In message , John Carrier
writes
The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that
being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed
with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat,
there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement.

Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet
defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep
(emphasis DEEP) strike roll.

Sure, but in the same way that the Tornado proved adaptable from an
excellent strike/interdiction platform into a decent North Sea
interceptor: a variable-geometry aircraft designed to haul tons of
air-to-air missiles out a long way, loiter a while, then either come
home or sprint to engage was a good option for a strike aircraft
required to cruise a long way with tons of PGMs before sprinting in to
deliver them.

For sure its (very effective) air-to-ground capability was a late
(desperate?) addition to the Tomcat repertoire - it might have made a
difference had there been Bombcats in 1991.

What killed the Tomcat seemed from here to be its primary mission
disappearing, and its significant strike capability arriving too late
and being too expensive to support.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk