I can't really substantiate my claim. You win. I still like the F-18 better. No... I like the F-22 better. WAY better. ~String
Oh well, F/A-18 Hornet is an auxillery/vanilla fighter, now the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is simply a waist of investments.
f-22 is a waste of money are current air supirority fighters are just fine. all the money that went toward the raptor should have gone to pay raises and better health care for our troops
I don't agree with that assessment... but then I'm not in much of a mood to debate. I love the Raptor and the Lightning and I think they are leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. ~String
Proven? Where? Outgun? Same weapon: M61A1/2 20mm. Missile-wise Tomcat has/ had the edge with AIM-54, but even they are getting beyond their service life. Out manouevre? So US aircraft designers have made no advances in the 30+ years since F-14 was designed? F-14 has a poor throttle response, is an aging airframe and outdated technology.
.....so the topic is F14 Tomcat vs F/A 18 Hornet right? Looking at the stats, one thing I notice is that the f14 has a higher top speed Maximum speed: Mach 2.34 (1,544 mph, 2,485 km/h) at high altitude Hornet: Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1,127 mph, 1,814 km/h) at 36,100 ft (11,000 m) Tomcat also beats the F18 on "combat radius" Combat radius: 500 nm (576 mi, 927 km) Vs Hornet Combat radius: 330 mi (290 nm, 537 km) on hi-lo-lo-hi mission Then again, with the way guided weapons go nowadays (seeing as how they both carry a bunch of guided missiles) maybe dogfight performance is irrelevant?
Top speed is largely irrelevant - Concorde has as much or more time at Mach 2 than most fighters added together. Comparing radius of action? I'd say the figure given for F-14 was h-hi-hi - hardly comparable to a hi-lo-hi radius. If the F-18 stayed hi it would get a better fuel burn. Dogfight irrelevant? Hmmm, that would be why, since F-16/ YF-17 was mooted back in the late sixties/ early 70s, everyone has been looking for sustained turn rate, maybe? Even (especially) F-22 (and YF-23) had minimum requirements for STR and ITR (sustained/ instantaneous turn rates) - they might be stealth, but they were designed as dogfighters...
21%? The figures you posted above were 500:330 = 66% (for non-comparable, i.e. biased against F/A-18.) F/A-18 is newer, is more easily maintained (less than 10 MMH/FH IIRC), and gives a commonality. Later versions can be flown A2A from the driver's seat and A2G for the GIB - at the same time (providing it's not a turn 'n' burn knife fight). No other aircraft in the world can do that currently. It's the usual thing - the jocks have finally got used to their mount (F-14) and are complaining because the new aircraft isn't as familiar as the old one - big surprise.
That artacle was against the super hornet which has a slightly improved airframe for fuel consumption. As for bias, the f-18 super hornet is a waste of investments. Believe me the regular hornet is okay, like an auxilery, or simply a multi-role.
I do belive that we should have less tomcats that hornets non the less because your right, they are difficult to maintain. Mabye a 1/7 ratio or something.
I am not yet familier with that fighter? Enlighten me. But is it that Sukoi fighter that looks almost identicle to the Raptor?
But then again does it have the longrange capability missiles that the Tomcat has? Not to be ingnorent or anything.
