Glad you admit that the F-14 and F-18C are fleet defense aircraft.
1 Like
Well of course, the hornets were attack aircraft but also fighters that’s in the name. The whole point of the hornet is to be both a fighter and an attack aircraft. My point is it was intended to complement the tomcat, not really replace it, and was rather there to replace the a4s, a7s (and, alright, also the navy f4)
And I know we can as well put them all under the tomcat, I just want to fill holes in the tech tree and this would be a great way of doing it
Except it did replace the tomcat, all you need to do is check combat sorties.
Something that can’t use AMRAAMs isn’t as useful against enemy fighters.
Also right now there are no holes in the naval attacker line.
1 Like
I might be annoying using the same examples but the armament differences between the fa18c and the tomcat are somewhat comparable to the armament differences between the f16 and the f15…
And yes there’s no holes right now but if we build a tower of 4 or 5 aircraft in the naval line the others lines will look blank especially the attack line with just harrier II
The naval fighter line literally ends at F-18. F-18C being added is the end of it unless F-18E goes there as well [before F-35B/C].
F-18A would be a lower BR than F-14B.
F-18C is peak airframe performance with peak weapons options, up to 12 of.
I understand your view, and that’s why I will argue against it.
2 Likes
Of course I understand yours too…
Sure the C is peak air performance, I just think we should do accordingly to role/purpose rather than flight performance. Tbh at this point I think our points of view are both valid and it’s just a matter of opinion
Also the fact that hornet a goes before tomcat b doesn’t change the fact that we’ll have 4 fighters there. And if hornets go in navy line I don’t really see a reason to put superhornets in the attack line
As of the lighning II it seems best to me to have the C under navy line and the B under attack line
I’d say the F/A-18E/F is most underrated jet fighter in the aviation history. Most of the F/A-18E/F’s bad reputation is exaggerated by Grumman engineers and admirals who have never been anywhere near the F/A-18.
F/A-18E/F was never intended to be a direct replacement for the A-6. The true successor to the A-6 was the A-12, which was to be followed by the A/F-X replacing both the A-6 and the F-14, with the F/A-18E/F complementing it.
The result today is that after both programs failed, the A-6 and F-14 were retired without replacements, leaving only the F/A-18E/F to survive.
5 Likes
I still think we should’ve at least gotten the A-6F…
:(
yeah I wonder why we have no A6 in tech tree
I’d like a source on this frankly outrageous claim. Especially because there’s an official US military document solely explaining why the Superhornet is a downgrade from the F-18C. Here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-96-98/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-96-98.pdf
I don’t know much about the A-6 program, but the F-14 Program did not “fail”. It was forcibly pushed out due to political biases.
I’d say it’s the F-35. Sure, it has its problems, but it’s a great fighter jet and outperforms its price 10:1. In contrast the F/A-18E, which even underperforms its old variants, is bottlenecking the Navy’s current capability to fight against China’s long-range, high-speed missiles and interceptors, and it’s not that cheap either.
While I would like a source as well, the GAO is not part of the US military. They are, in their own words, a “Congressional watchdog”.
@Acroute was talking about the A-12 and A/F-X programs, both of which failed to produce replacements for the A-6 and F-14 respectively.
I would take what is said in the GAO report with a grain of salt as both the DoD and GAO are going to be pushing their interests, so the “facts” will be “dressed up” to suit each party’s needs. For instance, on page 82 of the GAO report they are comparing the C and E’s TWR at 60% fuel remaining. However, the E-F has about 33% more internal fuel capacity than the C model and that does not appear to be accounted for.
3 Likes
From the Hornet: The Inside Story of the F/A-18 by Orr Kelly
Yes, the Grumman guys did not liked Hornet even during the 1970s. There’s also the famous case of a former Grumman engineer who joined with a retired admiral to publish an article, “The Battle of the Superfighters” in Flight Journal criticizing the F/A-18E/F and advocating for the F-14 upgrade. Even at the time, Rhino pilots considered the article outrageous, but their reaction went largely unreported.
As such, the F-14 community has been hostile to the F/A-18E/F, and Rhino has been accused of “killing” the F-14D for the past 20 years. Many people use the GAO report to bash the F/A-18E/F, but no one cites the GAO’s assessment of the F-14D: Less capable strike fighter than F-15E and F/A-18C/D even with planned upgrades.
What we need to remember is that there was and still is no aircraft capable of overwhelming China’s A2/AD strategy head-on. The canceled A-12 or A/F-X was the closest one, and even these are far from adequate given the current requirements of the US Navy NGAD. And the Chinese threat became visible around 2010, and the Rhino was planned and designed about 20 years before that. We don’t criticize the F-4 for being less effective as a fighter on the 1980s battlefield.
It is also a common misconception that the F/A-18E/F is inferior to the F/A-18C/D. In fact, while there is a reduction in some flight performance, the F/A-18E/F has an increased combat radius, increased payload and bring-back capability, improved survivability due to its much lower RCS, and better maintainability (10-15 maintenance hours per flight hour, 90% mission capable rate as of 2024).
