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

[kosmo92 198]

Czytając ostatnio w internecie na temat tych dwóch samolotów US NAVY  są różne opinie na temat tych dwoch  samolotów jedni twierdzą że f-14 jest the best i nie wiadomo dlaczego został wcześnie wycofany skoro można było przyjąć na wyposażenie f-14 d super tomcat i nie było by problemu.Drudzy zaś twierdzą żę potrzebna była nowa maszyna bo nie można cały czas używać starych wysłużonych tomcatów do nowych to rodzajów misji jakich podejmuję się us navy .Rozmawiałem na ten temat nawet z moim wujem lotnikiem us navy który latał na jednym i drugim samolocie  powiedział ;'' I wojna w zatoce przesądziła o roli f-14 w lotnictwie bojowym a jedyny wynik czyli strącenie śmigłowca mi 8 było wręcz  żałosne'' i przerabianie myśliwca przechwytującego na bombowiec co było z wersją B to marnotrawienie maszyny a co do super horneta  stwierdził iż jest bardziej manewrowy i komfortowy dla pilota i pozwala na większą swobodę niż  f- 14 i  . Co wy na ten temat myślicie ??

[Ngr 105]

 super hornet jest lepszy bardziej wpisuje się w nowczesną formę prowadzenia wojny. i powiedzmy sobie jedno, że teraz US navy nie potrzebuje rasowego myśliwca bo jej zadaniem jest wsparcie oddziałów marines. i jeszcze jedno F-18E/F można sprzedawaś zagranicę jako samolot wielozadaniowy specjalnie do tego zaprojektowany, a mysliwiec przechwytujący jakim był f-14 to było myslenie jak w ZSSR co okazało sie błędnym założeniem ponieważ jeden samolot może zarówno być osłoną jak i grupą uderzeniową. po za tym ekonomia. flota podobnych samolotów F-18 jest tańsza w utzymaniu niż wielo maszynowy park. z f-18f powstał jeszcze samolot od walki elektronicznej co jeszcze bardziej obniża koszty utrzymania. 

Edited February 15, 2012 by czarny900

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Forgive the English but my Polish really isn't good enough to try and respond in Polish.

 

If I understand the original question your asking why the avioniccs upgrades given to the Hornet could have been applied to the F-14 and if so would it have resulted in a superior fighter/attack aircraft?

Fact is the F-14 airframes were worn out and would have had to have been replaced with new builds, if done this would have given an aircraft with signifficantly higher speed and range/endurance than the 18E/F with the same sensor suites and weapons capabilities. Since the withdrawl of the F-14 a carriers sphere or influence has shrunk, in the fleet defence role this means that were a peer nation to mount an attack the enemy would be able to get much closer to the fleet, and in the strike role the carrier must now be closser to the enemy coast thus increasing vulnerability to the fleet from littoral threats.

The importance of a high fuel load cannot be understated and this alone gives the F-14 airframe advantages that the hornets can only dream of.

 

Regarding the apparently poor showing of the F-14 in the Gulf, this had more to do with the taskings the Tomcat squadrons were assigned rather than the capabilities of the airframe. Very few oportunities were offered for A2A when compared to those available to F-15 squadrons.

 

Craig

[+streakeagle 864]

There is no question that the F-14 is a superior airframe to the Hornet. However, the F-14 was also more expensive. The combat needs of the USN since Vietnam versus the available budget since the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union forced the Navy to go with Hornets while the USAF somewhat unsuccessfully pinned its future on the F-22 and is now struggling to justify the cost of the much less capable but still very expensive F-35. Whatever the limitations of the Hornet, the USN was able to get much needed new airframes while the USAF soldiers on with Eagles and Falcons that will never be replaced by nearly as many aircraft.

[Stingray72 6]

I agree witht he two above statements in English. I appologize for not being able to understand much in the first few posts but I think I have a handle on it.

