Give your own opinion on Tomcat to Super Bug *Very long reading*

[Corsair7662]

Yup, I opened this thread because I want to hear of all your opinions of what you think about the switch of the F-14 to the F/A-18E/F. Who is better, who is worse, who will beat who, who has the better kill ratio/score, etc.

 

Here are some opinions and story's of what the real boys and lovers think about it and what it has done to their lives. I would give my whole opinion on it but it will be one big, big story :P.

 

Perhaps I'm being sacrilegious, a bigot if you will, but I maintain that the Super Hornet is still a pretty sweet aircraft. I love the Tomcat more, of course, and I'm sure I always will, but I can't say I'm in with the crowd that hates the Super Hornet. I'm aware it had the unfortunate indignity of replacing the most iconic (and apparently loved) fighter to ever take to the skies, but does that automatically entitle it to the strong dislike it has obtained? (note: I really couldn't care either way, rather, I just had to make a defense)

 

Apologies if that came off a bit sappy or lame (like a nerd trying to convince a cheerleader that he's cool too or whatever), but I just think that the Super Hornet is a pretty nifty jet that's got some awesome capabilities and a nice sleek look, too.

 

So basically, I'm curious if there are any other Tomcat fans out there who just so happen to maintain a liking for the Super Hornet. I'd especially like to hear from people who were part of the Tomcat community, and especially those who may now be flying the Super Hornet.

 

Oh, and for the record, my dream carrier air wing has Tomcats and Super Bugs. I'm thinking an F-14D unit, an F/A-18F unit, an F/A-18E unit, and probably another F-14D unit for the VF's/VFA's.

 

No love here.

 

At first, I have to admit. I hated the Super Hornet. That all changed about two years ago I go to go Air to Air with a 2-shipper of MiG-29s in a Simulator boeing brought along to the JSOH at Andrews. That experience, and mountains of research later? My opinion is drastically different. Yea, it could be faster. Yea, it could go farther (Well... Should go farther actually), but nonetheless, it'll hold it's own plus Air To Air, and you can't beat its' Air To Ground.

 

With the Blk 2 update, the Blk 3 update, and from what I've heard on Blk 4, quote me when I say Super Hornet just may to prove that it's a Super Hero afterall.

 

Now, do I rate it above the Cat? HELL NO. But, I'd be damn proud to sit in the pointy end of one as I ride into battle. (Just hope it's not too far away from the boat...)

 

I love the cat - however' date=' I love the hornet as well. I have seen those amazing demos done by "Chewy" and I must say they are great -when they are on point! So yo awnser your question - yes. I have the bug..........[/quote']

 

Love it? No. I lost my career thanks to that jet.

 

Acceptance? Reluctantly.

 

Grumman's last fighter, was also the Navy's last fighter, and it was the best there ever was, or ever will be. For 36 years it served above and beyond anything that preceded it. That can not be denied. I have no monkey on my back over it. I'm very proud of my twenty years spent on the F-14.

 

However, it does not diminish my support for Naval Aviation. That is rock solid.

 

As Shakespeare once said: "What's Past Is Prologue, What To Come

In Yours and My Discharge".

 

Which I suppose it's fancy English for: "OK, Hornet... it's your turn. Try and top this!"

 

Well, I say the SUPER BUG will do the job just fine ,but no joy on it also no love 4 it ! TOMCAT 4 EVER !

 

You see, TOMCAT is a TRUE hardcore mans muscle jet a synonym for a real fighter pilot (ok few fmails included) ,the BUG...hmmm...Nintendo jet !

 

It was once quoted to a crowd in 1942 Washington DC conference by Vice Admiral John S. McCain that "The name Grumman on a plane or part has the same meaning to the Navy' date=' that Sterling on silver has to you". What a quote, a quote that will live on forever in Grumman history. Will the Navy ever be able to say that again about any other aircraft that flies off their carriers,other than the E-2C? Seems to me the Navy has now chosen plastic over the "Ironworks". That 'Pig in a Poke", the F-18, cost me my career also. My only respect will be for the Naval Aviators who will try to make the best of an inferior aircraft.[/quote']

 

