[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Sec Def Dick Cheney pulled the plug on the F-14, but the F-18 is, and was, a boondoggle. How many full developments does it represent?

1. F-17
2. F-18
3. F-14E/F (actually a whole new plane)

Just for the F-18 development money we could have continued building the F-14 for another twenty years.

[JCEccles]

I can well understand the strong emotional attachment many have to the F-14 Tomcat, but I find it difficult to believe that the A/F-18 Superhornet is as inferior to it as is being made out here.

Reliability and ease of maintenance are touted as strong pluses in the Superhornet's favor, and it is by no means a dog in the air.

Then there is the compatibility issue vis a via the disparate Navy and Marine roles (fleet defense versus CAS). It is far more costly to have to field and maintain two different airframes and weapon systems. As I understand it, the A/F-18 does both roles well rather than one role outrageously well, and the other mediocre.

These are the kinds of considerations that go into making a decision to choose a weapons system (unless we're talking about the Air Force when Darlene Druyan ran things).

I too think the F-14 is one incredibly impressive-to-look-at aircraft. The first time saw one up close and personal at an airshow, the experience raised the hair on the back of my neck. Looking at it on tarmac, its wings swept back, I had the weird and unsettling impression that the thing was alive, crouching in majestic silence, waiting to uncoil world-destroying destructive force at the mere whisper of a command.

[HamiltonJay]

Just for the F-18 development money we could have continued building the F-14 for another twenty years.

And lost air superiority (and a lot of pilots lives) in combat. 35 years is a good run, no way this one was going to reach an operational age of 55 years) but this bird belongs to history now.