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

[+Gocad 26]

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

 

105 to ZERO

 

Nobody mention the fly-off between the F-14 and F-15 in the late 1970s when the Shah was looking for a new interceptor...

 

This commercial break would carry a lot more weight if the Tomcat had been involved similar engagements as the F-15.

 

Seriously, comparisons between the Tomcat and the Super Hornet lead nowhere. It's like comparing the F-15C with the F-16E/F. And who would do that? Not me.

[+SkippyBing 8]

I've never seen Topgun

 

Heretic!

Edited October 14, 2007 by SkippyBing

[+Viggen 518]

Well since were talking about the Eagle vs. the Tomcat I'll say this. The F-14 was capable of preforming Mach 2+ on the deck. It took an extremly modified Eagle, known as the Streak Eagle" to get to the 1,650 MPH requirement for it.

 

Now back to F-14 vs. F/A-18. F-14 has the AIM-54 Phoenix. Super Hornet has....?

Edited May 15, 2008 by JA 37 Viggen

[eraser_tr 29]

AMRAAMs. One missile isn't quite enough to justify an aircraft

 

I too wanted to sign up and fly her.

[FOTF 0]

what the hell is a tombat?

[eraser_tr 29]

what the hell is a tombat?

 

A tomcat fitted specifically for night operations?

[+drdoyo 2]

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

 

Sorry to disagree Saganuay Don't forget the 'news'

 

as good as my memory is here goes....

 

"The bogy has junked back into me for the 3rd time. Master arm on, master arm on. Fox One (in background "oh Jesus"). Fox One Again"

 

Sorry, Couldn't resist

Edited October 14, 2007 by drdoyo

[ironroad 218]

Now I have to jump in on this one as far as payload goes. But as a F-14 lover to the core, there is no way in hell you can rig a cat to carry more than a super bug. The F-14's airframe, although almost indestructible due to this heavy and beefy internal frame, just can't do it. Sure I have seen test of of inert mk-81/82s stacked up on the centerline pallets, but is that really feasible under launch and recovery conditions (excluding lugging that stuff across the beach.)

 

Sure the F-14 can fly faster, further and higher, but a dedicated ground attack and fac (as with the Marine D and USN F) it was not. Btw, I know the F-14 did so dome fastfac, identification, and spotting working as well.

 

Now doing deep.... penetration...by dropping two LGBS or 4 Jdams on a target is an area in which the Tomcat owned in the post intruder days. But luggin iron across the beach, taking out air defenses on the way to the target, swatting a low speed fly, and being able to take out multiple ground targets (as long as fuel is not a issue) the bug wins hands down.

 

If we had ever gone to war with a country that had a integrated air defense network and an air force that was willing to fly and fight the turkey would be in its element. I would fly long range cap, escort, and BARCAP. But if it ever had to do a deep strike it would need a large package of support planes. Jammers, SEAD, strikers, and fighter escort. Now yes the F-14 can fullfill two of those roles without a hitch, but the F-18 (although just barely) can do all four.

[FOTF 0]

Sorry to break it to you guys....but neither could hold a torch to Heinemann's Hot Rod

[+Dave 2,318]

Sorry to break it to you guys....but neither could hold a torch to Heinemann's Hot Rod

 

One of THE best attack planes ever made. Cheers to that Paul.

[FOTF 0]

Not only best, but one of the longest in production too.

[xrearl 27]

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/mitor%2074/751/

[+Typhoid 231]

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.

 

50hr/flt hour!!!!

 

In what fairy tale did you read that?

 

The Tomcat generally averaged about 300hr/flt hour for maintenance and THAT is what killed it. It was a beast to maintain and put in the air and in no way did it ever approach the turnaround and maintenance manhours per flt hour that competing aircraft take. The Hornet is a dream to maintain and they can turn around an aircraft with less than 25 per flight hour, which is eye-watering for a maintenance type.

 

I know a couple of F-14 types including some former maintenance officers and CO's along with some F-18 CO's, and my son is currently an F-18E maintenance officer. There is absolutely no comparison between the two. You can talk tactics and air to air vs air to ground all you want, but when push comes to crunch the ability to meet the flight schedule/ATO with 4 of 4 Hornets beats 2 of 4 Tomcats for half the fuel per sortie and 1/6 the maintenance manhours.

 

don't get me wrong. I am a Tomcat fan for the lost deep strike and long range air to air capabilities we've lost. But basing the argument on maintenance is dead wrong.

 

We absolutely need a third entry into this debate. It isn't about whether the Hornet or the Tomcat will meet the Navy's future requirements. Neither will in the future. What needs to be put on the plate is a new aircraft program to put an advanced air dominance fighter onto our carrier decks in sufficient numbers to dominate a FUTURE contingency that may involve advanced opposition fighters such as the advanced Flanker variants. Neither the Super Hornet or the mythical Tomcat 21 can meet that potential threat.

 

Typhoid

Aircraft Maintenance Officer

VAW-115 '82-'83.

[Caesar 305]

Must've been just that; I withdraw my statement and will be sure to re-check facts next time.

[+Typhoid 231]

Must've been just that; I withdraw my statement and will be sure to re-check facts next time.

 

there are lots of strange references out there. don't feel bad about being led down the wrong path by one. If I wasn't a former maintenance office in a carrier air wing, I might have fallen for that line myself.

[+Typhoid 231]

Now I have to jump in on this one as far as payload goes. But as a F-14 lover to the core, there is no way in hell you can rig a cat to carry more than a super bug. The F-14's airframe, although almost indestructible due to this heavy and beefy internal frame, just can't do it. Sure I have seen test of of inert mk-81/82s stacked up on the centerline pallets, but is that really feasible under launch and recovery conditions (excluding lugging that stuff across the beach.)

