F14 vs F18F

The Super Bug will be on US
ships for many decades to come.

Alas, true.

R / John

It would have been nice to see what would have come from a serious look
at
the Tomcat-21. Grumman offered it but I don't believe it got a serious
shake, the Navy was determined to get the F-18 E/F from what I recall.

The Navy made a well reasoned decision and they are to be commended.

depends on how you look at it, with the super bug all the navy got was
the A-7 replacement they been looking for, for the last 20 years. the
Tomcat 21/quickstrike/(F/A-14D) was a A-6 replacement. But the real
replacement for the A-6 would and should have been the F-14C of the
70's

I'm a big fan of the Tom, but I don't think any mods could have made it
competitive in life cycle costs with the super bug. It's an electrical and
hydraulic nightmare relatively speaking. I don't think Tom 21 would have
designed out all the complexity. Its just a shame that a design that's 25
years newer can't match the performance of the beast.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
The Super Bug will be on US
ships for many decades to come.

Alas, true.

God bless America.

I suppose there is a first for everything, I finally found a Tarver
post I agree with! In addition, anyone that is in the Maintenance or
Supply/Logistics fields are happy to see the Tomcat go away. Way too
many manhours/flighthours ratio, about 140/1 now? Plus legacy parts
issues.Contractors just don't make any of the old avionics/airframe
parts, hydraulics. engines, etc.
For example, there are many avionics systems used on the
Tomcat (and other older a/c), that the microprocessors and other
components are just not made anymore. It's cheaper and more efficient
all around to introduce and support newer, current technology on newer
airframes, rather than have some company tool up for a short term run
to replace Tomcat only parts.
Believe me, sentimentally it will be a huge loss, having
served on 6 different carriers and 9 cruises in 22 years, but the
Tomcat can just not be financially supported any further than it's
scheduled retirement date. Good debate though.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:19:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"rstro" wrote in message
. net...
ah--
so basically were are buying under "something is better than nothing"--I
would really like to know what the aircrews think....

Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons platform
is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
ships for many decades to come.

I was sorry when the F14 re-rolled and stopped coming to Canada for the
Maple Flag exercises and DACT (dissimular air combat training). It was an
awesome aircraft in almost total control of the air when up there. My best
memory was when they had been up flying with us (at 410 Sqn Cold Lake)
and after 2 weeks had no losses to our instructor pilots, their CO in his
departure thank you speach thanked us for our target rich environment!
Our pilots (CF-18 A/B) wouldn't tell us how many of them were nailed by
the Tomcats, but any time a fighter pilot isn't bragging you know he was on
the receiving end big time! As much as I loved that aircraft when it
visited,
the techs worked damn hard to get them ready for the next flight. I suppose
it is just too old and time for a graceful departure, but it remains my
favourite jet.

Brendan

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
I'm a big fan of the Tom, but I don't think any mods could have made it
competitive in life cycle costs with the super bug. It's an electrical
and
hydraulic nightmare relatively speaking. I don't think Tom 21 would have
designed out all the complexity. Its just a shame that a design that's 25
years newer can't match the performance of the beast.

It would have been nice to see what the real deal was with Tomcat 21. From
what I recall they had really designed in maintainability and it was a
totally new plane electrically and avionics-wise. I just hope the Tom sticks
around long enough for my son to see a good demo...he's 2 now...maybe in
another 2 years he'll be able to appreciate the truly awesome display only
an F-14 can put on The F-14 that came down for Ft. Lauderdale Air & Sea
last year put on an amazing show, people were just sitting there with their
mouths open. I've seen a lot of F-14 flights and even I was awed. Then in
the evening they authorized a afterburner run down the beach. Everyone on
the waterfront and in the bars was howling. The T-Birds were the "main"
attraction but I think the Tomcat stole a lot of the thunder.

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
I suppose there is a first for everything, I finally found a Tarver
post I agree with! In addition, anyone that is in the Maintenance or
Supply/Logistics fields are happy to see the Tomcat go away. Way too
many manhours/flighthours ratio, about 140/1 now? Plus legacy parts
issues.Contractors just don't make any of the old avionics/airframe
parts, hydraulics. engines, etc.

There you go, Dog, your fisrt flicker of competence.

For example, there are many avionics systems used on the
Tomcat (and other older a/c), that the microprocessors and other
components are just not made anymore. It's cheaper and more efficient
all around to introduce and support newer, current technology on newer
airframes, rather than have some company tool up for a short term run
to replace Tomcat only parts.

In many ways the Tomcat was an excellet application of GAMMA type elecronics
communications in a military fighter, but she is long in the tooth.

Believe me, sentimentally it will be a huge loss, having
served on 6 different carriers and 9 cruises in 22 years, but the
Tomcat can just not be financially supported any further than it's
scheduled retirement date. Good debate though.

I doubt the Navy really feels they can afford the Tomcat now. If these
Ships of War were to actually have to perform their job, I want an airborn
platform that can be available.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:19:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"rstro" wrote in message
. net...
ah--
so basically were are buying under "something is better than
nothing"--I
would really like to know what the aircrews think....

Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons
platform
is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
ships for many decades to come.

LOL! What the hell do you care Tarver, ("I want an airborn
(sp) platform that can be available".) You can "want" all day long
sitting at your desk pretending to be "competent" in Naval Aviation
matters, c'mon out and play with us real warfighters, if you got any
nads.


On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:06:30 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
I suppose there is a first for everything, I finally found a Tarver
post I agree with! In addition, anyone that is in the Maintenance or
Supply/Logistics fields are happy to see the Tomcat go away. Way too
many manhours/flighthours ratio, about 140/1 now? Plus legacy parts
issues.Contractors just don't make any of the old avionics/airframe
parts, hydraulics. engines, etc.

There you go, Dog, your fisrt flicker of competence.

For example, there are many avionics systems used on the
Tomcat (and other older a/c), that the microprocessors and other
components are just not made anymore. It's cheaper and more efficient
all around to introduce and support newer, current technology on newer
airframes, rather than have some company tool up for a short term run
to replace Tomcat only parts.

In many ways the Tomcat was an excellet application of GAMMA type elecronics
communications in a military fighter, but she is long in the tooth.

Believe me, sentimentally it will be a huge loss, having
served on 6 different carriers and 9 cruises in 22 years, but the
Tomcat can just not be financially supported any further than it's
scheduled retirement date. Good debate though.

I doubt the Navy really feels they can afford the Tomcat now. If these
Ships of War were to actually have to perform their job, I want an airborn
platform that can be available.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:19:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"rstro" wrote in message
. net...
ah--
so basically were are buying under "something is better than
nothing"--I
would really like to know what the aircrews think....

Dog fighting is a thing of the past and a reliable airborn weapons
platform
is what the Navy needs. Uncommon to John Carrier's comments, the F-35 is
only sceduled to replace the F/A-18A models. The Super Bug will be on US
ships for many decades to come.

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.

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.