 

The Navy did retire it's F-14 fleet for two reasons. Yes the airframes were old, but even when new they were brand new they were maintenance intensive birds. That's the main reason why the Blue Angels had to go with he F/A-18; they actually wanted the F-14 for the demo team but found it way too heavy maintenance and expense load to justify it. The F-14 was greater in range and long range missile shots, but the F/A-18 is a superior frame for the ground attack role, more maneuverable, and is far easier to maintain from both a technical standpoint and a financial one. I say this gritting my teeth because I love the F-14 almost as much as I love the F-4, another plane that was great for the times but was easily superseded by admittedly better aircraft (Hornet and Tomcat). The Bug can easily step into the A2A role as one of the most maneuverable fighters to ever fly, and even though it doesn't have to "dialing long distance" capabilities of the Tomcat, it has the same excellent medium and short range capabilities as every other fighter in the US inventory has had since the F-4. And let's be honest, the US has never had a fighter other than the F-14 that had the kind of reach out potential the Phoenix provided. The Hornet is literally as capable as an F-15 in A2A and every bit as capable as the F-16. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that if the USAF had bought the YF-17 instead of the Viper the JSF would not be a thought, and the F-22 would not be in production, and all of our air services would have upgraded to F/A-18 E's and F's from F/A-18 A's and C's about now for the common airframe that the USAF, USN, and USMC are looking for now.

 

Without question the F/A-18 is the better all around airframe. My opinion only of course :)

 

MOG_Gunfighter

[cgold 0]

Let's settle this in the best way possible; with the facts...

 

Grumman F-14D "Super Tomcat":

Role: Carrier-borne Interceptor/Fleet Protection Fighter

Top Speed: Mach 2.39 (Approx. 1,544 mph, 2,485 km/h)

Thrust (GE F110-400 Series): 2x 27,800lbs = 55,600lbs total (in full Zone-5 reheat)

Maximum Search Radar Range: Can exceed 120 statute miles (190 km)

Armament: (Typical Air-to-Air Loadout)

(*varies depending on loadout)

 

-2x-4x AIM-9 "Sidewinder" Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles

-2x-6x AIM-7 "Sparrow" Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles

-4x-6x AIM-54C "Phoenix" Long-Range Air-to-Air Missiles

-675 20mm HE shells (M61A1)

 

*Assorted Laser Guided Bomb's, Cluster Bombs (MK-20's/etc.), external recon. pods (TARPS),

external FLIR/LANTIRN pods, and a wide arragement of un-guided munitions can be all be armed upon the aircraft...

(depending on type of sortie)

 

Boeing F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet":

Role: Carrier-borne *Multi-Role* Fighter/Bomber

Top Speed: Mach 1.8 (Approx. 1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h)

Thrust (GE F414-400 Series): 2x 22,000lbs = 44,000lbs total (in full reheat)

Maximum Search Radar Range: APG-79 capabilities (???)

Armament:

 

Since it is a multi-role aircraft that is typically lauched off of aircraft carriers, the Super Hornet will carry any assortment of weaponry the mission requires. Anti-Ship duties will require AGM-84E's, whereas a Precision-Strike will require anything from AGM-65's, Laser-Guided-Munitions, FLIR/LANTIRN Pods, which might differ from the Air-to-Air capabilities (anything from the AIM-9 series, AIM-7 series, to the newer AIM-120 "AMRAAM" systems.).

 

-578 20mm HE shells (M61A1)

 

 

In conclusion, the F-14 and the F/A-18 have different jobs.

 

The Tomcat was supposed to be the aircraft that intercepted high-altitude (Soviet) bombers/anti-ship aircraft. The Hornet had air-to-air capabilities just in case it needed them; The Tomcat was supposed to provide the CAP for the strike package flight of aircraft (A-6's/A-7's/F-18's/etc.) The Tomcat had a better radar range, and weapons systems that could be deadly, if used upon the correct target. AIM-7/9's were meant for the fighter aircraft, whereas the AIM-54's were more suited for bigger, slower targets at great distances/altitudes. The Tomcat had more powerful engines (after GE got involved), higher top speed, and the variable geometry wings helped in many aspects of the Tomcat's operation (T/O and Landing/Stowage upon carrier deck/etc.)

 

The Hornet (A-F series') were meant to replace the ageing F-4 "Phantoms," and the A-6 "Intruders;" Both of which did a little of everything off of the carrier decks. The F-18's were meant to have air-to-air capabilities, in the event they ran into an adversary. They were meant to be bomb-trucks, though. Their ordinance capabilities favor more "mud-moving" rather than tangling with fighters (even though they could...) The Hornet may not be as fast, or be able to see targets as far out as the Tomcats, but they don't need to. Their job was eliminating targets on the ground, in the water, ...pretty much, anywhere.

