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.
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.
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
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.
None of the Hornets are going to be that high, they lack the T/W needed to be useful and it will be yet further compounded by the very high drag of the wing stations’ rail adapter(s) significantly curtailing useful (competitive) missile load.
Also as we’re not getting New IR missiles this Update it’s loadouts are likely to be fairly standard with AIM-7 / -120 & AIM-9L / -9M depending on the specific variant.
Also with the APG-65 being markedly Average for a Teen series airframe it’s nothing to write home about.
And it’s going to be missing any of the actually interesting A2G ordnance & capabilities that it could actually receive since they would be unbalanced, and what it might get (e.g. GBU-53/B, LJDAM, or AN/AWW-13) can also be carried by the F-16C or F-15E.
Also having early (NAVY) configs stuck with the AN/AAS-38 , which lacks a Laser designator entirely, and (will) also be disallowed from Self-Designating targets due to a narrow FoV, preventing the carriage of SALH ordnance.
F-16C-50
Engine(s) :29,500 lbf
Basic weight: 26,500 lb
Internal Fuel: 7,000 lb
Stores: 6x AIM-x [345lb] (2070lb all up)
Don’t know how you think you can stick 8 missiles on the airframe when it only has 6 stations that can take them
That’s static thrust, not climbing thrust.
Climbing thrust of the F-18C is ~18,000kgf.
“Basic weight” includes fuel.
@Pheonix_RX01
F-18C will be on-par with F-15C/E. Hyper-aggression isn’t how you win matches, tactful strategy is.
It’s why the Su-34 is a major threat in matches despite being the worst airframe, and is itself under-BR’d.
Or maybe we could accept that fact that the BR’s are heavily compressed and that in the current Meta Climbers are going to be the best vehicles for the meta. The F18 will be lacking in The climb department and again be a Su-27SM equal. The F18’s main advantage over the 14.0 will be its 2 extra missiles but even then speed and mobility are more valuable after the first few minutes. I will always be able to sit in a better position in my F15E than a F18C