The Big Truth

I'm open to different designs, but the concept has to be the same, an air superiority fighter capable of striking deep.

Attached: afx 1.jpg (710x257, 30K)

Yes, a carrier based variant.

Attached: afx_lockheed_boeing_gd_03.jpg (550x382, 45K)

Swing wings are a meme these days

Then something like a Su-57 naval variant.

Attached: su-57 naval.jpg (1020x734, 48K)

wasnt that also cancelled?

Not totally, I think.

Attached: afx 3.jpg (1800x835, 65K)

Can't cancel what has technically never begun.

There is a reason we stopped using swing wings. maintenance nightmare. the f14 was a hanger queen. Add stealth coatings to that with that big rub point. you are going to have to do way too much maintenance

Now, do we need a large twin-engine carrier-capable fighter? probably. but not with swing wings.

>carrier based variant

What does a fighter jet require in order to be fit for a carrier

It has to be strong enough to survive take off and landing stress which usually means a beefy air frame, landing gear, tail hook, etc.

the F-14 was a mistake

But a beautiful one.

>Now, do we need a large twin-engine carrier-capable fighter? probably. but not with swing wings.

That's my point too. I mean, it's true that I'm talking about the Tomcat and using pictures of a swing wing jet; but basically I'm referring to twin engine stealth big jet which can be used from carriers.

Attached: northrop_s_natf_23_by_fighterman35_d6vxb3y-pre.jpg (1313x609, 105K)

>Because Navy needs an air superiority/deep strike jet
Why?

>What does a fighter jet require in order to be fit for a carrier
really good low speed maneuverability, that's why the F-35A (Airforce) and the F-35C(Navy) have different wings

constant dick measuring contest against the Air Force

>we're about to retire a carrier because the bug and f-35 put us too close to coastal AShM sites
fucking based, the tomcat wins again

Attached: goose.webm (606x254, 370K)

That's a really good response. >we're about to retire a carrier because the bug and f-35 put us too close to coastal AShM sites

Attached: natf.jpg (695x301, 54K)

F-35 actually has good range

Not like the Tomcat.

the tomcat makes the F-35 look easy to maintain

>The Navy's Secret Wish: Bring Back the Old F-14 Tomcat from the Dead?

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-navys-secret-wish-bring-back-the-old-f-14-tomcat-the-25206

OK. Then make an aircraft like the Tomcat, but with the current technology, simplifying many of its problems (two seats, swing wings, hard to maintain).

Attached: northrop_grumman_natf_yf_23_by_bagera3005_d4i766h-pre.jpg (700x1141, 78K)

Fun fact, their was supposed to be a NATF , and its one of a few reasons that the F-22 beat out the F-23, that the F-22 had a better, more conventional design that would translate to a better carrier aircraft.

But the the USSR went away, and it was not pursued, just like how the tomcat was dropped, because it was not, strictly speaking, necessary. New world after all.

say no more senpai

Attached: boner.png (1353x687, 108K)

Exactly, the same way that the Chinese have their J-15.

Unfortunately, the B-1R was cancelled too.

Attached: b-1r.jpg (840x525, 292K)

The big truth makes me think the big think

To make something like the Tomcat, you need swing-wings. Swing-wings are a pain to maintain. There's no negotiating around it.

FOR WHAT? What imaginary enemy will these things be used for?

Fact is that the US doesn't need any of that shit. Even with all the stealth planes and all those carriers, the US got invaded and conquered. And none of that hardware did shit to stop it.

good fucking luck. they were all shredded.

the super hornet was a mistake*

Attached: j.jpg (474x463, 41K)

>super hornet is pigfat
>actually heavier than the F-111B which got 86'd for being 2heavy
>almost no parts commonality with the original bug
>sub 500nmi combat range
>can't into heavy payloads
>can't into speed
>ugly as sin
>still maintenance intensive
name a bigger fuck up, I dare you

Attached: F-111B-TFX.jpg (1024x466, 336K)

This

>F-111B Max Takeoff Weight. ~88k lbs.
>Superbug Max Takeoff Weight ~66k lbs.
Already wrong dumbass.
>Block III using CFTs can alleviate the range issue somewhat while increasing overall payload as needed.
>Anybody going full retard with Anti-Surface at long range.
>Burning copious amounts of fuel on mach 2 memery like a retarded Vatnik and going bingo in less than ten minutes.

