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

**Praxus** · 17 Oct 03,, 20:27

The F-14D should be compared with the F-15, Su-30MKK, and Rafale.

The Eurofighter and the F/A-22 are in entirely different clases. Considering the F/A-22 raptor and the Su-30MKK in the same class when the F/A-22 scored a kill to death ratio of 10 to 1 against it, is redicuslus. The Eurofighter scored 4 to 1 in tests.

**Bill** · 18 Oct 03,, 05:33

I don't trust those computer sims a whole lot.

But the SU-30MkI is the closest thing in the sky to the F-22, hence using it as an example.

At any rate, the F-18E/F would have it's hands more than full against any of the planes i listed, including the F-14D.

**Praxus** · 18 Oct 03,, 14:07

I don't trust those computer sims a whole lot.

But the SU-30MkI is the closest thing in the sky to the F-22, hence using it as an example.

At any rate, the F-18E/F would have it's hands more than full against any of the planes i listed, including the F-14D.

Actually the closest thing to the F/A-22 was the Su-37 but I believe it was cancled and even this does not match the F/A-22.

As for the F-18E/F having trouble with any of these planes and F-14D. Well that is an understatement. Good thing the JSF will be fully replacing these POS's by 2015.

**Bill** · 18 Oct 03,, 15:22

The SU-30MkI is the one with the 3d vectored thrust, phased array radar, Western avionics and ECM, and Israeli weapons.

The SU-37 has all russian components and weapons. I'd say that makes the MkI the more dangerous of the two.

**Praxus** · 18 Oct 03,, 15:28

Whatever, but you get my point that there isn't any Aircraft in the same class as F/A-22 and EF2000.

**Bill** · 19 Oct 03,, 06:49

The F-22 is in a league of it's own.

The EF2000 is just another Eurocanard. It is not as manueverable as the SU-30MkI, and lacks the LR engagement of the F-14.

It's basicly a Rafale shaped a little differently with a better radar, IMO. I'd put the Gripen right there with the both of them.

**Praxus** · 19 Oct 03,, 14:11

:LOL :LOL

**Bill** · 19 Oct 03,, 17:53

You are entitled to your opinion, but feel free to explain how the EF is better than the Rafale or Gripen, besides in it's sensors.

**Praxus** · 19 Oct 03,, 18:33

It isn't, I just wanted to post some smiles

**Bill** · 20 Oct 03,, 08:36

LOL, roger that.

**Visigoth** · 14 Nov 04,, 21:39

Well the JSF may replace the F-16 with similiar capabilities but the F-14,is this some kind of joke?Losing the F-14 may indeed change the scenario for a carrier battle group say in an engagement with the chinese.It has something none of the other aircraft posess;long range,high speed,loitering capability and the Phoenix missile.Its all about force projection,defense of the battle group ats far out as possible.While F-18 and new E/F are good aircraft they do not replace the F-14,to assume its role obsolete and throw a bunch of single engined bomb trucks on board is incredibly stupid and naive.Just because Russia no longer presents a mass attack wave threat,what do you guys think China has been up to lately.Let me enlighten you ,their doctrine calls for taking out an american carrier,they have both the sukhoi aircraft and the moskit missile.Cheapest fix short term would be to build new F-14D or navalised F-15,keep the hornets as strike force and forget about JSF,way to costly for little value.

**Franco Lolan** · 15 Nov 04,, 00:57

thats what it seems like

**Bill** · 15 Nov 04,, 08:29

Until the F-35C is introduced the USN will be very vulnerable to stand-off saturation missile attacks(although those types of systems have their own problems, and are actually very difficult to target accurately in an OTH engagement), and will rely almost entirely on the ESSM and Aegis air defense systems.

F-35C in some ways is actually a better platform for fleet defense than the F-14D....but it still lacks the punch of the Phoenix, so it will still have limitations.

**jgetti** · 12 Jan 05,, 19:57

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Until the F-35C is introduced the USN will be very vulnerable to stand-off saturation missile attacks(although those types of systems have their own problems, and are actually very difficult to target accurately in an OTH engagement), and will rely almost entirely on the ESSM and Aegis air defense systems.

F-35C in some ways is actually a better platform for fleet defense than the F-14D....but it still lacks the punch of the Phoenix, so it will still have limitations.

I work with a lot of guys on the Superhornet program when I'm not supporting F-15. It was never INTENDED to replace the F-14. You can blame that on pentagon bean counters. It's just available now when nothing else is, and the entire F-14 fleet is way past their design life with skyrocketing maintenance costs, so they're buying the hell out of Superhornets. The Superhornet was always intended to be an upgrade to the Hornet (From McDonnell Douglas's point of view).

In that respect, it is a much better aircraft than the Hornet,, it finally has the legs that the Navy wanted with the original Hornet, can carry greater payload, has room for lots of future growth internally, has a lower RCS due to moderate geometry stealthing and increased use of composites, buddy refueling capability, and is capable of carrying the APG-79 AESA radar (going into the planes soon). Not to mention the MMHPFH (mean maintenance hours per flight hour) are way lower on the Superhornet than for any other aircraft flying. They cost nothing to maintain, and unlike the F-14 fleet, the combat readiness is near 100% right now. Additionally, they share some part commonality with A-D Hornets and contain 40% fewer parts which lowers the fleet spares costs. That's why they're replacing the F-14,, NOT because they were ever designed to be a replacement.

What the Navy should have done was bailed out of the JSF program a long time ago (another bean-counter brain fart) and continued with NATF, a REAL replacement for the F-14, and let the Superhornets replace the Hornet, A-6, EA-6B(for additional fleet support savings). They could have kept all their capabilities with two basic aircraft platforms, Superhornet and NATF, with reduced fleet support costs. Instead, they opted to buy two aircraft that were always intended to replace the Hornet/A-6 in the JSF/Superhornet, and nothing to replace F-14. Not real wise.

**Bill** · 12 Jan 05,, 20:02

The D model Tomcats are still pretty new planes, and did not have nearly as many problems as the A and A+ did, but they were still very expensive to maintain.

If the navy had gone ahead with the NATF they'd probably be staring at a unit cost of 300 million each right about now...

For the life of me, i don't know why the USN didn't just integrate the Phoenix into the F-18F.