Good point--but as you mentioned--all AirForces with Point Defense" in
mind---these contrysd are not into power projection and "reaching out and
touching someone"---look at the sit in Afganistan---the Hornet cannot reach
target without refueling multiple times and carries have the bomb
load---seems to me if we can keep a 50 years platform(The Buff) affordable
and mantainable--we could do it on the Cat----
"M" *@*.* wrote in message ...
The F-14 was past its best. The F-18 is a better plane. Simple.

Keith Willshaw
Better strike aircraft perhaps but it being a better fighter is
doubtful.

The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.

Canada, Finland, Spain and Switzerland spring into mind. Eg in the
case of Finland, F-18C/D beat in competition in the early '90s
JAS Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, (the then current) F-16 and MiG-29.
The competition was all about air-to-air, as air-to-ground capability
wasn't even considered (not a requirement). The Hornet got the highest
absolute score, and also the highest score per dollar (life span
cost). Sure, there were other issues too, like availability (Gripen)
and politics (eg whether AMRAAM would be part of the package), but
still it seems obvious that the Hornet was the overall favourite of
the FAF.

F-14 would have been in different league (weight, price etc), had
there been a modern version to consider. Much like eg F-15 or Su-27
weren't considered.