No love here either' date=' my squadron was the first Tomcat squadron to transition from the F-14A to the F/A-18A in 1999. Grant it, it was not the Super Hornet but it was still a Hornet and their was a lot of VF pride in my command and resentment to the Hornet. But after time the maintainers learned to "accept" the aircraft, the jet aircraft needed fewer man-hours per flight hour to fly the same amount of hours we would fly in the Tomcat. Hornet is more maintenance friendly with MMP codes/box and easier to open panels and when removing the gun it was palletized and took just four bolts to raise or lower. I never came to love the Hornet, I was reminded of this when my squadron was mobilized and deployed with CVW-8 on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and VF-213 was embarked with us, seeing those cats going off the bow/waist in mil thrust and being surrounded by them on the flight deck reminded me I would gladly trade my cosier easier world and go back to working longer hours to fix and load ordnance on a REAL fighter jet. But time is no friend to any combat aircraft as technology improves jets get replaced I am sure the F-4 community thought the same thing when the F-14 came aboard. The Super Bug is a capable and lethal jet and will serve naval aviation well but as others have said in this thread a Super Bug cannot and will not ever replace a Tomcat. It might replace it in the mission but never in the hearts/memories of those who built her, flew her and maintained her.[/quote']

 

The Super Hornet does not have the gravitas of the Tomcat yet, and it might never come. The Tomcat has a whole history and cadre of people that flew and maintained the jet as well as plain folk that are just fans for it's looks and muscularity. I joined the Navy just to work on the Tomcat (glad my dream sheet worked out for me!). I am also a fan of the Crusader, Phantom, Viper and Vigilante. I have nothing against the Super Hornet. Navy leadership killed the Tomcat. I've said it before, retiring the Tomcat was a salary cap move. I have worked on in order the Tomcat, Phantom, Viper, Stratotanker, Orion, -135 again and now the Hercules. I love fighters especially the Tomcat. We'll see what kind of history the Super Hornet makes.

 

My main "beef" with the Super Hornet is the fact that it isnt a better aircraft than what it is replacing. In comparison: The AF is relinquishing its F-117 force because they now have an aircraft that can complete every task that the 117 could' date=' plus is one hell of a dogfighter (22). This comparison cant be made with the Tomcat. There really isnt much the SH has over the Tomcat in a2g, and the Tomcat destroys it in a2a, specifically long range. The Cat also outmatches the bug in speed and range. The rest of the world is still building air superiority fighters, and for good reason. There will come a time when they are needed. The US Navy cannnot attest to this. Im glad that the Dep. of the Navy is saving money and time, but who is going to need it when our carriers are getting slammed by Chinese anti-ship missiles? [img']http://tomcat-sunset.org/forums/Smileys/classic/huh.gif[/img] Missiles launched from the aircraft that the Tomcat was ment to counter.

 

It boils down to politics. Period. The Tomcat was dealt a bad hand, as was every other specialized jet replaced by the Hornet.

I think the Hornet needs to know its role, and it's not fleet defense! But I guess they're better than nothing...

[GGTharos]

AMRAAMs work fine against ASMs, and SH can carry a whole boatload of AMRAAMs, together with a highly advanced radar to detect all threats.

 

And I'm not so sure the F-14 would have been able to get the range drop on the SH so easily, either.

 

The F-14 is a great aircraft, but it is also an old aircraft - the F-18E is 'the new kid on the block'. There are some immidiately visible differences, but what most don't see is how -very- advanced the SH is.

 

And as for dogfighting - as far as turning and burning goes, the SH is one of the best in the business.

 

Remember that pipper on a certain F-22? ... ;)

[EscCtrl]

Whilst the F14 was an immense plane with many fans (inc. me) it needs replacing - the fact is it IS old whether you like it or not.

 

...and despite all the stories of the 'cat being so powerful and renowned that migs would dash for cover as soon as they realised they were being tracked 100miles off the tomcat had a very low kill count which in government terms shows up as bad even if it was a good deterant.

 

As for the ability to hunt down incoming missiles - well its been replaced by far better radar and missile/gunnery systems onboard the ship.

 

its just like the sabre-tooth cat, whilst its very impressive it eventually evolved into something else.