Besides, carrier air wings do not fight with the specific capabilities of a single weapon system, and never have since the advent of the aircraft carrier.
3 Likes
First, Gavin was COO, not CEO.
Second, you still haven’t shown where he exaggerated about the F/A-18 being bad. He stated the F/A-18E would be inferior to the F-14D as a replacement for its roles and more expensive. This is simply a fact.
The article isnt free, so I’ve only seen on excerpts, but it’s pretty clear that these former Grumman employees were biased when they made this article. Everyone knows that article. I wish you specified former and unhinged.
Hilarious attempt at trying to undermine the F-14D. What they’re talking about here is the F-14D “Quickstrike” upgrade proposal specifically, not the jet as a whole. It was a weak proposal overall and brought basically nothing new. That’s why the GAO says what they do. For the most part I agree with them.
I think it’s fairly obvious that we aren’t talking about that. We’re talking about how the F-18E is simply helpless against China’s fighters. And nothing is going to change without effectively making a new fighter. The PL-15 outranges what the US has by 2x. The F-14’s developments on LRAAAMs was cancelled with it being retired, leaving the US with nothing able to match other countries. It doesn’t matter if it was 20 years ago, we went from the nation with the longest ranged AtA missile to the shortest range AtA missile.
For purposes in Warthunder, it will be.
Huh?? How can you even say that? The F-35C is the only Naval fighter to have stealth. Are they simply just not going to use its stealth as a capability? I know this was a (very lousy) attempt to undermine the F-14/Aim-54/AWG-9 weapon system, but really dude? Try harder.
F-14D should be folded with f-14B
3 Likes
It doesn’t change the fact that the USN has given up on F-14s.
?? What is the point of this comment?
It’s very unfortunate that this discussion has gotten this far off topic. I’ll say these and end this conversation here.
-
The F-14 was an irreplaceable, valuable asset of the carrier air wing during the Cold War, because It was able to shoot down Soviet strategic bombers before they could even attempt to attack the fleet. But this threat disappeared with the Soviet Union, and now the F-14 had to face even more drastic changes than the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18.
-
Expanding the view to the surface fleet, the F-14’s role could be supplemented or replaced by the new Aegis combat system, which was developed during the 1980s.
-
The F-14 was a difficult aircraft to operate. Tomcat requires 40-60 hours of maintenance per single flight hour, while the Hornet and Rhino takes 20 and 10-15 hours, respectively. This was acceptable when defense budgets were more generous and there were no alternatives to the F-14, but not in the post-Cold War disarmament context.
-
Even without considering performance, the Navy can’t afford to upgrade its F-14s due to budget shortfalls.
4-1. The F-14D Quickstrike was a proposal that did not make any significant changes to the existing F-14D airframe, instead focusing on sensor and armament enhancements. However the GAO concluded adding F-15E-equivalent capability to 53 F-14D and 198 F-14A/Bs costs $2.7 billion (FY95 dollars), and this was unaffordable at that time.
4-2. The ST-21 with significant changes to the engine, electronics, and airframe, was clearly superior to the Quickstrike. But given the Navy’s budgetary constraints which couldn’t even afford Quickstrike, the ST-21 with more changes would have been an impossible option. -
The United States had already been developing the AIM-152 AAAM to replace the AIM-54 from the late 1980s to early 1990s, and it was also to be used on the F-15, F-16, F/A-18. So why was it canceled? Yes, because the Iron Curtain has fallen.
-
The range of a missile is only one of many factors that affect air combat. For most missile, nearly half of its range is only a theoretical maximum, and the practically meaningful non-escape zone is much narrower, especially when factors such as electronic warfare are taken into account.
-
The F/A-18E/F was originally separate from the F-14 and A-6 replacement programs, but as the only one left after those programs failed, it came to be seen as a replacement for both. Given that everyone prefers to stick with what they’re familiar with, it’s no surprise that F-14 pilots were less satisfied with the F/A-18E/F. Conversely, F/A-18C/D pilots tended to be more satisfied, but their opinions were not as widely publicized.
-
The F/A-18E/F is a capable aircraft with low operating costs, high availability, survivability and versatility, good avionics. Of course the Rhino is not a perfect fighter, but it was the most logical choice for the Navy, at least.
7 Likes
Put an f15 after the av8b but with only strike aircraft abilities and it gets a wider range of ground attack weapons and aim7’s and aim9L’s while putting the f18 into the f14 line
Lowkey where in the world would they put an F/A-18? Its BR placement is going to be tricky i feel.
Attacker line until the Superhornets come. Maybe the F/A-18C gets to be in the Navy line since it’s the best fighter variant of the F/A-18 series, but it would be more consistent and give a reason to grind that section of the tree until the F-35B goes there.
1 Like