anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) (01/20/90)
From: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) Just a quick question, I was reading this book about warships and there was a mention that because of the short endurance (range) of the F18s, additional tankers had to be carry on each aircraft carriers. This meant fewer attach A6 attack planes can be carried. What I don't is, why used the F18s, surely the F14s are a lot better for one thing the F14s could carry 6 phoenix missiles whereas the F18s could only carry 2 sparrows. cheers Anthony -- Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (01/22/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <13345@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) writes: > >Just a quick question, I was reading this book about warships and there >was a mention that because of the short endurance (range) of the >F18s, additional tankers had to be carry on each aircraft carriers. >This meant fewer attach A6 attack planes can be carried. > >What I don't is, why used the F18s, surely the F14s are a lot better >for one thing the F14s could carry 6 phoenix missiles whereas the F18s >could only carry 2 sparrows. > Actually the F-18 can carry 4 Sparrows, not that it makes any difference. There were several reasons for procuring the F-18. It was intended as a replacement for the A-7 light attack plane. It is short ranged when compared to that aircraft. The Tomcat doesn't have much more range than the F-18. As an added advantage, the F-18 also was able to serve as a replacement for the F-4 on the older, smaller carriers that couldn't handle the F-14. A final reason was the astronomical cost of the F-14, the Navy couldn't afford more than 2 squadrons per air wing. You also have to remember that the F-18 was replacing A-7s not F-4s or F-14s, so in a pinch the carrier gains 2 fighter squadrons over what it had previously. The Marines had some say also. They needed fighters that could haul bombs. Early in the F-14 program it was realized that these expensive fighters just weren't meant to move mud, and I believe there are some technical difficulties with weapons release. Finally look at the trouble and expense the air force is going through trying to add equivalent air to ground capabilities to its same generation aircraft (F-15, F-16). All in all it sounds like a bargain, even if the navy had to spot a couple extra tankers for them. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) (01/24/90)
From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) In article <13378@cbnews.ATT.COM>, terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: > The Tomcat doesn't have > much more range than the F-18. As an added advantage, the F-18 also > was able to serve as a replacement for the F-4 on the older, smaller > carriers that couldn't handle the F-14. A final reason was the > astronomical cost of the F-14, the Navy couldn't afford more than 2 > squadrons per air wing. You also have to remember that the F-18 was > replacing A-7s not F-4s or F-14s, so in a pinch the carrier gains 2 > fighter squadrons over what it had previously. Some good points, now let me risk putting my 2 cents in. I dug through some books last night and came up with the following range specifications: F-14 2000mi/3200km (fighter with external fuel) F-18 461mi/741km (fighter mission) 2300mi/3700km (ferry range, no weapons, full external fuel) It looks to me like the F-14's effective combat range is much greater than that of the F-18, while the ferry ranges may be similar (although I seem to remember that with full external fuel and no weapons the ferry range of the F-14 is around 4000 miles--I may be wrong on this figure though). I remember that when the F-18 was being considered by the Navy, short range was one of the problems solved by McDonnel Douglas' redesign of the Northrop YF-17 Cobra. While the 461mi/741km range looks fairly short (I believe it's shorter than the F-4's effective combat range), it is in fact greater than the fighter range of the F-16, which was approximately 340mi/550km (fighter, full internal fuel, no external fuel). Second, I thought the F-18 did in fact replace some F-4's. After the F-14 was brought into service, some F-4's were retained on the big carriers to perform the mission of bomber escort, i.e. fighter protection of the A-7s. The F-14 was thought to be too big and complicated (and expensive) to be used as a bomber escort. When the F-18 was brought into service, it replaced these F-4s. I did not dig deep enough though to find actual squadron deployments to support this paragraph though. -- Dave J. (ark2!dlj) This space intentionally usual disclaimer implied left blank.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/24/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) >for one thing the F14s could carry 6 phoenix missiles whereas the F18s >could only carry 2 sparrows. Not true either way. The F-18 can carry more Sparrows by using wing pylons for them, while the F-14 carries six Phoenixes only as an overload condition, in which performance specs (including ability to land on a carrier in poor conditions) are relaxed. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu