F-14 vs. F/A-18E/F

**Bill** · 15 Apr 05,, 00:11

Good observation Ben.

**jgetti** · 18 Apr 05,, 14:43

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Biggest difference between the Tomcat and Super Hornet:

Super Hornet: uses technology to make up for problems with the airframe.

Tomcat: uses airframe to make up for problems with technology.

There's no problem with the Super Hornet airframe at all,, it wasn't designed to be an interceptor.

**Officer of Engineers** · 18 Apr 05,, 19:22

Myth buster request here.

How did all those F-5s and A-4s score so good at the Top Gun schools?

**BenRoethig** · 18 Apr 05,, 19:52

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Myth buster request here.

How did all those F-5s and A-4s score so good at the Top Gun schools?

1. Expirienced instructor pilots.

2. F-14As. TF-30s made them underpowered, need I say more?

3. No BVR combat. Top Gun exists to show interceptor pilots how to handle their plane in a knife fight.

**Bill** · 18 Apr 05,, 21:02

"There's no problem with the Super Hornet airframe at all,, it wasn't designed to be an interceptor."

All one needs do is look at the wing to come to the conclusion that you are correct.

**BenRoethig** · 18 Apr 05,, 22:55

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"There's no problem with the Super Hornet airframe at all,, it wasn't designed to be an interceptor."

All one needs do is look at the wing to come to the conclusion that you are correct.

[sarcasm] Straight wing aircraft make great interceptors. Look how good they did during world war II. [/sarcasm]

**Bill** · 18 Apr 05,, 23:09

lol...

**jgetti** · 19 Apr 05,, 22:41

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

[sarcasm] Straight wing aircraft make great interceptors. Look how good they did during world war II. [/sarcasm]

LOL,,,, not quite the point I was trying to make.

**jgetti** · 21 Apr 05,, 18:48

If you've ever read the article in Flight Journal called "Battle of the Superfighters," you would appreciate this article.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...06/ai_n9114018

In contrast to the authors of "Battle of the Superfighters," this link contains letters from people ACTUALLY IN THE FLEET who speak out for and against the Super Hornet. I always value such articles pretty highly because they are straight from the mouth of the folks who deal with these aircraft every day. Strangely enough, they sound much like the arguements we've all been going back and forth with.

Note, however, the difference in opinion between those who have only worked/flown on the F-14 and those who have dealt with both. It's also pretty clear how attached pilots get to their aircraft. Interesting arguements both ways.

**BenRoethig** · 21 Apr 05,, 21:16

If you plan on fighting an enemy with no serious air threat and/ or with Air Force Eagles/Raptors providing air cover the Super Hornet is probably the better plane. It's cheaper to operate, easier to maintain, and more flexible. However, get anywhere near a credible air force and the F/A-18F is in a world a trouble. If we ever want to send our carriers into harm's way again, we need an actual fighter on deck be it a Super Hornet with a swept or Delta wing, a license built and enlarged version of the Rafale-N, an updated Tomcat, or a Totally new design.

**Bill** · 21 Apr 05,, 21:27

I always take active duty officers comments with a grain of salt(whether they support my opinion or not), because of the political realities of being an officer in the US military.

**jgetti** · 21 Apr 05,, 22:05

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

If you plan on fighting an enemy with no serious air threat and/ or with Air Force Eagles/Raptors providing air cover the Super Hornet is probably the better plane. It's cheaper to operate, easier to maintain, and more flexible. However, get anywhere near a credible air force and the F/A-18F is in a world a trouble. If we ever want to send our carriers into harm's way again, we need an actual fighter on deck be it a Super Hornet with a swept or Delta wing, a license built and enlarged version of the Rafale-N, an updated Tomcat, or a Totally new design.

Yea,,, no one's (at least not me) argueing that Super Hornet is a better platform than the Tomcat,, because they were originally designed for two different missions. The F-14 was designed to be an interceptor and the Super Hornet wasn't. I guess you could say my support for Super Hornet isn't because I think it's the right plane for primary fleet defence/air superiority mission, but because it's an outstanding aircraft that's getting a bad rap for being forced into the wrong role. People running it down calling it the 'Stupid Bug' and 'The biggest mistake the USN ever made' and I totally disagree. It IS being compared to the F-14 because the Navy's putting it in that role,, and since it doesn't have some of the capabilities of the Tomcat, lots of people are calling it a hunk of crap.

