We are having much the same problem with the Eurofighter Typhoon over here in the UK. Cost-cutting means that it will enter about 10 years behind schedule. In their wisdom, they are also deleting the aircraft's 27-mm cannon on the grounds that the power and accuracy of AAMs make it obsolete. Hmm... that sounded familliar... does the name 'F-4B Phantom II' ring any bells?
ROFL...yeah, and so does 'F-4J,' when they finally realized an integral gun pod is always useful. If nothing else, seeing tracers nearby can scare the other pilot shitless.
Both the A-6 and F-14 are superior strike fighters to the Super Hornet is what I've consistently heard.
Intruder is definitely better ground-attack. Put together a strike force of Intruders with a Prowler to provide ECM, and most targets are going to get wiped out. The Bombcat's a bit iffy, since the A and A+ still have some problems (A's underpowered, and both have crummy electronics compatibility problems), though the D is a good aircraft, particularly if it has FLIR or LANTIRN. Plus, the F-14's (according to what I've heard) roughly as maneuverable as the much smaller Hornet.
Oh, and the EF-111 Raven is another bird that was scrapped undeservedly. Not only did it deprive the USAF of indigenous EW, but it's greatly increased the strain on the rapidly ageing EA-6B fleet.
And now the Navy wants to use the Super Hornet airframe to replace it- EA-18G Growler or some such nonsense- it doesn't have the range!!!!
Yeah, the Sparkvark was a good aircraft. Growler might be ok for Marines who need CAS to be covered with ECM, but deep-penetration raids with ECM gear will probably be beyond a Hornet's capability. They'll end up relying on Prowler until it falls apart.
It did help contribute to the development of the F-14. I think it used the same engines as the F-111. Both planes were originally intended by the navy to fly cap a long way away from the fleet and shoot down enemy bombers etc... from long distances. Neither of which the Hornet can do. IIRC cap with a Hornet was usually half as far away as what a F-14 would fly, mostly because of the amount of fuel it can carry.
The F-14A used the same engines because the ones Grumman wanted weren't available. Both F-14 and F-111 began as the TFX (Tactical Fighter, Experimental) program. The hope was to build a long-range interceptor for both land and sea use, using variable geometry to aid flight characteristics. The Navy became displeased with how the AF's dominance in the program was making it unsuitable for carrier use, pulled out of TFX, and used the VG data to create a bid for what became the F-14.
The other problem with flying a CAP with a Hornet is the crappy payload. F-14 can fire all of it's Phoenixes (6) within 30 seconds, with an 80% hit rate at maximum fire, and can immediately turn and run afterward, as the AIM-54 is fire-and-forget. Hornet can carry 2 AMRAAM or Sparrow missiles. The AIM-120 is also fire-and-forget, but the more common AIM-7 is SARH, requiring that the Hornet continue flying towards its target until missile impact. If you need to be told why that's bad, think for a few minutes, then PM me
.
Aren't they trying to make EW birds out of some of the larger aircraft like the P-3? I thought there was an E-P3 and that they were making more.
IIRC, EP-3 Orion is an ELINT aircraft, not an ECM aircraft. It snags information on the frequencies and other characteristics of radar sites to give that information to ECM aircraft to make their jamming more likely to succeed.
From all of this turgid nonsense, I can only assume that the CEO of McDonnel Douglas plays golf with someone high up in the Department of Defence. It is the only explanation for why this is happening.
Boeing, you mean?
Yeah, only Lockhead Martian and Boing are still around.
They had only gotten to mockup stage IIRC.