Attached: This is exactly.jpg (500x340, 32K)

Whoops my bad, meant to say the super bug went well over the TFX weight limit which is the reason why the F-111B got axed in the first place. It's also comparable to the Tomcat in weight.

I mean, the Hornet was never intended to BE the Tomcat in the first place. Which is of course the biggest problem with comapring the two.

Hornet was supposed to be a lo to the Tomcat's Hi, and to replace the Phantoms on Midway and Coral Sea, which had hangars a bit too small to service Tomcats.

I just remembered, the Navy is way ahead of you buddy. Remember, F/A-XX/NGAD has been a thing for a decade or so.

I'm talking about the super bug tho, which is heavier than a phantom and just as fuckhuge. The Tomcat might've been pricey but at least it offered some real performance gains over anything else in service and even to this day it would give most aircraft a run for their money.

>With modern computers there is also no reason to have a radar intercept officer.
Drone controller.

If range is an issue, UAV tankers are a thing.

>implying you can even compete without swinging your wings directly into the danger zone

Attached: usbYbnDGkF8x.gif (500x281, 1.98M)

fuck the tomcat, the real tragedy is the retirement of the intruder

Attached: 186 - nQHn1qS.jpg (2100x1680, 432K)

yo is that a strike fighters 2 screenshot?

The Superbug was supposed to be an improved Hornet that DIDN'T have to jettison ord on landing while fulfilling a multirole strike fighter mission. It succeeded at doing everything that was asked of it.

Then they decided it should be the effective replacement to the Tomcat and Intruder and that's where the Navy went wrong.

>Nobody remembers poor Viking-chan.

>Then they decided it should be the effective replacement to the Tomcat and Intruder and that's where the Navy went wrong
Thanks to Dick "Sorry I thought you were a deer" Cheney. There wasn't even a fly-off competition between competing designs; he just said fuck your tomcat tooling and frames, we're going with the bug.

Attached: cheney.jpg (2000x1000, 316K)

Rumsfield and Cheney fucked over the DoD pretty bad.
>Raptor production cut to near uselessness.
>Zumwalts too, leading to the current ships getting gimped as a result.
>No adequate replacement for half the aircraft in the Navy's carrier air wings.
>The absolute worthless shit that was FCSMGV.
>So many wasted dollars because the Army couldn't fucking pick a new rifle three times in a row.
Why didn't people with pull predict China's rise to prominence sooner to stop these morons?

Because the lack of those types of aircraft defeat the purpose of aircraft carriers and their strength. They end up a liability even more than they were with the F-14 because they don't have the range to project force safely.

By whom?

>blackjack production restarted
>carriers getting retired because we don't have any long ranged naval fighters
>tomcat's face when

Attached: 1513123178278.gif (200x150, 2.11M)

The carrier thing is a navy publicity stunt to get money.

>F-35 actually has good range
Both the F-18 and F-35 are too slow to intercept things. Flankers, backfires and blackjacks can theoretically hurl anti-ship missiles from outside SAM range knowing they can safely outrun all interceptors afterwards.

>ywn be a navy shooter in the 80s
youtu.be/vVKlYpP1KEE

Attached: 1478376352686.jpg (242x206, 23K)

this
neocons can eat a fat fucking dick for what they pulled in the 00's

Attached: ASF-21.gif (500x418, 32K)

Basically this.

Mexico.

Not a military problem. Stop being part of the problem by being a retarded blackpilled doomer and be a part of the solution and have kids.

>What the navy needs is a stealthy deep striking air superiority interceptor capable of being launched from carriers!

What its going to have is an X-47 derivative that shits on anything thats flown before for deep strike.

Attached: 9d5.png (680x680, 59K)

>soviet navy has a fleet of bomber armed with AShM and nukes
>"we need a platform for a huge radar and huge missiles to shoot them down"
>USSR collapses
>Russian navy in the shitter
>said platform gets retired
>ten years later
>"The US Navy needs a Stealth Tomcat (A/F-X program)."

