From: gregs@meaddata.com (Greg Smith)
Subject: Re: Carrier Fighters (was: is the A-10 going bye-bye?)
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:32:06 GMT


From gregs@meaddata.com (Greg Smith)

In article <BuDFBs.G6y@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis) writes:
|> 
|> From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
|> 
|> In article <BuBL67.FMG@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
|> >With the demise of the US Navy's AX (?) program (the advance tactical bomber
|> >based on stealth technology), there will not be a replacement aircraft for the 
|> >venerable A-6.  All A-6's are coming up on their end of life due to the
|> >buildup of stress in the airframes making them more and more dangerous to 
|> >fly.  Whether the ATF (advance tactical fighter) will meet the same fate is
|> >not known.  If this program is cut due to budget or does not meet its time

I don't think the ATF was seriously considered to replace the F-14.  There is
some talk of NATF (Naval version of the AdVanced Tactical Fighter), but plans
for this are on hold while the Navy "formulates its future requirements".  This is
seen as mainly a contender for the strike role and not a replacement for fleet defense.
The only contenders were an upgraded F-14, with a redesigned follow on later in the 90's
or the F-18E/F proposal, the latter being the current favorite.

|> >commitments, then there will not be a replacement for the F-14 when their
|> >airframes reach their limit.  So basically, the naval air community is in
|> >great dissarray over its future direction due to this clear danger for not
|> >having a modern fighter or bomber at the end of this century.
|> 
|> 	I heard a few years ago from a reliable source that at some time in the
|> 	early '90s the USnavy would start production of the " F14-D " and the
|> 	" A6-F ", have both of these projects 'sunk'? 	If such planes are in 
|> 	fact an improvement on the earlier models, then they would still be
|> 	adequate for the carriers for the next ten years at least, that is 
|> 	few planes would even compare with them even around the year 2000 odd.

The latest that I've read in the Aviation library in nexis (including AvWeek)
is that the F-14 Quickstrike and SuperTomcat are all not funded for
production and that the F-14 line is currently closed, putting Grumman out of
the airframe business.  I also understand that the reengine program for the F-14
is being discontinued.  Boeing has a contract to rewing a number of A-6s the A-6F
designation is mentioned for this program and I think the number is around 200 airframes
(it's at least 170 airframes).  As of now the F/A-18E/F is seen as replacing the F-14 
and at least some of the A-6 missions.  (No comment on it's ability to do this)

|> 
|> >The Navy will also start loosing their E-2 Hawkeyes and there is no 
|> >replacement plane for this either.  The Navy may well become dependent on Air
|> >Force ACWS (?) planes for an air-borne warning system or hope that the Ageis 
|> >system is as good as the magazine ads say for the detection of low flyers 
|> >that, in the past, the air-borne radars were better at seeing.
|> 
|> 	Also heard of a proposal called E7 to replace the E2, but maybe it was
|> 	just wishfull thinking.
|> 									jd.
|> 

-- 
Greg Smith

DISCLAIMER:  My ideas are entirely my own unless MDC decides to patent them.
I am not empowered to speak for Mead Data Central or Mead Corporation.

Newsgroups: sci.military