Sure, US supercarriers used to deploy with 90-aircraft airwings.
But how many of those aircraft were maintenance hogs that spent a LOT of time in the hangar being fixed? I read somewhere that the F/A-18E/Fs have much lower maintence requirements than the F-14s did. The F-14 was a better all around plane in terms of performance, but had only something like 1/2 the sortie rate of the SuperBug.
IIRC it used to be that carrier squadrons took a plane or two each along on deployments as “hangar queens” that would sit in the hangar and be cannibalized for parts to keep the other ones flying. The F-14D in the Smithsonian (VF-31 Iraqi Freedom veteran, among other things) was just such a plane: it still has a campaign ribbon painted on it’s nose that reads “I Gave So Others Could Fly” ...
“But how many of those aircraft were maintenance hogs that spent a LOT of time in the hangar being fixed? I read somewhere that the F/A-18E/Fs have much lower maintence requirements than the F-14s did.”
Don’t tell me about ‘hangar queens’. Comparing yr 2000+ Hornets to mid 90’s Tomcats or Intruders is like comparing WWII Jeeps to Humvees. I was an Intruder Aviation Maintenance Officer. We went > 100 days deployed without going off-ship with a part requisition. Now Naval Aviation is whining about their Hornet E/Fs being worn out. Just get the job done, and stop bitching.
The readiness rates of all aircraft to down with age. The legacy hornet guys that made fun of Tomcat guys are now being made fun of by Super Hornet guys. I am sure Tomcat guys made fun of F-4 guys, who made fun of F-8 guys.