 

 

 

my opinion is - its had its time

[Corsair7662]

 

The F-14 is a great aircraft, but it is also an old aircraft - the F-18E is 'the new kid on the block'. There are some immidiately visible differences, but what most don't see is how -very- advanced the SH is.

 

Just letting you know, the whole F/A-18 project started around the same time as the F-14, 1970! And the Super Hornet project originated a little while before 1991 making it over 15 or 16 years old already.

 

And as for dogfighting - as far as turning and burning goes' date=' the SH is one of the best in the business.[/quote']

 

Not true, the SH only has a max number of 3 performance turns/banks or slow defensive menuvers and the F-14 yes is a ton hulkier and more beastly but the more powerful engines make up for that weight causing it to fall under the same category of menuverability. The F-14 is equipt with high performance and high power producing engines to get up to speed QUICK, the F/A-18's are only equipt with little but high output engines so basically think of it like this as the F-14=Dodge Viper and the F/A-18A-F=Mazda WRX. Also the turning and burning point, the hornet may have the quicker get up and go but the Tomcat has the top speed advantage up passing the hornet half way down the strip :)

[GGTharos]

Just letting you know, the whole F/A-18 project started around the same time as the F-14, 1970!

 

Just letting you know - the SH is a NEW aircraft that looks much like the original ;)

This wasn't 'an upgrade'. ;)

 

Not true, the SH only has a max number of 3 performance turns/banks or slow defensive menuvers and the F-14 yes is a ton hulkier and more beastly but the more powerful engines make up for that weight causing it to fall under the same category of menuverability. The F-14 is equipt with high performance and high power producing engines to get up to speed QUICK, the F/A-18's are only equipt with little but high output engines so basically think of it like this as the F-14=Dodge Viper and the F/A-18A-F=Mazda WRX. Also the turning and burning point, the hornet may have the quicker get up and go but the Tomcat has the top speed advantage up passing the hornet half way down the strip :)

 

 

... Ooookay. The TWR of the Sh and the F-14 are relatively close, IIRC.

And the F-18 has a LOT more capability at high AoA ... meaning that if we assume that most dogfights deteriorate into something low and slow (and why assume, since we do in fact know that this is indeed what happens) the F-18 finds itself at an advantage, and let's not forget that it is a 9G airframe vs. the F-14's 7.3G airframe.

 

Sorry! :D

[tflash]

The Tomcat is part of Aviation History, like the Phantom. Of course we like it. I also like the Spitfire, and above all Kelly McGillis. But if you buy & fly today, the Superbug sure is a hell of a bargain.

Can you imagine it is already in the midst of the action with an incredible panoply of advanced weapons? Compare the in no time GBU/CBU/JDAM/WCMD/Maverick/JSOW/JASSM/AIM-9X/Amraam-ready Superbug to the protracted, almost lethargic Rafale/Typhoon development?

 

While tests on these same-generation fighters are "proceeding as expected", the Superbug is already releasing anything you can imagine in anger on the bad guys. I would say the Superbug, just like the Hornet, brings bang for the buck.

 

And it is not even an ugly plane, but quite an attractive one!

[Guest Hell Sqn Protos]

S~!

 

F14 gone, time up. Let it go.

 

F18 SH new, better, more cost effective - embrace.

[britgliderpilot]

... Ooookay. The TWR of the Sh and the F-14 are relatively close, IIRC.

And the F-18 has a LOT more capability at high AoA ... meaning that if we assume that most dogfights deteriorate into something low and slow (and why assume, since we do in fact know that this is indeed what happens) the F-18 finds itself at an advantage, and let's not forget that it is a 9G airframe vs. the F-14's 7.3G airframe.

 

Sorry! :D

 

Thrust/weight doesn't especially matter if your aircraft is draggy like a wardrobe :P

 

And isn't the 9G limit imposed on these aircraft for fatigue life purposes rather than stress or aerodynamic limitations?

 

 

In terms of avionics, maintainability, cost, yadda yadda yadda . . . . the Super Airbrake's supposed to win hands down. Which is kind of useful.

 

And let's face it . . . . an AESA/AIM-120D combo should kick arse just as hard while remaining cheap to run. Pure performance doesn't seem to be as big a consideration these days.

 

It's unfortunate, but hey.

[ericinexile]

If we look at the game as an attempt at a balance of power between Red and Blue, then the addition of either plane will skew it greatly. The Tomcat had the Phoenix which would only be countered by the R-33. But that's a limitation most could live with because they could probably figure out ways to escape the Phoenix. The F-18E/F is another story. It is so superior to the older generation SUs and MiGs that it would totally screw up the sim. That is unless Red gets the SU-30 and a navalized version to regain the balance.

 

Personally, because I believe the last generation is where the fun began to stop, I think the Tomcat/MiG 25 would be much better additions. The best advice I could give ED (and they certainly don't need it) is to stick with what you know--or at least with what you can find out with reasonable effort.

 

Smokin'Hole

[GGTharos]

Thrust/weight doesn't especially matter if your aircraft is draggy like a wardrobe :P

 

You mean the F-14? I agree. Once that thing goes into a turn, bye bye airspeed :)

 

And isn't the 9G limit imposed on these aircraft for fatigue life purposes rather than stress or aerodynamic limitations?

 

Nnnnope. Maybe some newer airframes are better in that respect, but the F-14 was built at an age when 7.33G was it. Pull more and your over-G the aircraft, requiring lengthy inspections etc.

 

In terms of avionics, maintainability, cost, yadda yadda yadda . . . . the Super Airbrake's supposed to win hands down. Which is kind of useful.

 

And let's face it . . . . an AESA/AIM-120D combo should kick arse just as hard while remaining cheap to run. Pure performance doesn't seem to be as big a consideration these days.

 

It's unfortunate, but hey.

 

 

The SH performs. It doesn't perform well in -some- respects, but it performs. It is also an interim solution, IIRC.

[GGTharos]

If we look at the game as an attempt at a balance of power between Red and Blue, then the addition of either plane will skew it greatly. The Tomcat had the Phoenix which would only be countered by the R-33.

 

That would imply the R-33 was some sort ofmatch for the AIM-54 ... it isn't :D

Though I'm not sure if the 54C was equipped with a monopulse seeker. If it wasn't, then it's every bit as easy to jam as the 33.

 

But that's a limitation I could live with and probably counter so that Blue can finally have a carrier born interceptor. The F-18E/F is another story. It so superior to the older generation SUs and MiGs that it would totally screw up the sim. That is unless Red gets the SU-30 and a navalized version to regain the balance.

 

It depends. Missions in LO aren't particularely realistic. With a realistic mission, you might see the SH be hard pressed to deal with a Su-27 under some conditions.

 

Personally, because I believe the last generation is where the fun began to stop, I think the Tomcat/MiG 25 would be much better additions. The best advice I could give ED (and they certainly don't need it) is to stick with what you know--or at least with what you can find out with reasonable effort.

 

Smokin'Hole

[VMFA117_Poko]

Nothing left to add 4 me here.

 

Some can do not like SH because of its shape (?). Its kinda 'like or not' thing. The fight between lovers and haters has a longer beard than santa C.

 

I like cat very much too... despite the 'PoofGun' movie.

[Pilotasso]

F-14 will out accelereate and outrange the Superbug. In the AA role the Tomcat could use AIM-54 Phoenix only at cruise missiles and bombers. The Tomcat was not exactly cut and made for fighter VS fighter combat (though it can Also do that) but rather provide a defensive screen arround the carrier, hence the speed of deployment and range the Tomcat posessed. But now the doomsday scenario is gone, the threats that are left for carriers are from certain and very known countries who do not own supersonic intercontinental bombers. Carriers now are more often tasked for sending its fighters for bombin strategical targets and close support. Direct threats to the carrier nowdays consist of anti ship missiles carried by fighters, Mig-29's Su-30's and the likes contrary to the bombers in the old days.

 

A fighter thats proposed to defend the carrier no longer stands as the only defense any more. Its been a while since ship borne defenses can intercept incoming ordnance.

Carrier aircraft are more likely to find enemy fighters before they fire their missiles than anything else. The tomcat would find itself fighting other fighters with AIM-7's, not AIM-54's, for wich AMRAAM's are more effective.

