Ok, all of this may or not be true, and I appreciate the range of insights and opinions on the matter, but now we're heading back down the path of rehashing the old thread and argument. Not to be disrespectful, but I think we know, after reading this and other threads, where everyone stands on the question of the relative virtue of the Tomcat vs the Hornet. My question is: in the few remaining years left of service with the F-14, do you think the prospects of seeing the Tomcat upgraded with amraam are realistic or not, and if we see a situation in which Tomcat pilots end up going into battle ill prepared in the air to air role and with resulting losses, how many heads at Navair and the Pentagon are going to roll? Does anyone know any Tomcat pilots and understand how THEY feel directly on the matter?

I think the AMRAAM upgrade would require a MIL-STD-1760 databus if I'm not mistaken. No way that's gonna happen as such an upgrade was already rejected once before back in 1996. It is doubtful whether this will have any meaningful effect on fleet operations. The last Tomcat squadrons will have disbanded within 5 years. We already have Tomcat free airwings at sea now. Those Tomcat's still extant will also be supported by AMRAAM equipped Hornet's anyway for the limited air threat they are likely to face. Since Tomcat's have been relegated to bomb-trucks for the most part in recent years, the chance for air-to-air combat for them would be rare at any rate. Irregardless of all that, America's C3I dominance is more important than any missile in air combat anyway. As a practical matter, adding AMRAAM capability to a platform that is being withdrawn from service and is unlikely to be used in air-to-air engagements anyway is probably unsound.

The only reason the hornet has amassed a superior combat record is that it's been FAVORED by the navy leadership. It has no inherent, air frame based advantages over the F-14, other than maybe dogfighting. The F-14 can carry a larger payload, detect enemy aircraft at a greater range, and fly a great deal faster and further than either the F-18c or the superhornet. The navy should have built a strike tomcat instead of the superhornet. Just look at the difference in capability between an F-16 and an F-15E. Bigger planes make better bombers.

This will bring us back into the dreaded "Tomcat vs. Hornet" debate, but at least it will do so with useful information, instead of blanket statements implying the USN had a bias against the F-14 (patently untrue BTW). Rather than randomly picking out one or two (possibly minor) capabilities and declaring a winner like most people as is so often the case with this issue, lets think big picture. First, a little history to get everyone on the same page. At the height of the Cold War a typical Carrier Air Wing (there were variations) might have 24 F-14A/B interceptors, 24 F/A-18A/B light strike fighters, 10 A-6E long range night/all-weather strike aircraft plus 20 or so odd supporting aircraft. By 1990 the A-6E was getting very old and hard to maintain. It was also slow and not very agile making it vulnerable. Instead of new build A-6F's the Navy decided on an all-new replacement for the A-6 around 1988 called the A-12. This horribly mismanaged program however, died mercifully in 1991 leading to a requirement for an alternate long-range strike fighter which became first the A-X and later the A/F-X program. This died in 1993. Meanwhile back at the ranch, there was also a need to replace the now-aging F-14 Tomcat's and this resulted in NATF - a Naval equivilant to what became the Air Force's F-22. It died too. By this time the Navy had already committed to a longer ranged advanced Hornet derivative as an interim type and by default this aircraft - what we know today as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (referred to as SH from now on) became the de-facto replacement for the already retiring A-6's and the soon-to-retire early model Hornets and eventually all Tomcats. With time lost due to the failure of prior programs, upgrading an existing aircraft was the only practical solution on both cost and timescale grounds. Question is, was the Hornet derivative the right aircraft? To the Hornet-haters there was only one obvious choice - the Tomcat. Believe it or not, the Tomcat was looked at and rejected. Why? Let's find out. To the Tomcat crowd the Hornet and SH can not carry A-6 payloads A-6 distances. They also lack the range and super-long-range BVR capability of the F-14 which thus, so far as they are concerned automatically makes the Hornet and SH inferior. Almost invariably the entire arguement against the SH boils down to these arguements. But why? Are these factors really that important? A more detailed examination of the issue suggests not. Now granted, the F-14 is dead-sexy and for for 2-decades it dominated carrier air wings with much more glamour and perceived importance than the lowly “light strike fighter” Hornets. It was in all the PR campaigns and recruiting posters. Movies were made featuring it. All the attention culminating in a very large, powerful and influential "F-14 Mafia". Why the Tomcat was considered so important is a little hard to grasp when looked at objectivley since it is ostensibly a defensive weapon system deployed on a platform (the carrier) that is primarily offensively oriented. But nevertheless, the F-14 without question ruled carrier decks in the 70's and 80's. So much for the idea that the Hornet was a favored aircraft, but I digress... The Tomcat's job during the Cold War was to defend the carrier from attack by swarms of Soviet Tu–22M bombers armed with long range AS-6 anti-ship missiles. The F-14/AWG-9/AIM-54 combination was the only thing going that could defend against this threat, which required intercpetion as much as 4-500 miles out from the CVBG. While the true very effectiveness of the Tomcat's very long range AWG-9/APG-71/Pheonix weapon system has become the subject of considerable doubt, one thing that is not is that the threat it was designed for no longer exists. Today’s naval emphasis is in the littorals where the most likely air threat to the carrier is a small number of strike-fighter aircraft armed with an Exocet type weapon. Against this threat the SH is probably superior to the F-14 thus the SH is the more appropriate aircraft to the needs of today. In other words, the threat has changed and the means of addressing that threat should change with it. Yes it is true that AMRAAM can not match the "brochure" range of Pheonix, at least not in current versions (future updates could potentially shoot further than AIM-54), it is widely regarded as a more effective weapon and coupled to APG-65/73 - widely regarded as the best current-generation fighter radars in the world - makes for a formidable deterrent to today's likely threats. No current Tomcat can not carry AMRAAM, limiting them to the old and questionable AIM-7 and AIM-54. How exactly is this better in air-to-air combat? The now-retired A-6 was of course no fighter. It was the Navy's premier night/all-weather strike aircraft. The Hornet can, with its SAR ground mapping radar and FLIR strike at night and in bad weather, just not with as many weapons and as fa