 

*In my personal opinion, the Tomcat reigns supreme. Albeit, retired, it is an amazing aircraft. But trying to compare the two is almost like comparing apples to oranges. Even though the Hornet has grown on me recently, they both had different roles (as history progressed through the Cold War into the battlefields of today... things changed), so it is almost pointless to continue this back-and-forth about them both. Both aircraft are good at what they do. 'Nuff said...

Edited February 16, 2012 by cgold

[Stingray72 6]

I get what you are saying, but it was for which was the better airframe.......now I will ask this: for what???

 

If you want which one is the better overall airframe for all missions then the F/A-18 wins. If you want pure interceptor with a 100NM+ range with missiles then the F-14 wins. Past that there is not much that the F-14 can do better. I read a story once where a hot s**t pilot flew an F-14 against 2 F-15's at Red Flag and won, and he flew it with full flaps and landing gear down and such, and you know what........SWEET!!!! However, the Bug can do all of this, and it can bomb, and it is better on maintenance, it is just a better aircraft for our military.

 

:)

[Caesar 305]

Stingray,

 

The Tomcat wasn't designed, nor was it pigeonholed as an interceptor. When it was built, there was no concept for a light fighter, nor an alternative, and the plane itself was intended to be able to meet and defeat any opposing fighter even in gun range. A lot of this "interceptor" garbage was started by the Hornet community in the mid-late 1980's, and belie the aircraft's function (RAdm Gillcrist points this out on myriad occasions in his book on the airframe - many times in attempts to get funding away from the Tomcat and into the Hornet). Not only that, but the F-14 was a damn fine bomber, and could bring more bombs further, and/or loiter over the target longer, than any model of the Hornet. Its high internal fuel capacity and two-seat configuration made it highly desirable in the FAC(A) role. It wound up being a highly capable multi-role platform at the end of its life.

 

I will agree, however, that the Hornet is less expensive, less maintenance intense, and does have various armaments for more specialized missions, to include Maverick, HARM and Harpoon missiles, which the Tomcat never employed. There were plans for an advanced strike variant of the F-14, but it, and derivative designs, were deemed too expensive to produce (ST-21, AST-21 and ASF-14) - so with regard to the original question (based upon translation) there's the possibility it COULD have been done, and indeed there were plans for an advanced Tomcat with a bunch of new gizmos, but we couldn't support the price tag!

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

BBear in mind were not comparing the 14D with the 18E/F, any comparison would be with an F-14 having been given the same avionics sweet as the 18E/F. So regards to weapons capabilities anythng the current hornets can carry our hypothetical 14 would also be able to carry. As I've already said the 14's radius of action is far greater than any model of 18, dosn't matter if your in the fleet defence/recon/strike/CAS/SEAD roe this is always going to be in the 14's favour. Bugs have little legs and this is their biggest weakness, always has been and always will be.

 

Craig

[Stingray72 6]

Fine, I'll shut up then lol.......Thank you for correcting me!!

 

 

MOG_Gunfighter

[cgold 0]

I have no beef here... Vet's and, certainly, pilots are better informants than me... The problem is that the Tomcat got construed into a job it really wasn't meant for... Close in aerial dogfights are the Hornet's forte' (per se...they move mud better) ... whereas the Tomcat excelled at longer ranges...and against bigger, slower targets. The F-14 took on the role of the F-15 from the carrier, and it seemed to do just fine (ex: Libya - 1980's) The F-15/F-14 debate has always gone on... but that's because of both being a similar job (stemming from the F-14A vs. F-15A in the 1980's) But, sometimes we forget, it is the man and not the machine that wins the battles up there... The F-14 did a great job over Libya (shooting down 6 confirmed adversaries and countless more skirmishes that ended in just hostile maneuvering (which the Tomcats won...)), Yugoslavia (where the BombCat made its debut (also a hard earned success)), and later on in Iraq (2003-2006)... They were getting old, yes... but they could have fixed that if Boeing didn't have such a huge lobbyist base in DC. Like I said before, they both are good at what they are meant for. Hornets are just a really good way to sum-up aerial warfare today, whereas, in the Cold War, the Soviet bomber presense/"threat" was much more prevalent, and aircraft like the Tomcat were more suited for the job. As time progresses, times change. The F-14's job really just disappeared, and made it into another (precision bombing) to see out its service life.

Edited February 16, 2012 by cgold