I absolutely think Super Hornet should be on every aircraft carrier deck replacing the jets it was DESIGNED to replace. I also absolutely think that a new platform better suited to fill the shoes of the Tomcat also be on the deck. Finally, I don't think JSF should be anywhere close to a carrier deck. You don't need two lightweight fighters on a carrier,, that's just rediculous. People say JSF has 360 degree sensory,,, great,, that can be incorporated on Super Hornet or an all new air superiority fighter. Then there's always the stealth arguement. Again,, save that for the air superiority fighter. A workhorse really can't be all that effective and remain stealthy. JSF on a carrier deck us just another expensive airplane that's going to be equipped with external stores to get anything accomplished which will compromise it's stealth characteristics anyway.

No, Super Hornet's no F-14,, but look how great it is at what it's SUPPOSED to be. It's extremely versatile, extremely cabable at what it was DESIGNED to do, and very cost effective. JSF on the other hand is like an SUV,, it's made to do everything, but doesn't really excel at anything. It won't be configured to be stealthy unless configured for the air superiority role (which should be done by a real air superiority fighter), mark my words, it won't be cost effective to operate (initial price tag WILL go up, no part commonality with other aircraft on the deck, stealth isn't cheap to maintain, requires thrust vectoring engine to gain it's agility) Maintenance crews won't be as familiar with it (most F/A-18 maintenance actions are similar if not the same between A/B/C/D's and E/F's including engine similarity) and until I see it, I'm not going to believe that it's combat radius is as good as Super Hornet's (internal fuel capacity is yet to be determined).

**jgetti** · 21 Apr 05,, 22:08

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I always take active duty officers comments with a grain of salt(whether they support my opinion or not), because of the political realities of being an officer in the US military.

Interesting viewpoint, I'll keep that in mind.

**BenRoethig** · 21 Apr 05,, 22:17

Originally Posted by jgetti

Yea,,, no one's (at least not me) argueing that Super Hornet is a better platform than the Tomcat,, because they were originally designed for two different missions. The F-14 was designed to be an interceptor and the Super Hornet wasn't. I guess you could say my support for Super Hornet isn't because I think it's the right plane for primary fleet defence/air superiority mission, but because it's an outstanding aircraft that's getting a bad rap for being forced into the wrong role. People running it down calling it the 'Stupid Bug' and 'The biggest mistake the USN ever made' and I totally disagree. It IS being compared to the F-14 because the Navy's putting it in that role,, and since it doesn't have some of the capabilities of the Tomcat, lots of people are calling it a hunk of crap.

I absolutely think Super Hornet should be on every aircraft carrier deck replacing the jets it was DESIGNED to replace. I also absolutely think that a new platform better suited to fill the shoes of the Tomcat also be on the deck. Finally, I don't think JSF should be anywhere close to a carrier deck. You don't need two lightweight fighters on a carrier,, that's just rediculous. People say JSF has 360 degree sensory,,, great,, that can be incorporated on Super Hornet or an all new air superiority fighter. Then there's always the stealth arguement. Again,, save that for the air superiority fighter. A workhorse really can't be all that effective and remain stealthy. JSF on a carrier deck us just another expensive airplane that's going to be equipped with external stores to get anything accomplished which will compromise it's stealth characteristics anyway.

No, Super Hornet's no F-14,, but look how great it is at what it's SUPPOSED to be. It's extremely versatile, extremely cabable at what it was DESIGNED to do, and very cost effective. JSF on the other hand is like an SUV,, it's made to do everything, but doesn't really excel at anything. It won't be configured to be stealthy unless configured for the air superiority role (which should be done by a real air superiority fighter), mark my words, it won't be cost effective to operate (no part commonality with other fleet aircraft, stealth isn't cheap to maintain, requires thrust vectoring engine to gain it's agility) Maintenance crews won't be as familiar with it (most F/A-18 maintenance actions are similar if not the same between A/B/C/D's and E/F's including engine similarity) and until I see it, I'm not going to believe that it's combat radius is as good as Super Hornet's (internal fuel capacity is yet to be determined).

I agree. The Navy should take its JSF funding and use it towards an aircraft that the Navy really needs. In my view, the Navy is just picking up part of the Air Force's tab.

**Bill** · 21 Apr 05,, 22:53

The F-35C is a lot better suited as an interceptor than the F-18F(in no small part because of it's stealth and supercruise), but it's still no F-14D.

I don't honestly know where the USN would even BEGIN to find the money for an honest to goodness fleet defender unless they decided to retain and modernize the F-14Ds and some of the F-14A+s they have(which AINT gonna happen sadly).