 

The tomcat in its last days would then be forced to go 1 on 1 with enemy fighters, while the Superhornet can engage 8 targets silmultaneously figthers or incoming missiles and it does so with a much greater onboard radar coverage. The Tomcat could only do 6 on 6 in a narrow view cone. When APG-79 comes for the Superbug that engagement envelope will increase to values closer to 100º and wider, regardless of being fighters or missiles. In short fewer fighters could put more ordnance on target on many more possible scenarios than the F-14 would, but requiring many more tomcats to acheive the same kind of coverage and multiple engagement capability, and note, the F-18E can carry more missiles than the F-14.

 

Biggest disavantages of the Superbug is that it flies like an airbrake, but that will be compensated once the 404 engine thrust is augmented by 30% as its planneed right now. We should observe very decent perfomance increase then.

 

The biggest question is not if the F-18E should replace the F-14, but rather if the F-18E is not going to be redundant once the F-35's arrive.

 

Also on the pilots perspective, I bet they will like the Superbug's advanced cockpit capabilities more than any Tomcat.

[Corsair7662]

One thing Pilot, what is the kill ratio of the Super Hornet to the Tomcat? And also the distance irrelavent to that. Not very sure with the hornet but I think it is 6 or 8:12 at a range of 50 miles and the tomcat is 5:6 with the Aim-54 with over a distance of 150 miles and 3:4 with the Aim-7, the hornet has a capability of being able to carry 12 -120's but that is a whole crap load to be able to spam :P

[Dudikoff]

AMRAAMs work fine against ASMs, and SH can carry a whole boatload of AMRAAMs, together with a highly advanced radar to detect all threats.

 

The detection doesn't count for much if it can't intercept the target in time (too slow) and cannot engage (too short-legged missiles) ;)

 

Fortunatelly, the threats have changed considerably so it's not such a big deal as it would have been in the mid-80s and the carrier's support should be able to handle ASM missiles.

[GGTharos]

You wanna qualify that ijozic? ... the AIM-120 can handle the job better than Phoenix, and its legs are long enough ... more than likely it doesn't even matter that there's a range difference when the target only gets detected relatively close.

[ericinexile]

I see that I misread the purpose of the thread. I'm so used to us all requesting this or that to be added to the sim that I thought we were embarking on the same sort of topic here. I talked at length a couple of years ago with a friend who was transitioning from the cat to the Hornet (don't recall if it was the SH or not--what do they fly on the Carl Vincent(sp?)). He missed the 'Cat but loved the new ride. Obviously, the Navy needed the SH. The question I guess is did they really still need the 'Cat as well. Someone back in the first Bush Administration must have thought they did because they went through the effort of turning the 'Cat into a semi-capable A2G platform with a lantirn pod and other toys. I guess that philosophy changed with Don Rumsfeld's smaller more advanced Net-Centric Military. Seems to be working great so far...

[D-Scythe]

This perspective presented in this thread is too narrow - technically, it's not a 1 vs. 1 replacement. It's not a question of whether the F/A-18E/F can replace the F-14 - there is always gonna be capability overlap, meaning that everything the F/A-18E/F can't do as well as the F-14, there is gonna be something else that can fill the gap. If you look at the force structure of the 2006-12 USN vs. the 1980-90s USN, it is far more capable.

 

F/A-18E/F + F-35 + AIM-120D + SM-2/6 + ESSM + RAM (plus AEGIS/SPY-3 AESA/AWACS/EA-18G)

VS.

F-14A/D + F/A-18C + AIM-54C + AIM-7/120C + SM-2 + CIWS (plus AEGIS/AWACS/EA-6B)

 

So technically, the USN isn't gonna be losing *anything* with the retirement of the F-14. The F-35 alone with its stealth and the AIM-120D can handle almost everything the Tomcat/AIM-54 combo can. And anything that slips by the fighter screen will be targetted 200km away by SM-6 active radar SAMs fired from AEGIS, whether above or below the horizon.

[uhoh7]

I just hope we live long enough to see both AC modeled as well as the SU25T, so we can see for ourselves which we like.....

[hitman]

Just letting you know, the whole F/A-18 project started around the same time as the F-14, 1970!

 

And guess which one is still with us?