 

Sure the F-14 can fly faster, further and higher, but a dedicated ground attack and fac (as with the Marine D and USN F) it was not. Btw, I know the F-14 did so dome fastfac, identification, and spotting working as well.

 

Now doing deep.... penetration...by dropping two LGBS or 4 Jdams on a target is an area in which the Tomcat owned in the post intruder days. But luggin iron across the beach, taking out air defenses on the way to the target, swatting a low speed fly, and being able to take out multiple ground targets (as long as fuel is not a issue) the bug wins hands down.

 

If we had ever gone to war with a country that had a integrated air defense network and an air force that was willing to fly and fight the turkey would be in its element. I would fly long range cap, escort, and BARCAP. But if it ever had to do a deep strike it would need a large package of support planes. Jammers, SEAD, strikers, and fighter escort. Now yes the F-14 can fullfill two of those roles without a hitch, but the F-18 (although just barely) can do all four.

 

the F-18 needs a whole strike package as well. By the time you add up all the planes you need, you don't have any advantage. The advantage that you DO have is that you can task all of those missions from the same one or two squadrons EXCEPT for jamming and tanking. But your sortie count isn't much different.

 

the weakness of the Hornet - any variant - is FUEL. It can't carry enough without downloading weapons so you need a grunch of tankers to carry fuel for it and tank it on the way in and again on the way out. That's extra sorties. The F-14D could carry enough fuel to also carry his 4k of bombs all the way the to the target while the Hornet might get 500lbs on target, so you need 4 Hornets to match one Bombcat. The E cuts that to a two to one.

 

Over Afghanistan for example, the bulk of taccair was F-18C's that hit USAF KC-135's to be able to carry their ONE 500lb LGB to the area. Had we still had some F-14D's in theater, they could have carried 4k of LGB's using those same KC-135's.

 

airborne fuel is the key to strike operations. That fuel can either be in the strike aircraft and/or tankers, but it has to be there. The Hornet is absolutely dependent upon external fuel to a degree we have not previously suffered. That is the Hornet weakness, what was the Tomcat strength, and what remains a critical shortfall in carrier aviation capabilities.

 

just my humble opinion.....

 

:yes:

[+Dave 2,318]

We absolutely need a third entry into this debate. It isn't about whether the Hornet or the Tomcat will meet the Navy's future requirements. Neither will in the future. What needs to be put on the plate is a new aircraft program to put an advanced air dominance fighter onto our carrier decks in sufficient numbers to dominate a FUTURE contingency that may involve advanced opposition fighters such as the advanced Flanker variants. Neither the Super Hornet or the mythical Tomcat 21 can meet that potential threat.

 

Could not agree more. The Hornet Mafia failed in that regards. The Navy desperately needs a carrier defense fighter that can more than hold its own against the more advanced Flankers coming out. Right now there is nothing on the deck that can hang with the Flankers in a knife fight. It will take the skill of the outstanding training programs the Navy has to help even the scale.

[eraser_tr 29]

Well the superbug wouldn't be so bad if it had more power and speed. If a flanker gets near it, its toast, the tomkitty at least has speed to rely on.

[+Gocad 26]

Well the superbug wouldn't be so bad if it had more power and speed. If a flanker gets near it, its toast, the tomkitty at least has speed to rely on.

 

I doubt that a Tomcat could outrun a Flanker....

[Russkie Raider 0]

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

 

 

 

Ever seen Behind Enemy Lines or Independence Day? It's claim to movie fame is getting shot down.

[JediMaster 451]

The F-35C should even the score for the USN. It still will likely have insufficient range, but at least it will fly and fight better.

[+Typhoid 231]

The F-35C should even the score for the USN. It still will likely have insufficient range, but at least it will fly and fight better.

 

I don't know. I don't think its supposed to be any better than the Hornet in A2A, just more stealthy and a slightly better air to ground capability.

[eraser_tr 29]

The stealthiness should make up for it if its harder to target than an F-22, even if it's A2A is similar to the bug(and she had more power behind her I think)

 

An F-14 might not outrun a flanker, but she'll at least be able to keep up.

[+Typhoid 231]

The stealthiness should make up for it if its harder to target than an F-22, even if it's A2A is similar to the bug(and she had more power behind her I think)

 

An F-14 might not outrun a flanker, but she'll at least be able to keep up.

 

the F-35 is supposed to be no where near the stealth of the F-22. The F-22 is supposed to be 10% of the signature of the F-35. That is why the F-35 is cheaper.

 

as I recall (someone feel free to correct me - not that that is a problem here!) F-22 is 10% of the F-35 which is 10% of the F-18/16 which is 20% of the F-14/15.

 

and no, the F-14 cannot keep up with a Flanker - it can't even keep up with someone walking.......

 

 

it could have kept up with and beaten the Su-27. The advanced Flanker variants are another story. With the notable exception of the F-22, nothing we have currently flying can beat an Advanced Flanker with a tactically proficient, equivelant pilot.

[JediMaster 451]

The planes use the same weapons--aim-9x, advanced 120s, gun.

The F-35s will all have AESA radars like the F-22s. Only a handful of F-15C's and the latest Super Hornets have it, but the ones on the F-22 and F-35 are tightly integrated with the rest of their avionics. This gives them abilities that are still being defined and are going to be highly classified, including jamming with the radar, using the radar to hack enemy computers, and so on.

Being stealthy is only one of the improvements.

The F-35 should also easily outfly the F-16 and Hornets as it has a far greater T/W ratio.