[conservatism_IS_compassion]

As a flight test engineer I knew some test pilots, and one in particular liked to talk. Don described the F-111 as "a fine airplane--as long as you didn't get in it thinking it was a fighter!" It was the first successful swing-wing aircraft--but notwithstanding its "F" designation it couldn't get out of its own way in ACM (air combat maneuvering). It was far too heavy for that. The weight went into a huge fuel capacity and a large (internal) weapon-carrying capacity. The F-111B was a failure as a carrier-based aircraft, no matter what weight-reduction measures were taken to make carrier operations practicable.

Lessons learned from the F-111B program produced the Grumman F-14 design in 1970. Long-since out of production (thanks to Dick Cheney as SecDef), the F-14 is still used because of its outstanding range and armament payload coupled with excellent maneuverability and a weight and landing speed within the capabilities of aircraft carrier catapult and arrestment facilities.

Armament includes a 20mm internal Gatling gun, and 'most any guided missile you want, including the long-range Phoenix missile. And, lately, bombs--a capacity which was designed in but for decades was not tested because the F-14 pilot community was averse to the mission. It also features a very effective air-air radar system, upgraded from the original AWG-9 which was itself top-notch for its time.

The most significant limitation of the F-14 was the fact that the development project for its intended engine was a failure. So the TF-30 Pratt&Whitney engine, intended to be installed only in the first 17 F-14 airframes, was instead employed in hundreds of them. It was about 15 years before the General Electric F110 bomber engine was modified for use in fighters and made standard for the F-14. This provided not only significantly higher thrust but reduced weight and--of comparable importance--high resistance to compressor stall over a very wide range of flight conditions. And markedly faster throttle response as well.

Because of its swing-wing design the F-14 is highly maneuverable in subsonic flight (and air combat maneuvering tends to slow down combatants to subsonic speeds) but capable of high speed at high or low altitude. No other fighter aircraft carries a wider variety of air-air ordinance, nor more weapons payload or as much internal fuel. And it operates from a carrier.

The F-18 replacement for it was initally designed as a "low-cost fighter", the F-17. The Navy refused to buy the winner of the the low-cost fighter competition, the F-16, on grounds that a single-engine design was unsuitable for Naval use. It then loaded the design with added armament capablity and designated it the F-18. But low weight naturally translated into short range, and added armament compromised maneuverability and range. With the F-14 program cancelled and its production facilities dismantled, the Navy needed a completely new aircraft.

Unable/unwilling to get approval for a new plane above-board, Navy had the F-18E/F "version" developed. Although this aircraft has the same outward appearance and the same numerical designation as earlier F-18s, neither its wings, nor its engines, nor its fuselage are common with the earlier F-18 design. After three full-scale aircraft developments, the new F-18 is a pretty good plane. But not so good that the Navy would wish for the chance to trade one of its remaining servicable F-14s for one . . .

[Pukin Dog]

You may have understated a brewing firestorm in NAVAIR regarding the Super Hornet, which showed all of it's faults during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am naturally biased, but the Tomcats both B and D were the true workhorses of that war, while the Hornets kept the S-3 tankers busy.

There is a lot of talk about reviving the Tomcat going on under the radar screen. Cheney has been proven wrong. The Tomcat is still VERY expensive to maintain and needs FBW flight controls to remove the last remaining problems in the envelope.

You get a Hornet driver alone, and they will tell you that given the choice, they would take their C/D bird over an E-F any day of the week. The survivability of the E-F is less; acceleration is less, pitch and roll rates are less, just for a little more gas and another hardpoint. The E-F is a dog that nobody wants.

A buddy of mine from VF-41 decided to get out instead of stay for the transition to Hornets. It's just too bad that no body left on the inside can say anything publically after the money has been spent. If the economy stays bad, no way will the Tomcat survive, but if things turn around soon, you may see an upgraded "F" model Tomcat if the money is there for it. The old A and B wingboxes have a 100 year life time. It could happen. It better happen soon, because the Tomcat is too expensive for just TARPS and the occasional need to drop a lot of JDAM on bad guys.