, but a lot of the older crowd (admittedly, many of them Tomcat guys) have provided some very convincing arguments why it's not up to the task. Also, those who supported SH may have had questionable motives since the entire program was smuggled into existence as an "upgrade" to the Hornet. In reality, so much of the airframe and components had been redesigned that it was essentially a new aircraft, and should have been brought before Congress as such.
With everything I've read, SH is a decent plane, but it's a step back, in many ways, from what the Tomcat brought to the table. It out-techs the Tomcat, sure, but that could have been rectified. Basically instead of trading our first-stringer and getting something better, we took the second-stringer and made him first-string. SH still can't carry as much gas as the Tomcat without sacrificing payload, though it does better than baby Hornet. It doesn't have the same bring-back capability as the Tomcat, although, again it is improved over the baby Hornet. SH also had some aerodynamic design troubles that have received a band-aid fix which by some accounts has decreased performance as a result. I think at that point, the Navy had put all its eggs in one basket and needed SH to work, so it took what it could get.
There's a good book by RADM Paul T. Gillcrist, USN (Ret.) called "Tomcat: The Grumman F-14 Story." It's a good read, but also provides some facts as well as his thoughts on the future of Naval Aviation, including SH. His arguments make a lot of sense to me.
2. Forget about JSF because, SH can do its job. All the standoff weapons that JSF uses can be used by SH. Stealth? I wouldn't rely on that too much. Stealth's days are numbered. SH also has some RCS reducing design features. Besides, $55 mil on a SH, or a projected $83 mil on JSF which has still yet to enter service with ever-increasing project costs. Last but not least, single-engine at the boat? No thanks. I'll take the insurance of a second engine. I've heard more than a few stories of stuff going awry on the flight deck and engines being fodded out. The Hornet was able to come back and trap. If the JSF fods out its only motor, the pilot is enjoying a swim till the rescue helo gets there. There's also the potential for battle damage. If I had a choice between those two, I'd take SH every day and twice on Sundays.