[hitman]

One thing Pilot, what is the kill ratio of the Super Hornet to the Tomcat? And also the distance irrelavent to that. Not very sure with the hornet but I think it is 6 or 8:12 at a range of 50 miles and the tomcat is 5:6 with the Aim-54 with over a distance of 150 miles and 3:4 with the Aim-7, the hornet has a capability of being able to carry 12 -120's but that is a whole crap load to be able to spam :P

 

That kill ratio on the -54 only applies to those missiles that havent developed cracks in the fuel yet.

[Corsair7662]

So technically' date=' the USN isn't gonna be losing *anything* with the retirement of the F-14. The F-35 alone with its stealth and the AIM-120D can handle almost everything the Tomcat/AIM-54 combo can. And anything that slips by the fighter screen will be targetted 200km away by SM-6 active radar SAMs fired from AEGIS, whether above or below the horizon.[/quote']

 

No, not really. First of all the F-14's radar extends over 200 miles which because the AIM-54C Phoenix has a max range of a whopping "250 MILES" which infact travels up to 70,000 feet with a speed of mach 5, can the AMRAAM do that, noooo. And the new D Amraam will only have a distance of a little more than 100 miles, get my drift? the F-35 won't be like the Tomcat, close but no cigar.

 

The AIM-120C has been steadily upgraded since it was introduced. The AIM-120C-6 contained an improved fuze (Target Detection Device) compared to its predecessor. The AIM-120C-7 development began in 1998 and included improvements in homing and greater range (actual amount of improvement unspecified). It was successfully tested in 2003 and is currently being introduced into active service (early 2005). It helped the U.S. Navy replace the F-14 Tomcats with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets – the loss of the F-14's long-range AIM-54 Phoenix missiles (already retired) can be partially offset with a longer-range AMRAAM, but note that the AMRAAM does not have a longer range than the Phoenix.

The AIM-120D is a planned upgraded version of the AMRAAM with improvements in almost all areas, including 50% greater range (than the already long range AIM-120C-7) and better guidance over its entire flight envelope yielding an improved kill probability (PK).

 

Edit:

That kill ratio on the -54 only applies to those missiles that havent developed cracks in the fuel yet.

 

LMAO:megalol: :megalol: :megalol: :megalol: :megalol: , where did you make that up from? Good job:smartass:

[Shaman]

Think of modern built F-14 airframe (new metarials and composites) with brand new engines with TVC, modern avionics and equipment and weapons...

hmm...

 

I like F-18 but I love F-14

[Corsair7662]

As far is the air to ground mission is concerned, I'm not so sure the Tomcat and Super Hornet are as evenly matched as some people think. My reasoning is that the Tomcat is only a bomber when it comes to air to ground, whereas the Hornet combines that bombing capability with an attack capability, i.e. rockets and AGMs. That and the Super Hornet is a far smaller target than the bulky Tomcat. As far as the specific bombing capabilites are concerned, I don't really have any data on that, but I'd like to think that the 2 are roughly even.

 

And then factor in that a Super Hornet, if the need arose, could theoretically carry more missiles than a Tomcat thanks to the double AMRAAM launchers, and still keep a centerline tank. Now, those missiles don't have the range of the Phoenix, but they are capable in and of themselves. And look at the enemies. Honestly, if long-range bombers are coming for the fleet, radar would probably be able to pick them up in time. And as far as enemy fighters are concerned, what countries are we enemies with that have air superiority fighters that are better than ours (with the exception of Iran)? Given the enemies that we have right now, the Super Hornet is perfectly capable of dealing with them (exception: Iranian F-14s). And honestly, the Navy could just as easily put some $$ into developing a long-range missile for fleet defense purposes. They don't necessarily need a different aircraft to do that.

 

Again, let me say that all-around, I think I have to give the edge to the Tomcat. It's maintenance issues, maneuverability (not that bad, but I doubt it can pull some of the moves that the Super Hornet can pull), and lack of an attack capability are more than made up for by its unbelievable air-to-air prowess, it's incredible precision bombing capability, and it's amazing range. I'm just saying that I think it might be unfair to call the Super Hornet a horrible, woefully inappropriate replacement for the manliest of manly aircraft.

