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.
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?