To a large degree the US Navy switched to lighter aircraft as a cost cutting exercise. They replaced a bunch of models with a single one. However a lot of people claimed this led to a loss in capabilities. The F-14, for example, a much longer range than the Super Hornet, and later versions were multi-role capable. Their old electronics warfare airplanes also had more range. Same thing for the refueling aircraft. Later F-14s could not only do fleet defense (their original role) but drop bombs as well. The Secretary of Defense was so dead set against F-14 upgrades that he ordered the tooling to be destroyed. Well that's not something which happens commonly. The Super Hornet itself was sold as "just a model upgrade" of the Hornet so it could squeak past Congress. After the disaster with procurement of the A-12 Avenger US Navy programs which procured new aircraft were seen in a poor light. I think a common small platform with high-bypass turbofan engines, like the US used to have, is desirable. This can be used as a base for AWACS, a transport aircraft, an ASW aircraft, etc with more loiter time and less fuel expense than a fighter aircraft.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
This is not true.
F-18E has 1660 nm of ferry range with two sidewinders (missiles retained due to aerodynamic advantage) and three 480 gallon tanks, all three retained. (as per USN website fact file)
F-14D (the later more capable variant with decent engines and some multirole capability near the end of its service), carrying two 280 gal drop tanks and no missiles (retaining the tanks) has ferry range of 1591 nm. (As per Navair 1985 document.)
Dropping the tanks for F-14 when empty would add nother 80-ish nm, as they represent some 19% of total initial fuel carried.
For F18E, carrying three larger tanks means 39% of initial fuel is carried in tanks. So not dropping tanks when empty costs F18 even more, and F18E would add another 140 nm if it drops tanks. (as per F4 Navair document, since f4 has similar fuel ratios, dropping its tanks and gaining that much ferry range)
F18E also has options to carry less weapons and more fuel, carrying four tanks if needed, for a bit of extra range. (though at that point the extra 20% of fuel would hardly translate into even half of extra range) (five tanks, while possible for F18E, is from what i read, not really used)
So ferry range difference would roughly be 1670 nm versus 1800-1900 nm, in favor of F18E.
Operational range, carrying 6-8 missiles, would lower the difference but F18E would still likely not be much behind F14D, if at all.
F-14A did have longer range than F-14D, but with other drawbacks, and it really wasn't a multirole plane.
F-14 is simply not a terribly efficient design by today's standars. almost 20 tons empty and almost 34 ton MTOW. Comparing that to Rafale M's 10.2 to 24 tons and Superhornets 14.5 to 30 tons.
It seems that when it actually carries a lot of payload the range isn't quite as good as that:
I assume those numbers you mention are due to using larger external drop tanks on the F-18E than on the F-14. Because the F-14 has much more internal fuel capacity. I kind of doubt those couldn't be retrofitted into an F-14 had they wanted to. But it was supposed to be put out of service, so it had to look bad. Also the source mentioned above says that the F-14 had more low level speed (this is not surprising because the engine has more thrust and it has a variable geometry wing). This is important in bombing runs.
I assume those numbers you mention are due to using larger external drop tanks on the F-18E than on the F-14. Because the F-14 has much more internal fuel capacity. I kind of doubt those couldn't be retrofitted into an F-14 had they wanted to. But it was supposed to be put out of service, so it had to look bad. Also the source mentioned above says that the F-14 had more low level speed (this is not surprising because the engine has more thrust and it has a variable geometry wing). This is important in bombing runs.
Lethe
Captain
You can work backwards from a pre-established conclusion to imagine that there is some sound underlying rationale as to why US carrier aircraft have shrunk.... or you can look at the actual historical record which plainly demonstrates that this is entirely a function of the programs that unfolded in the context of the post-Cold War era and its budget limitations.
The late-Cold War origin A-12 and NATF programs were most assuredly not going to deliver aircraft smaller than their predecessors. Following the collapse of these programs in the post-Cold War budgetary and threat environment, the US was faced with the requirement to recapitalise the bulk of its carrier air wings quickly and affordably, which meant a variant of an existing design, which led to the Super Hornet as a (larger) modification of the existing Hornet design. That's it.
Meanwhile the F-35C, which was intended to replace the F/A-18 Hornet, is a larger and longer-legged aircraft than its predecessor, which in turn was larger and longer-legged than its predecessor (the A-7 Corsair II) which in turn was larger and longer-legged than its predecessor (the A-4 Skyhawk). There is a trend here but it is not the one you are thinking of.
The idea that J-15 is too big is basically sour grapes spread by Americans who can't handle the fact that China has a superior aircraft design and Chinese who can't handle the fact that they haven't yet entirely stepped out from the shadow of the Soviet Union.
The late-Cold War origin A-12 and NATF programs were most assuredly not going to deliver aircraft smaller than their predecessors. Following the collapse of these programs in the post-Cold War budgetary and threat environment, the US was faced with the requirement to recapitalise the bulk of its carrier air wings quickly and affordably, which meant a variant of an existing design, which led to the Super Hornet as a (larger) modification of the existing Hornet design. That's it.
Meanwhile the F-35C, which was intended to replace the F/A-18 Hornet, is a larger and longer-legged aircraft than its predecessor, which in turn was larger and longer-legged than its predecessor (the A-7 Corsair II) which in turn was larger and longer-legged than its predecessor (the A-4 Skyhawk). There is a trend here but it is not the one you are thinking of.
The idea that J-15 is too big is basically sour grapes spread by Americans who can't handle the fact that China has a superior aircraft design and Chinese who can't handle the fact that they haven't yet entirely stepped out from the shadow of the Soviet Union.
Last edited:
Guys ... can we stay on topic - namely the Type 003 carrier NEWS - and while this discussion is surely interesting, it is more related to a general future Air Wing composition and use of naval aviation force off a future PLAN carrier but not specifically to this ship.
Deino
Deino
Intrepid
Major
Your contribution would be a nice start for a new thread "004 CATOBAR aircraft carrier at Dalian".
It's not mine, I just repost it here from other forum. But I'm agree with your idea to have a new thread for Type 004 AC.
Would be nice if we can have History record for all Chinese AC in here, you know just like a library