Below are some comments from a current F-14 pilot (who has also flown the F-16N in the aggressor role Vs Navy F-14's and F-18's) - he posts quite regularly on another forum ...(www.freerepublic.com) -

I asked him his current thoughts on Pakistan getting F-16's and how well India appears to be equipped with the lastest SU-30's -

I also asked him his thoughts on what the future holds for the Navy (via air to air as well as strike role) -

His response -

_________________________________

Fact is, we sort of suck.

However, our suckage is far better than any other force out there. We just waste a lot of time and use a lot of extra gas getting the job done. The original F-18 is a wonderful airplane, as long as it doesn't have to go too far to fight. In the dogfight at medium altitude, it kicks ass. Get it up high, and an Eagle will kill it. Down low, even the Tomcat can fight with it. Both Tomcat and Eagle if flown right, will run the Hornet out of gas in short order.

The Navy is fortunate, because today, our jets just need to drag the enemy into Aegis range, then go have a smoke. Game over. The Navy is kicking itself over the Super Hornet, which is a pig. They took my baby and replaced her with a pig. But aint she pretty?

Look, for a few years, with the F-22, the Air Force has bragging rights. Give it 3-5 years, and you will hear what the Navy has in mind. Don't bet on the F-35. It wont ever see production. Remember the F-23? We might have a repeat of the YF-16-YF-17 outcome.

But don't worry. Navy pilots can do fine with little more then a broomstick against most of the world.

That would put the Navy in a hard position to get two bloated fighter/attack jets in such a short time...

A good plan but dangerous... What if the enemy aircraft had antiship missile? Someone would be feeling pretty stupid-sorry...

I have confidence in our forces though… I don’t care how bad things get because in the end they know what they are dong…

Uh, why am I doubting that line on the F-23? Consider for a moment that the original YF-23 design is almost old enough to vote, resurrection of which would probably drive up costs so much you could by three F/A-35Cs per F-23; add to that the fact that it's a Northrop/Grumman design, which doesn't fly with a certain big-wig in Washington.

Edit: That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a navalized F-23. From what I've read, it sounds like it might have been superior to the F/A-22 during the ATF competitions. Now imagine it re-designed and modernized. If it could be done well and on a tight budget, I bet the Navy could make USAF envious for the first time in years.

Actually this is the 2nd Navy pilot I have heard say the old F-23 could definitely be the plane that makes it (to update the F-18F).

Here is another additional interesting comment by this F-14 pilot (with regard to AMRAMMS and Sparrows).

_________________________


Sparrow is good enough for the Tomcat's needs. Experience tells the Navy that for 99.9% of long range intercepts, the only thing a Tomcat driver has to do is light up a target on radar for the target to behave.

It is a rare idiot who, once lit up and locked, feels the need to fly through Phoenix range all the way to Sparrow range. You do get the occasional fool testing response times and such trying to feint and then run for the border, but most of the time an enemy pilot would beat feat when he is locked up by something he cant find yet.

I wonder where Chunx and Fonzie are?

Fonzie is at his new base and he can't login at SimHQ because he forget his password. Chunx, I dunno what happen to him but I am pretty sure that he is still around in SimHQ, hang out at NASCAR fourms, hardware forums, MiG Alley forums, etc.

Thanx, Alex.

Not looking to discredit this information (I'm sure he's a real pilot and all that) but I've yet to see information about the Super Hornet being ran out of gas in fights with the above mentioned aircraft. Also in air to air events, the SH's superior RCS is a major factor.
What you have here most likely is a pilot who hates to see his platform being retired but has little or no experience with the new aircraft replacing it. I have had the privelage of actually working with the test pilots at PAX RIVER during the Super Hornet's testing and evaluation. Every pilot who actually flew both aircraft had tremendously different attitudes about the plane. About the only thing they were upset about was the top end of aircraft which they understood was sacrificed by the need to carry a thicker attack wing for increased payload. In turning fights the SH is king. In long range BVR, it's a very difficult aircraft to deal with though it is lacking currently, a big AAM (this is changing!!!).
IT's hard to let go of an aircraft you have flown you entire career and one that was so dominant as the F-14 was. I take limited input from single type pilots as just that. Limited information.

TWALT - "I take limited input from single type pilots as just that. Limited information."

Understand your above quote - but that isn't the case here - He has flown F-14, the F-16N as well as the F-18's (not the F version though) -

As for hearing all pilots are happing with the F-18's (that isn't what I have heard) -

Nor does it appear many in the Army are happy with the F-18's ....they seem to continually request other aircraft for strikes - (if avaliable).

I hope a slightly modernized (updated) version of the F-23 does come to pass -

Also, I would state that while you have not "heard" of F-15's / F-14 running an F-18 out of gas......I think he might have been suggesting this is what would happen in a real life do or die -(I suspect).

Yeah, but how tapped are those two into how the Navy's spending tax-payer money?

I recall NGC dusted off one of their YF-23 prototypes for a bid of the USAF "medium" fighter bomber role. - Same category as the F15E.

Don't hold your breath on the USN hoping for the YF23 to come aboard a ship as there's too much reconfiguration to make it aboard one. They have NO money and don't possess the lobbying power as the USAF.

Yea, I've heard something about the USAF looking at teh YF-23 again a few months back...

TWALT:
Think this will be overcome by the flex-wing, I wonder?

I recall the 'morphing' wing is still under testing with the HARV.

However, our suckage is far better than any other force out there. We just waste a lot of time and use a lot of extra gas getting the job done. The original F-18 is a wonderful airplane, as long as it doesn't have to go too far to fight. In the dogfight at medium altitude, it kicks ass. Get it up high, and an Eagle will kill it. Down low, even the Tomcat can fight with it. Both Tomcat and Eagle if flown right, will run the Hornet out of gas in short order.

Big wing area matter a lot at high altitudes. Tomcat's (F110) strengths are from FL200 and below, while the TF30s are lower. Hornet's nose rate - mostly like the same for the Rhino - is better than anything below IMN 0.4.

IMHO, I think it is too early to tell how effective the Rhino's BFM actually is. I am sure like any other aircraft in the arena, they'll exploit the weaknesses.

BFM?
I will bet you that in the upcoming 25 years of the Rhino's service there will be no BFM with a foreign adversary plane.

* As a promising strike fighter, the opposing air force will be shattered on the ground.

I think he's talking about the regular Hornet here, not the Super Hornet. He's talking about the original F-18.

Chunx doesn't bother replying in these discussions anymore - I believe he is long sick of debating heresay and third- and fourth-hand information.

I agree, that's exactly my oppinion.

I thought Chunx was still on his leg of his last deployment?

I'll take you up on that bet.

I posed a question to a former USAF and Lockmart TP about UCAV/UAV in taking the place of human elements and from what he said, technology isn't there to fully replace the human element. Computers can notdecide on a whim like the human mind. UAVs will be great for the first wave of attacks but there will always be human elements in the air until the technology completely evolves.

As for the comments about 3rd/4th heresay, you know.. some people do actually communicate directly with those in the field.

There are always two sides of a story.