bloody hell, after typing all of that, have you got any fingers left?? ;)

I mostly just copied and pasted from a previous post anyway, and I'm a reasonable typist.

I guess the main problem that I have with the superhornet is not that the navy opted for it over the F-14. It's their willingness to sacrifice funds from the F-35 program. The cuts in navy/marine air power were handled all the wrong way in my opinion. Instead of cutting both programs, particularly the F-35, they should have just canceled the remainder of the superhornet purchases. At best, they should have bought just enough superhornets to ensure sufficient aircraft would be available until the F-35 program came online. But, it seems, at the very least they will end up with 460 superhornets. Four hundred and sixty planes that cannot stand up to Su-27/30s, Ef2000s, or Rafales. I see your point, however, about the F-18 being the better choice. I wasn't trying to imply that avionics were a secondary issue. Merely that an F-14E, or whatever designation would be given to a later model, could be outfitted with the same systems as the superhornet, while retaining greater range, speed, and payload. However, the navy will never spend what I would like it to spend. For my money, the best program is the one that draws the least funds away from the F-35. I'd have just bought more F-18cs, if anything.

Well the original purchase was intended for 1,000 airframes. The decline in procurement coincided with a decline in the number of deployable carriers (now at just 11) and Air Wings (10 IIRC) making the number of aircraft the SH was intended to replace smaller. Now last I checked we had no plans to go to war with NATO so the odds of air-to-air combat with Rafale's and Typhoons in anything other than computer games seems rather remote. When you check the TO&E's of nations around the world you find the "Sukhoi threat" more imagined than real as well. Given the timing and available funding what we have is probably more than sufficient. BTW More F-18C's would definately have been a non-starter. The additional range, payload, and bringback capability alone justify the Super Hornet.

"Now last I checked we had no plans to go to war with NATO so the odds of air-to-air combat with Rafale's and Typhoons in anything other than computer games seems rather remote." I've never been one to count on alliances to keep us out of wars. There could certainly be something to european anti-Americanism. However, if Euro-American tensions never come to a head in the entire rest of history (pretty doubtful), both the Eurofighter and Rafale are available for export. The way I see it, we have two options here, we can prepare for the best, or prepare for the worst. "When you check the TO&E's of nations around the world you find the "Sukhoi threat" more imagined than real as well. Given the timing and available funding what we have is probably more than sufficient." Counting on the status quo is a mistake. The chinese already have 200 Su-27/30s. At least two hundred more in the works. Even the most moderate observer would probably agree that the chances of China becoming entirely hostile to the United States are far from remote. "More F-18C's would definately have been a non-starter. The additional range, payload, and bringback capability alone justify the Super Hornet. " Why not just save funds and load five squadrons to each carrier instead of the current four? I don't think anything that keeps us from having an all F-35 carrier force by 2020 or so is really justified. The F-18e/f is just as slow, just as visible to radar, and almost as mediocre in air to air combat as the F-18c/d. Where is the sense in wasting a great deal of money on something that is, at best, an interim solution, when a permanent one is only a few years away?

Have to disagree JJFS. "Counting on the status quo is a mistake. The chinese already have 200 Su-27/30s. At least two hundred more in the works." Well they have the parts for them at least. They did buy 36 one-seat Su-27SK and 12 two-seat Su-27UB from russa in 1992. By the end of 2000 Shenyang had not assembled any Su- 27SK fighters of the 200 permitted under the terms of the contract. So it ain't as bad as some make it out to be. The chinese are having maint and training problems. More complicated and expensive to operate than they are use to. The same goes for the SU-30s they have (70 something). Of the 15-20 J-11s, most have gone to replace lost 27s vice filling new squadrons. The number of losses up to 2000 has been somewhere around 17. As for e/f having the same radar profile, slower, worse a to a. Has same radar profile as F-16 from the front. Less than 14 or 18C E/F has 2 more weapon stations, is only .1mach slower (1.6 e/f va 1.7 c) can carry 4 thousand lbs more ord. According to the navy the Super Hornet cost per flight hour is 40% of the F-14 Tomcat and requires 75% less labor hours per flight hour. Load 5 squadrons insead of 4. Where you gonna put them and their gear. Plus your gonna starve my squid buddies in the chowline.