![]() The F-18s are good airplanes, but neither version comes close to the payload/range capability of the F-14 or the A-6. The effect of the order, however, was to leave a clear path for further acquisition of the F-18A and its desperately needed mission-performance upgrade, the F-18E. LEFT: according to the authors, the F/A-18 is simply too small to carry either the fuel or ordnance required by deep interdiction missions.Ĭheney’s order of no more F-14 production was a wasteful move that cannot be explained rationally, nor was there ever any reason offered. Navy can only maintain this fighter/bomber force until about 2010-if it is lucky! And even doing that will require quick funding of restoration efforts to a lot of aircraft. On top of that, when the Tomcat has loosed its bombs, it is a formidable dogfighter! With the 150 or so F-14s left, however, the U.S. The F-14D has now taken over for the A-6 in the fighter/bomber role as it was originally designed to do. ![]() It has no direct replacement (photos by Randy Jolly). LEFT: the Grumman A-6E Intruder, now taken out of the fleet, was neither fast, nor glamorous, but it was rugged, reliable and carried an immense bomb load on long, low missions. They went into service in 1962-37 years ago! Navy retired the venerable long-range, heavy-attack A-6 aircraft, not because they lacked their original capability and survivability, but because they were disintegrating due to old age. Somebody in the White House will have to answer the President’s question, "Where are the carriers?" with the reply, "What carriers?" We decided not to build any remember? The U.S. LEFT: Grumman F-14Ds, as based on the USS Constellation, are on the edge of extinction and are our last Naval aircraft capable of carrying heavy bomb loads for long distances (photo by Randy Jolly). Without the F-14s, Congress will not support the construction of more $3.5 billion Nimitz-class carriers if deep-strike aircraft are not ready on the first day of the conflict. The requirement for the Nimitz and follow-on class carriers hinges, most experts say, on its ability to carry out sea-based, deep-interdiction missions. Unfortunately, the tragedy does not stop there. Navy strikes but is handicapped by diplomatic and political constraints. The F-18 E/F program that is supposed to take over the sea-based, deep-interdiction, precision-strike mission does not have a long-range, high-payload, precision-strike capability, so the F-14Ds are the current workhorse delivery men of the 2,000-pound, LGB/radar-guided bombs in the many trouble spots around the world, as required. Navy, per orders of then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, planned to phase out of the F-14 program and, apparently to ensure there would be no second thoughts, ordered the destruction of all F-14 tooling. In another inexplicable move, beginning about 1990, the U.S. The problem with using the F-14D as the bridge between the two aircraft is that it is on the edge of extinction. With the A-6 out of the picture, and until the JSF arrives, the F-14D is the only game in town that has the same punch. It is hoped (repeat, hoped) the JSF will arrive easily in the next millennium. In the strike configuration for which it originally had been designed, the F-14D was to have been the bridging mechanism between the A-6 and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). This would have carried A-6Fs well into the next century. It decided on the early termination of the A-6 program and to scrap the new A-6 "composite wing" program for which Boeing had already been paid hundreds of millions of dollars. Navy voluntarily opted out of the important sea-based, deep-interdiction mission it had brilliantly carried out during and since WW II. Soon after Desert Storm, by some inexplicable miscalculation, the U.S. ![]() foe in future conflicts (photo by Katsuhiko Tokunaga). ![]() RIGHT: The Su-27 is bigger than the F-14 and F-15, and its capabilities and economics are so outstanding that a number of nations are in the process of adapting it to set it up as the primary U.S. Controversial? Absolutely! Logical? Make your own decision. Paul Gillcrist, retired USN fighter pilot, make a convincing argument that rather than spend ridiculous sums for new fighters that will probably show up too late to do us any good, we should buy Sukhoi Su-27 airframes and "Americanize" them with our engines and flight-control systems. Bob Kress, ex-Grumman VP of advanced programs and chief engineer on the F-14, and Adm. Navy (Ret.) Editors’ note: In this wonderful piece of aeronautical and political irony, it seems that our newfound but uneasy friends, the Russians, may be our best source of new fighter aircraft. Russian fighters for the USAF/USN? The ultimate irony …īy Robert W. Copy&Pasted for those that might not be able to access the link. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |