F-14 Tomcat vs the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Thread

[+Dave 2,322]

Ok fellas argue until you turn blue in the faces. Just keep to the facts and no name calling...you Turkeys......

[DWCAce 19]

The fact is, the Tom looked bad ass... because it was! :)

 

'Cats rule, Hornets drool'.

 

Ok, I'll be getting those facts now. :)

[+Crusader 2,082]

[Guest Saganuay82]

Fact of life boys, the Tomcat is only in the movies and Top Gun Tom cruise fame now. May as well get over it.

[DWCAce 19]

Ouch!

[HrntFixr 4]

Most Tomcat fans never had to work on them. If you did..... your tune would most likely change.

[+Crusader 2,082]

Hornet has no fame at all... better movie fame than no fame...

 

[herman01 0]

The Hornet is much more verstile and has much newer Electronics package so it has my vote. Plus the Tomcat I know from talking to squids had engine problems for the longest time.

[Guest Saganuay82]

Yes I guess when Tom Cruise can say that he sat in one and pretended to fly it in a movie and that is all that is left now blows the Hornet away.

[+Crusader 2,082]

Tom Cruise? whos that ? sounds like a dog food brand.

 

TOM CRUISE!!

buy NOW.

VERY cheap

ONLY 1000$ per lb.

The best for your Dog!!!1

Much better than the Lat!v!aN Bo0TLeg eEL!S !!!!1

 

Tomcat has a "is cool" factor bonus of 99900000000000000 + X

 

minimum.

 

[eraser_tr 29]

Except that the tomcat was very versatile. I read that it actually outperformed the superhornet in A2G roles. IIRC in a side by side comparison between the flanker, her and the bug, it had longer range without fuel tanks than the bug did with tanks, it could carry a heavier bomb load, by far more thrust, comparable to the flankers thrust to weight ratio. The only advantages the bug has is maintenance and electronics because the old airframes of the tomcats. Both could easily be rectified if the Tomcat program wasn't cancelled, or was restarted.

 

Think, if they replaced her electronics, made her with stealthier, lighter, composite materials the bug, raptor and JSF are made from and gave her thrust vectoring nozzles. The kind f performance she'd have MKIs and Su-37s running at the sight of her. They probably would simply ignore the superbug as a non threat.

 

Ferraris and Lamborghinis are maintenance hell compared to a Honda Civic or Toyotta Corolla, but you don't see FIA GT teams using them now do you? Because the pasta rockets have better acceleration, higher top speeds, better handling, because they perform better on the racetrack, not because they're cheap or easy to maintain.

 

The only performance the bug has over the tomcat is manueverability, but without the speed or acceleration to back that up, agility alone is useless, especially when its only advantage over its predecessor is still inferior to the opposition.

 

Who really expected it to replace a heavy interceptor designed to shoot down aircraft, with a plane developed from a light ground attack plane which originally lost a competition for an airforce contract and do the same job well?

 

For an A-6, A-7 and F/A-18A/C replacement its just perfect. But we might as well fly brewster buffaloes for air defence and superiority.

Edited October 13, 2007 by eraser_tr

[+SkippyBing 8]

Think, if they replaced her electronics, made her with stealthier, lighter, composite materials the bug, raptor and JSF are made from and gave her thrust vectoring nozzles.

 

And if they did all that it'd qualify as a new airframe which'd cost millions more to certify and sign off on. Hell you could do the same to a Phantom, give it new electronics, make it out of kevlar and stick in some F404s with thrust vectoring. The fact is the 'Cat cost sh**loads to maintain and it's primary role isn't a major player at the moment. Sure it could do A2G but it cost more than a Hornet for the same effect. In an ideal world you'd have both but at the end of the day there's a limited budget, and right now spending that on A2A makes no sense.

[ironroad 218]

And if they did all that it'd qualify as a new airframe which'd cost millions more to certify and sign off on. Hell you could do the same to a Phantom, give it new electronics, make it out of kevlar and stick in some F404s with thrust vectoring. The fact is the 'Cat cost sh**loads to maintain and it's primary role isn't a major player at the moment. Sure it could do A2G but it cost more than a Hornet for the same effect. In an ideal world you'd have both but at the end of the day there's a limited budget, and right now spending that on A2A makes no sense.

 

Lol the did it with the hornet by adding "super". If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies the same speed a duck, has the payload of a humming bird, and has the range of a bumble bee...

 

Long live the intruder...errghmm I mean Tomcat!

 

If you makes you feel any better the hornet "looks" fast.

[eraser_tr 29]

Ferraris and Lamborghinis are maintenance hell compared to a Honda Civic or Toyotta Corolla, but you don't see FIA GT teams using them now do you? Because the pasta rockets have better acceleration, higher top speeds, better handling, because they perform better on the racetrack, not because they're cheap or easy to maintain.

 

See my maintenance and performance analogy. If you want performacen, pay for it. Or not pay for it with our lovely deficit spending . Really, with the largest defense budget in the world, we can afford to keep such an excellent aircraft. With an excess of $400,000,000,000 spent on defense, you don't go to war with the army you have, you go to war with the army you'd like to have.

 

Sure it could do A2G but it cost more than a Hornet for the same effect.

No, for a better effect. Superior payload and range on the cat, I doubt the difference in electronics between the Cat and bug were worth the loss of both.

 

The heart of the matter is the Boeing/MDD lobbyists were friendlier with the people who made the decision.

[Hooah! 0]

As a Canadian, I must say I feel pride every time I see a CF188A/B, and whenever I see any F/A-18 I check to see if it's got the Maple Leaf roundel on the side. But I always have a feeling that we should have gotten an F-14 with ground attack capabilitys. Oh well. My vote still goes to the Tomcat though. I've never seen Topgun so it;s not that. I just think the Tomcat walks the talk better then the Family Model Super Hornet or anything else. Put an F-22 vs. a F-14, I'd put everything I own on the Tomcat. I think the USN has compramised their carriers by relying on the Hornets for defence, and I also think there are too many eggs in the basket labled F/A-18

[Guest Saganuay82]

 

Costs too much.

 

LOL, it's got bombs on it.

 

 

 

What we were supposed to be in was the Tornado. I do believe I read in a CANMIL magazine that we had evaluated the A-7 and the F-14 at one point. Then we ended up with CF-5s somehow.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Saganuay82

[Hooah! 0]

Yeah, it would cost too much now, but I still think we should have jumped on board way back...

by the way, nice pics, I like those

[Caesar 305]

Had the Navy gone with the Quickstrike Tomcat, they'd have finally had an adequate replacement for the A-6 in terms of strike load and range, they would have had an equivalent in strike capacity to the Strike Eagle, and it would have been a highly advanced, cutting edge piece of machinery, as it would have been a new build frame with the latest avionics and electronics suites.

 

Buuuuuuuuuuuut...

 

IIRC, at that cost, it would have also been a very limited buy, and in the big picture, cut capability just based on limited numbers. If anything, a continued "D" buy would have been a better choice than going with the Super Bug, considering that even the decades-old "A" had been doing a stellar job at the strike role, and the Tomcat kept getting upgrades up to and including its last cruise.

 

As for maintenance, this summer I came to learn at my FTU that the Strike Eagle averages 70hrs/flight hr, compared to the worst Cat's 50hr/flthr, and that the legacy Bugs are catching up. As airframes age, they take longer to maintain. Newer 'Cat buys to replace the old frames could have cut that time down.

 

Still, all of this is a moot point, as, if you want to see a 'Cat now, it'll either be a shell or in the hands of Iran. Do I think we should have gone with more 'Cats? Damn straight. Did we? No.

[eraser_tr 29]

If its any consolation I will most certainly retire the bug and give the navy a new cat during my administration.

 

Lentine-Koppe '28

[Caesar 305]

Haha, I'd support you for that, but by 2028 that 'Cat would have to have one hell of a face lift! (Probably look like that navalized F-22, the NATF everyone was talkin' bout.)

[eraser_tr 29]

Like I said, new cat.

 

Of course someone may come along and take up an advanced tomcat program before then should a serious air threat emerge. Our economic love for China is dying and without that, they become an enemy superpower and its back to the old days.

[Talos 0]

I loved the Tomcat growing up, always wanted to fly her. In fact, if it wasn't for my eyes not being up to par, I'd have signed up to try to be a naval aviator.

 

In a kind of a tribute to the Turkey as she retired, I drew up a design, incorporating parts and stylings from the VF-0 and even the Su-30MK. I posted this last month in my albumn here, thought you guys in this thread might like it. The wing on the bottom one is a delta with end plates, fyi, that's why it looks different.

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...si&img=3976

[+Dave 2,322]

My Tomcat can sweep its wings... can your SH do that?

[+Spectre_USA 7]

Sorry, but we interrupt this Naval tomfoolery for a commercial break;

 

105 to ZERO

 

 

And now back to your regularly scheduled Nasal Radiators...

[bucklehead101 29]

TOMCATS FOREVER BABY!

Edited October 14, 2007 by bucklehead101