F-14D Tomcat vs. F/18 E/F Super Hornet

Flight Journal Magazine ^ | February 2002 Issue | Bob Kress and RADM Gilchrist USN (Ret)

[El Sordo]

A bump for Bombcats.

Doin' the Super-Hornet Dip!

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Great article.

Let's see if the govt is smart or dumb on the next order??

Chicagofarmer

[dis.kevin]

The Navy should have never let the A-6 go. That was the best medium attack all weather aircraft ever produced.

[stainlessbanner]

Bump for the JSF!

[WhiskeyPapa]

Wasn't the A/F-18 almost dropped during development because of its lack of legs? And isn't the F-18 a development of the F-17 from the mid-70's? It's impossible to kill these lousy aircraft programs. Don't start me on the Osprey.

And not only that--but I think F-18's are pretty homely, especially compared to an F-14.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

In 1975, an A-7 Corsair II was mounted on a pedestal outside the now closed Navy Master Jet Base, Cecil Field, Florida. On the base of the pedestal was a large bronze plaque bearing the inscription: “The main battery of the fleet.”

There used to a plastic kit of the A7 marketed that called it "The fist of the fleet."

But wasn't the A7 a disappointment also?

Walt

[Southack]

[topher]

Wasn't the A/F-18 almost dropped during development because of its lack of legs? And isn't the F-18 a development of the F-17 from the mid-70's? It's impossible to kill these lousy aircraft programs. Don't start me on the Osprey.

And not only that--but I think F-18's are pretty homely, especially compared to an F-14.

Northrup developed the F/17 in the 1970's. It was the prototype for the F/18. The original is in an naval air museum (or was in the mid 1980s). That was in Pensacola, Florida.

There can be a lot of politics around military procurement.

[Poohbah]

The Navy did NOT want a single-engine fighter (the F-16), based on their experience in Vietnam. Twin-engine aircraft made it home with engine damage--while their single-engine brethren with the same damage went down.

[Poohbah]

This whole piece ignores the (extremely substantial) costs of RDT&Eing a new Tomcat, and it wouldn't enter the fleet until 2012 at the earliest.

Once again, NAVAIR partisans push for an airplane that the budget will not support. Didn't we learn our lesson with the A-12?

[Blueflag]

the author spends a lot of good time defending his point, which is well made. He speaks of the area AND radius of influence. (dropping by 23%) What he doesn't appear to talk about as well is the loss of the Phoenix AAM along with the Tomcat. The "Slammer" is a fine missile, but it doesn't have the range or punch of a Phoenix. Also, I understand a modern vectored thrust aircraft can defeat any Slammer the pilot sees in time. Not so with the Phoenix.

Emotionally, I love the Tomcat, and it is definitely the 'baddest' looking aircraft when viewed nose on and loaded out. If the Buf can fly for 50 years, fo can the Tomcat.

[Poohbah]

The Navy should have never let the A-6 go. That was the best medium attack all weather aircraft ever produced.

The Navy had a choice between procuring the A-6F, and RDT&Eing the A-12. They chose the latter, and drove it straight into the ground.

Also, when the A-12 contractual default judgement is finally charged to the Navy, it will wipe out the entire year's Naval Aviation funding line and then some.

[Blueflag]

Can't argue with the financials, but can the bean counters justify downgrading EVERY CAG in the fleet? What's the justification for that?

Unless of course the Super Hornet can be made truly Super.

[Poohbah]

Also, I understand a modern vectored thrust aircraft can defeat any Slammer the pilot sees in time. Not so with the Phoenix.

Two points: first, the Slammer is MUCH harder to see than the Phoenix is. Second, if the pilot is good enough to beat the Slammer, he WILL beat the Phoenix: it's not a dogfight missile, it was designed to splash large bombers. It's not especially maneuverable.

[Poohbah]

We get the aircraft we can afford. Or we get no aircraft. Those are your choices. Congress is unwilling to fund anything as expensive as the Super-Duper Tomcat would be.

The Navy needs to build a Common Support Aircraft to replace the C-2, E-2, and S-3. If they do not, then the aircraft carrier is going to become irrelevant--because it will become just another set of TACAIR strike/fighter birds, just like the Air Force, only more expensive. NAVAIR needs to develop unique capabilities that nobody else does--or NAVAIR is going to disappear.

[pfflier]

Northrup developed the F/17 in the 1970's. It was the prototype for the F/18.

Truth be known, the YF-17 lost a competitive flyoff to the F-16 as the lightweight fighter compliment to the F-15. The Air Force rated it second best 30 years ago

[GallopingGhost]

We get the aircraft we can afford. Or we get no aircraft. Those are your choices. Congress is unwilling to fund anything as expensive as the Super-Duper Tomcat would be.

Would that be the $100M F-22 or the $60M JSF?

[Blueflag]

I agree-- just depends upon what mission the flight is sent up for. If the mission is fleet defense, the Super Hornet just won't cut it when it comes to flying CAP. "Fighters" seeking ACM aren't a direct threat to the fleet. It's the missile carrying 'bombers' that are, and we want them splashed before they get in range. The Phoenix was designed for just that mission, and while the SOVIET threat is gone, the ALCM threat is as real as ever in Asia. An F-14D carrying Phoenix, AND AIM-7s AND AIM-9s AND 20MM is a better fleet defense and CAP platform than the F-18X. Why kill it except for finances? (BTW, I honestly don't buy the argument about the F-18 being insufficient for air-mud).

Question for you -- the flight profile of a Phoenix, as I understand it, is to fly very high above an approaching aircraft and plummet down on it at very high speed and frag with a wide lethality cone, whereas the Slammer is more hunt-you-and-kill-you, and can be physically evaded and defeated. Why do you think the Phoenix in actual use is easier (for a missile carrying platform)to evade?

[TaxMe]

Isn't the newly awarded Lockheed JSF scheduled to replace both the F14 and F18? If so, why not a comparison of the JSF's capabilities vs. the F14. Perhaps the JSF is too early in development to make any reasonable comparisons. Thoughts anyone?