Is this from war-gammers / stats talking? Because I know guys on the ground were begging for F-14 Bombcats over 18's until the day they left the PG. That's no BS. (and hell, that isn't even what the 14's were built for! Yet they were doing it better then 18s). I will say I've heard mostly nothing but good things regarding the 18F's.
On another side note? Are 18's really considered more successful in the F/A role then 15E's?
The early F-18’s had difficulty with unguided munitions, the pylons caused trajectory perturbations that gave them poor CEP. Fixed with later deisgns and better munitions.
The Hornet has more combat time than the Eagle. My comment merely reflects the combat experience difference of the two aircraft. My comment may also be dated. This was certainly true a few years ago. Of late, both have gained lots of combat hours. The Hornet still has more Air-to-air experience in combat. But there hasn’t been much of that since 91
BS once again. As pictured below the Tomcat was designed as a fleet air defender/bomb hauler from the get go; carrying up to 18 Mk82s if desired. That's one of the major reason why the Marine Corps reluctantly agreed to buy 70 of them, not to help keep the per plane cost down as the Navy wanted. The Navy chose not to utilize the strike capability for a couple of reasons. First they'd have to explain to congress why their expensive FAD platform was being used to haul bombs when they already had much cheaper A-6s, A-7s and F-4s doing that and until it was clear that the Intruder was indeed dead and the Hornet demonstrated that it did not have adequate range for long range strike there was no need.