Delayed, not cancelled. The 10 made and 2 others in late stage completion will continue testing and development, as they decided it still wasn't up to snuff for serial production (which is now pushed back to 2020-22 budget, IF Sukhoi can get the kinks ironed out by then).
Basically the VVS testing determined that the Su-57, as is, is still not stealthy enough (shocking).
One of the things #12 is testing is a canopy radar & IR suppressant coating which JUST got developed last January.

The program isn't dead, it's just not going as quickly as previously estimated, especially with the 30% military budget cut that Putin did in 2016 to keep Russia's debt-to-GDP ratio really low.

The C is also heavier, as it has additional frame bracing, the bigger wing is to counter that and other weight additions the Navy variety has.

That's a lie.
They're retiring the USS Truman early so the Navy can shove that funding into TWO new G.R.Ford Class carriers.

businessinsider.com/us-carrier-fleet-to-shrink-as-pentagon-opts-to-retire-a-carrier-early-2019-2?utm_source=taboola

Two of these could carry the same size payload as a B-52.

Not just the Navy, the USAF wants a deep penetrating fighter to accompany B-21s on deep strike missions into central Asia.

>F-110 Mustang-II here we come.

It's going to be so hilarious when the Super Hornet gets new engines and BTFOs the Tomcat for all time.

A carrier aircraft has to handle well enough and be stable enough at low speeds to perform the carrier approach at high nose angle without losing lift and falling out of the sky behind the boat. A carrier aircraft also requires a durable airframe that can take the stresses of takeoff and landing, stronger landing legs that won't collapse when hitting the deck or being launched by catapult, and a sturdy mounting point for a tailhook in order to catch arrestor wires. A naval aircraft should also have the capability to fold it's wings for more efficient stowage below deck, and should be easy to maintain so that it may operate out at sea without too much work from the ship's mechanics.
The problem the navy has right now is that the entire fleet is outfitted with nearly all-Hornet airwings, and the F/A-18's (classic and super) don't have "legs," or long range capabilities. The Hornet is also incapable of Mach-2 flight, and if I'm not mistaken the top speed of a clean F/A-18E is Mach-1.6. Meanwhile opposition aircraft, such as SU-27 based designs, MiG-29's, and MiG-21's are all Mach-2+ capable, and as a fighter pilot having a speed advantage is critical in picking your fights.
The F-35 also cannot breach Mach-2, however it's low speed handling is superb, has stealth capability, and it is outfitted with the latest electronics.
Still there are some things left to be desired, and the navy has a Tomcat/Phantom shaped hole in it's capabilities.

Attached: 4768872.jpg (4104x2736, 1.65M)

I don't see any indication that it's NOT cancelled. Serial production is nowhere in the budget and the plane hasn't shown any improvement over the modernized SU-27s, which are only surpassed by the F-22.

Seems like Russia is going to put money into modernizing the MIG-31. The MIG-25 did shoot down an F/A-18 while outnumbered and with no support whatsoever and then ditch the Eagles chasing it.

Furthermore, it's important to add that RUSSIA HAS NO MONEY OR TECHNOLOGY.

If Musk manages to take astronauts to the ISS, Russia will lose the last inkling of a technological lead in any area.

A-12

Everyone pisses and moans about the Tomcat
It's like y'all don't even remember mai waifu
give her a conventional bomb bay, she'd be the F-15 a decade early

Attached: RA-5C_Vigilante_overhead_aerial_view.jpg (2344x2916, 2.47M)

The MiG-31BM is supposed to have some pretty advanced networking capabilities that let it put that big boy radar to real use, making it a combination AWACS and Interceptor. Weather its just so expensive they only could afford a dozen for now, or it failed to ever preform to spec and they cut if off at a dozen I don't know.

>F-35 can't do air superiority
old meme

I don't think any fighter can do mach 2 at typical combat altitudes and with external stores. Maybe the MiG-25 can - but that one can't even do mach 1 on the deck.

>Implying someone who thinks 3 million mexicans are the end of the us is anything but a depressed incel.

