4 ms·

People will chime in about how the AF only likes shiny new fast jets, but the issue is not infatuation. The AF has to plan to perform against near peer opponent

by greedo 8y ago

People will chime in about how the AF only likes shiny new fast jets, but the issue is not infatuation. The AF has to plan to perform against near peer opponents with good air defense systems, fighters, etc. So they'll usually be force by this into choosing something that is overkill for blowing up huts in Afghanistan. A small turboprop sounds great for low cost flight hours etc, but put it up against any modern AD and it's toast. You can try to mitigate this problem by having a high/low mix, (F15/F16), but that doesn't save you much money, and the AF has seen that the high usually ends up getting whacked for the low, and then ending up with lower performance. The Navy had the same problem with the F-14/F-18 mix. The F-18 was "good enough" for low intensity combat, but is inadequate for many other deployments.

JackCh 8y ago
> "The F-18 was "good enough" for low intensity combat, but is inadequate for many other deployments." In other words it's been adequate in reality but inadequate in fantasy scenarios.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
lujim 8y ago
It absolutely kills me to argue against the F-14 especially after reading that every single one of them were turned into scrap to keep parts out of Iran. However... Tomcats had a long full life, were maintenance hogs, and had outlived their mission. Ouch, it hurt to write that, but it's probably true. The Rhino's (Super Hornets) are very capable.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  The f14s mission went away. If you are worried about a sophisticated opponant attacking your carrier, a heavy fighter-interceptor is no longer a defense against modern missiles. It was a great plane for a job that no longer exists. If you are really into weapon history, the Phoenix missile was originally meant for an airforce super interceptor, think an armed version of the SR-71. It was meant to shoot down Valkyrie-class supersonic bombers carrying nuclear weapons. That scenario never developed, but the navy took the missile for blue water battles defending carriers. Arguably, the f-14 was only so big and powerful because it needed to haul a radar capable of servicing the missile. Phoenix was never useful in mixed environments where friendlies might be in range because that wasn't part of the original intention. It was meant for killing big/fast things approaching in open sky, not picking out Migs over Syria.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    It didn't help that it's flagship weapons system was made obsolete by politics.
    - lujim 8y ago
      It was interesting to read on the F-14 Wikipedia page that Iraqi pilots would often completely avoid engaging with Iranian Tomcats. Just the threat of the AIM-54 was enough to maintain air superiority. "They performed well, but their primary role was to intimidate the Iraqi Air Force and avoid heavy engagement to protect the fleet's numbers. Their presence was often enough to drive away opposing Iraqi fighters. The precision and effectiveness of the Tomcat's AWG-9 weapons system and AIM-54A Phoenix long-range air-to-air missiles enabled the F-14 to maintain air superiority"
- greedo 8y ago
  F-14D solved a lot of the issues via better engines. There were never enough TF-30s around to keep from having to scavenge from airframes. Can't really agree that they outlived their mission; they served well as Bombcats, clearly good enough for a multirole mission. Rhinos are probably better at ACM, but their (current) lack of range really hamstrings them.
- greedo 8y ago
  Side note; not all were crushed. There are some on static display, I've seen one at a museum in Mcminnville, Oregon. https://www.evergreenmuseum.org/ https://www.evergreenmuseum.org/
pjc50 8y ago
> near peer opponents with good air defense systems, fighters, ... and nuclear missiles. Which have rendered symmetrical overt warfare with peer opponents obsolete. From now on it's all either covert, assymetrical or deniable (fighting without insignia) warfare. Rather than an opponent spend hundreds of billions of dollars on aircraft, it's much cheaper to spend it on Facebook attack ads to get America to destroy itself.
- greedo 8y ago
  So far. The US has never really faced a peer that was both economically and militarily its equal. The USSR never was. China might end up that way. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the mid 1960's, yet still fought two existential wars. Nuclear weapons aren't a panacea; if your opponent thinks you won't use them, then they're worse than useless.
uncoder0 8y ago
That F-18 Growler though... Worth it's weight in gold imo.

by greedo 8y ago

JackCh 8y ago

> "The F-18 was "good enough" for low intensity combat, but is inadequate for many other deployments." In other words it's been adequate in reality but inadequate in fantasy scenarios.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

lujim 8y ago

It absolutely kills me to argue against the F-14 especially after reading that every single one of them were turned into scrap to keep parts out of Iran. However... Tomcats had a long full life, were maintenance hogs, and had outlived their mission. Ouch, it hurt to write that, but it's probably true. The Rhino's (Super Hornets) are very capable.

sandworm101 8y ago
The f14s mission went away. If you are worried about a sophisticated opponant attacking your carrier, a heavy fighter-interceptor is no longer a defense against modern missiles. It was a great plane for a job that no longer exists. If you are really into weapon history, the Phoenix missile was originally meant for an airforce super interceptor, think an armed version of the SR-71. It was meant to shoot down Valkyrie-class supersonic bombers carrying nuclear weapons. That scenario never developed, but the navy took the missile for blue water battles defending carriers. Arguably, the f-14 was only so big and powerful because it needed to haul a radar capable of servicing the missile. Phoenix was never useful in mixed environments where friendlies might be in range because that wasn't part of the original intention. It was meant for killing big/fast things approaching in open sky, not picking out Migs over Syria.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  It didn't help that it's flagship weapons system was made obsolete by politics.
  - lujim 8y ago
    It was interesting to read on the F-14 Wikipedia page that Iraqi pilots would often completely avoid engaging with Iranian Tomcats. Just the threat of the AIM-54 was enough to maintain air superiority. "They performed well, but their primary role was to intimidate the Iraqi Air Force and avoid heavy engagement to protect the fleet's numbers. Their presence was often enough to drive away opposing Iraqi fighters. The precision and effectiveness of the Tomcat's AWG-9 weapons system and AIM-54A Phoenix long-range air-to-air missiles enabled the F-14 to maintain air superiority"
greedo 8y ago
F-14D solved a lot of the issues via better engines. There were never enough TF-30s around to keep from having to scavenge from airframes. Can't really agree that they outlived their mission; they served well as Bombcats, clearly good enough for a multirole mission. Rhinos are probably better at ACM, but their (current) lack of range really hamstrings them.
greedo 8y ago
Side note; not all were crushed. There are some on static display, I've seen one at a museum in Mcminnville, Oregon. https://www.evergreenmuseum.org/ https://www.evergreenmuseum.org/

pjc50 8y ago

> near peer opponents with good air defense systems, fighters, ... and nuclear missiles. Which have rendered symmetrical overt warfare with peer opponents obsolete. From now on it's all either covert, assymetrical or deniable (fighting without insignia) warfare. Rather than an opponent spend hundreds of billions of dollars on aircraft, it's much cheaper to spend it on Facebook attack ads to get America to destroy itself.

greedo 8y ago
So far. The US has never really faced a peer that was both economically and militarily its equal. The USSR never was. China might end up that way. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the mid 1960's, yet still fought two existential wars. Nuclear weapons aren't a panacea; if your opponent thinks you won't use them, then they're worse than useless.

uncoder0 8y ago

That F-18 Growler though... Worth it's weight in gold imo.