botsing wrote:mixelflick wrote:I made a very factual argument as to why ST21 was a far better choice than the SH.
A factual argument about a paper plane?

Absolutely.
When it came time for the SH to be "bought", Congress bought the line that it was a simple upgrade of an existing aircraft hook, line and sinker. In much the same way, Grumman could have made the same argument for the ST-21. Computer based CAD, wind tunnel tests and other metrics gave Grumman a very good idea of what it could do. When you hear very precise figures like mach 1.3 supercruise, they're basing that on specific tests/modeling. And on virtually all prototype flights where these tools were used, what do you hear? "It flies just like the simulator...".
Witness the testimony here of a single Tomcat (and for all we know, that could have been a TF-30 powered bird) taking out not one, but TWO F-15's. It's also taken out Foxbats, something no F-18 could even hope to catch, let alone down. IMO, there is strong evidence the F-14 is the superior air to air machine.And judging by the success the F-14 Bombcat had, probably the superior air to ground machine as well.
Concerning air to air loadouts: Even IF the F-14 was fitted with only Phoenix and AIM-9M's, it would have still given AMRAAM/9x Hornets fits. Because even IF the Phoenix misses, it still reaches its target a LOT faster than an AMRAAM, complicating the Hornet driver's job of counter-attacking. The ST-21 undoubtedly would have used AMRAAM's/9x though, and then we're back to all the ST-21's strengths. It'll likely detect the SH first (bigger radar), engage it at much greater range (due to mach 1.3 super-cruise/flying at much higher altitude), shoot first and kill first. With the 9x, there goes the SH's much vaunted nose pointing capability. Or, the ST-21 can simply choose not to engage, since it's fast enough to dictate the terms. There's just no plausible scenario where the SH is superior, unless you consider the fact "it's a great tanker", as one SH pilot said to me, after I asked him to describe its best attribute.
Now if you argue the SH was cheaper, OK. That actually makes perfect sense. You're spending less money, which buys you (far) less capability. Carries more weapons? OK, but that's simply a question of qualifying said weapons on the platform. The ST-21 could have just as easily carried as many, carry them a LOT farther and bring back more of them to the boat.
Remember, at the point in time both were being considered, the SH wasn't a "real" aircraft either. It was a "paper" airplane too. The difference is that Congress was hoodwinked into thinking it was a simple legacy Hornet upgrade. You have to hand it to McDonnell Douglas/Boeing though, they really suckered everyone. The country got 2nd best, and to this day the SH does NOT enjoy decided advantages over late model Flankers, Rafale's, Typhoons,J-10B's/C's and is decidedly inferior to the J-20. Which really sucks, because when trouble kicks off it's usually carrier aircraft that'll be called upon. And only pilot training (may) save them..