36 million illegals. whites now a minority in under 18 age group.
now fuck off back to plebbit .

Attached: 1535040715249.jpg (785x785, 107K)

>Implying soyuz isnt cold war tech at best

the FCS was a good idea and cutting those problems was the correct idea at the time, even if the rise of China has proved them wrong 20 years later.

>No sauce

Attached: 1529914512375.png (800x600, 100K)

Swing wings are retarded because you need to sacrifice stealth, not just maintenance efficiency.

Swing wings are awesome if you can do them right, ie some kind of magic that doesn't actually have any gaps or giant heavy mechanism. Until we can do that they're not worth it.

We would be better off investing that research in star trek shields and cloaking fields.

>The US Navy needs a Stealth Tomcat (A/F-X program).
As in a dedicated Fleet Interceptor/Air Superiority Fighter? Then yes, I am inclined to agree.
>Because Navy needs an air superiority/deep strike jet, and neither the Super Hornet nor the F-35C can provide this.
Assume you mean unrefueled, but either or you're right.
Tanker duty accounts for 33% of all F/A-18E/F sorties and its chewing through airframe hours, this is the reason why the MQ-25A procurement is being accelerated at break neck speed.
>Why?
Because the USN is completely re pivoting it's surface doctrine from inland attack back to fleet engagements. CSGs/CSFs are now training, preparing, and outfitting for attacking enemy Navies, and these fleet engagements are going to have fighter screens. Deep strike is self explanatory, we want to attack targets really deep inland (think USAF PCA)
>FOR WHAT? What imaginary enemy will these things be used for?
H-6Ks and whatever the successor to it will be
>Fact is that the US doesn't need any of that shit. Even with all the stealth planes and all those carriers, the US got invaded and conquered. And none of that hardware did shit to stop it.
oh
this
I'm inclined to agree, the Intruders reach was god tier, retiring it wasn't that big of a deal during the GWOT due to the fact that we were just doing low intensity CAS, but now that we're regearing up for near peer, the Navy is really starting to understand just how much they miss the intruder. This is partly why I believe the US is going about creating it's own A2/AD zones in WESTPAC with help from allies, we can't hit as far as we use to.
>news.usni.org/2019/02/28/pentagon-plan-sideline-carrier-truman-will-net-just-17m-fy-2020
It's highly, highly doubtful that Congress will let this happen.
This is completely irrelevant, stop baiting, Jow Forumsposting was funny two years ago.

Attached: Untitled.png (555x366, 103K)

Wonder how that chart will change now that the Super Hornet is getting CFTs.

imagine the shitstorm on Jow Forums if an Iranian Tomcat ever downs a Hornet or something.

Attached: zandi.jpg (1734x1176, 116K)

I just want to pop in for a minute and see if anyone remembers and appreciates this little guy. Are we ever going to get something as simple yet effective ever again?

Attached: AF85CE74-5E31-4B31-8C76-D6958F22A26D.jpg (1200x675, 119K)

I propose the following alternative.

Attached: 14045d735ae130353f32f364770ce749.jpg (1722x1152, 1.23M)

So what you want is this, but worse?
If they still have any working phoenix missiles it's quite possible.

Hell, even if they can manufacture a working hawk based knonkoff it could still be pretty dangerous. People love to mock iranians for being dumb shitskins but they are an orbital launch capable nation. I am sure they can figure out how to make an air to air missile eventually.

Attached: 161119-M-XU431-007_(31138782986).jpg (1486x991, 68K)

Your own chart shows that the F-35 is better in both range and payload than the tomcat, retard.

iirc the CFTs add another 1-2 hours of time on station, or an extra 120 miles of combat range. Forget where I saw these numbers though.
Where did I imply that the Tomcat had better range, and why are you so hostile?
The F-35C, while having better range than a 18E/F, is still short of what the Navy would like. If you see the future UCAV(which the Navy would like to become the primary strike asset for a CVW) has almost twice the range of a 35C with the same payload. I would assume whatever comes after the F/A-XX (which might not be a 6th gen btw) will probably be akin to what a Tomcat was, tailor made Fleet Interceptor with good air to ground capability added later on.