 

As far as it being political, I don't doubt that for a second. Expenses are a bogus excuse in that the government had every opportunity to improve it. If you're flying alot of A-models and a bunch of B's and D's converted from old A's, of course you're going to be putting alot of time into keeping them flying. If you'd have spent some $$ here and there along the way on the Tomcat, advances could very easily have been made in improving the Tomcat's reliability. Heck, the Super Hornet could've very easily replaced the regular Hornet, and we'd have even more capable air wings than we had when VF-31 and VF-213 were on their final cruise together. Heck, it would've saved some gas money.

 

So to sum up my opinion, the Super Hornet is quite possibly the best in its field. The government just forced it to jump into other fields it's not as well-suited towards. I think a carrier air wing of 2 new-build F-14D (or possibly more advanced) squadrons, 2 Super Hornet squadrons (1 E and F), an EA-18G squadron, an Viking squadron, a chopper squadron, and a Hawkeye squadron would be simply unstoppable.

 

RANDOM SUGGESTION: Heck, send the Tomcats to the Air Force to replace more F-15's. The Tomcat HAS to be better than a strict air to air jet. Seriously, does the F-15C have any purpose these days? (No offense to any Eagle pilots out there)[/quote

 

love the TOMCAT and always will, but I could learn to like the S/H, only the F though, I don’t like the E’s and I see no real reason to have the E version when it is obvious a 2 man crew can do anything better then a one man jets, especially when it come to information overload and the a/g arena.

 

Anyway, there are only two main things I don’t like about the S/H, speed doesn’t really matter much anymore, although slower then the F14, I think with a Mach 1.6 top end the F18E/F is quick enough, and that speed won’t really be used in today’s wars.

 

The two main things that bug me are those silly outward cantered wing pylons (Drag inducers baby) and the fact that the jet, from what I’ve read doesn’t have a very good range at all, I mean shouldn’t primary strike jet have fuel to get to deep targets or at least the endurance to stick around, the TOMCAT never had enough but that was far more then the S/H does.

 

I tell, you, fix those two things, range and the stupid out ward cantered wing pylons and you’ll have a good jet in the F18F.

 

I mean, what good is it having 7 pylons when at least 3 of the heavy ones are used for gas, that leaves only two pylons under each wing, so 4 total useful weapons stations, wait, didn’t the TOMCAT only have four?

 

The S/H may be cleared to carry a wider range of weaponry, but in real life, any strike, or patrol over Iraq will see these jets carrying 3 bags of gas the whole time.

 

Having said that, if someone wanted to give me a ride in an F18F I would say no.

 

Quote:

My reasoning is that the Tomcat is only a bomber when it comes to air to ground, whereas the Hornet combines that bombing capability with an attack capability, i.e. rockets and AGMs.

 

I guess the Tomcat at 10,000 doesnt supply the mental boost to the guy on the ground that the SH on the deck would. All im saying is when it comes down to making stuff "go away", a LGB or JDAM will do the job just as good as a JASSM or a Mav.

 

 

Quote:

Honestly, if long-range bombers are coming for the fleet, radar would probably be able to pick them up in time.

Yes, an Aegis radar. Which coupled with an E-2 and a Tomcat (the way it was origionally meant to be) would be one hell of a match or any bomber formation or anti-ship missile. This is what the Tomcat was designed to do.

 

 

Quote:

speed won’t really be used in today’s wars.

Tell that to a Marine pinned down in Fallujah.

 

The Tomcat can get their quicker, and stay there longer. Fact.

 

Listen, I have respect for the SH. I know it presents some cool new capabilities that the Tomcat didnt offer. Unfortunately, those capabilities are sitting in an outdated design that I cant seem to find the real "step forward" in. No stealth, and overall less performance. I really dont see the justice in the replacement. But hey, as long as our pilots are happy, im happy! GO NAVY!

[hitman]

 

LMAO:megalol: :megalol: :megalol: :megalol: :megalol: , where did you make that up from? Good job:smartass:

 

Ok you point out any missile thats going to be good if its been in storage for 20 some odd years.

 

Get off of it. The hornet is a hell of a lot better than the tomcat. You just see that F-22 get owned up close by a superbug and then watch that video of the F-14 doing a flyby and catching fire.