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

Super Hornet............

Well, speaking off the cuff, there is alot of things about the F-14 that the Super Hornet cannot even come close to replacing.
On the hand, the Tomcat is not getting any younger and the Navy needs planes now .
From what I've heard, pilots love flying the Hornet and the E/F variants apparently can do more than take off, circle the boat, and then have to refuel.
I've heard this and that, hemming and hawing about the Super Hornet but guess what? Perfect too late is the enemy of good enough right now.

I think the Pentagon caused a really FUBAR situation by not following the F-14D with the Tomcat 21.

Yeah, the wholesale cancellation/retirement of several aircraft types really screwed up naval aviation. I think the blame for that can be laid at the feet of the A-12 Avenger program. The cost-overruns and subsequent legal fallout of the cancellation of Avenger sucked money right out of so many programs, like the Tomcat and A-6 Intruder.

Does the F/A-18 E/F outperform the F-14 in any areas whatsoever? And if so, by how much? By alot? marginally?

Well, I've been looking through Global Security.org's information and it seems like the Tomcat is faster and has a higher ceiling, and can simultaneously target more aircraft than the Super Hornet.
I think where the Hornet shines is in it's advanced electronics, somewhat higher payload and ease of maintaining the beast. This counts for a lot, obviously.
The Hornet has gotten alot of flak since it first appeared in the early 80s and some it was justified. It's range bordered on disgraceful due to a monumental fuckup in taking the YF-17 Cobra and turning it into the -18 Hornet.
But on the other hand, it's performed well in combat, many countries have bought it, and as I said before, the Tomcat is not getting any younger. It first deployed the year I was born (1975). This is very old technology and unfortunately you can't compare it the B-52, a land -based strategic bomber . Operating an aircraft at sea is rather brutal on said aircraft. The Tomcat has served well and will continue to serve for another 6-7 years, but it's time to retire. The Hornet, for whatever shortcomings she has, is here now, can do the job and that counts for more than an empty flight deck.

The Hornet ... can do the job

I'm afraid way too many people would disagree with you on that one. Where's TT when you need him?

Look, all I can say is, the Hornet is not exactly a Brewster Buffalo. It is a capable modern strike fighter.

And eh, who is TT?

The F-14 has a longer range, longer range radar (APG-71), is faster, can attack at longer ranges (AIM-54A/C), can take more bombs over a longer range. The only thing the F/A-18E/F can do nice is act as a tanker for other short range F/A-18E/Fs. Even the agruement about the F/A-18 able to use better PGMs is lame becuase the F-14 was cleared to use many weapons such as the AGM-88, AGM-65, Walleye and AGM-84 but these were never fitted operationaly.

The F/A-18E/F actually uses the APG-73 as found on the F/A-18C/D and will gets its AESA radar by 2006 or so. Compared with a Su-30MKK which is a likely opponent the F/A-18E/F is slower, shorter ranged and carries a smaller payload. The F-14 can shot down an enemy plane at over 100 miles away in thoery and has made kills at 70 or so miles using the AIM-54A (IRIAF).

I think it's a joke like replacing the F-15E with the F-2A or something to that effect but worse.

It would be like replacing the Corsiar of WWII with the Wildcat or Brester Buffalo. The F/A-18E//F would be nice to repalce the F/A-18A/B/C/D not the F-14A/B/D.......

Agreed, the Super Hornet is certainly not the Tomcat. Unfortunately, the Tomcat is heading for the boneyard and the Super Hornet is available right now . Considering how close naval aviation came to collapsing in the 90s, the USN is pretty fortunate to have anything new on the flight decks.