The Super Tomcat should be a clean sheet design, not an upgrade.
“None of these proposals has been built and we’ll never know if an advanced Tomcat would have been better than the actual Super Hornet,”
What a freaking laugh. The regular Tomcat outclasses the Super Hornet any day of the week.
I loved the F-14, but as a child of the 80’s I may be biased by nostalgia!
The F-14 Tomcat is the sexiest fighter plane ever.
Now that was just straight up FUNNY.
Would it have been cheaper to maintain then the E/F? If not then it is a waste of time. The world changed and needs are different.
The Tomcat was definitely an engineering marvel, but it looks kind of clunky compared to today’s modern aircraft.
I was in Virginia when their Air National Guard gave up their F-106s. The paper interviewed some of the pilots and they all were sorry to see it go.
I remember one described the F-106 as the “Cadillac of Fighters”. I wonder if they just get used to one and hate to see it go.
You'd think someone who has got to ride in the back of either would prefer the amenities.
I have been hanging around airplanes long enough to get a sense of what they do by watching them fly. The F-18 never has floated by boat let alone the E/F.
Now the F-14D I saw at the Reno Air Races in 91' with the GE Engines, did things I never saw a F-14 do before. And it pains me to say that being the Pratt and Whitney Engine zealot I am :-).
Just my 2 cents, I'd taken any and all the follow-on re-do's of the F-14, and If Cheney didn't kill the A-12, I'd have loved to see a version that wasn't all composite, maybe standard airframe with composite skins like the F-117a and see if it had the payload of the A-6 and Stealth.
Then the Navy would have had something....
Since a regular Tomcat F-14D is already FAR superior to a “Super” Hornet,,,yeah, id say so. Even an original Hornet outruns, and out turns it.
Super Hornet isn’t that hot of a plane. Its main advantages is in bring back ability for expensive precision ordinance, and ease of maintenance. But in the air, its not the Equal of an F-14D. In range and ordinance on target it isn’t as good.
Every advance in Naval Air bombing has gone backwards since the 80s. The A6 was dumped for the 14D, then the 14D to the latest Hornet, and now the Hornet for the F35.
Every single time, range and payload has significantly dropped.
The carrier air wing of today has the lowest capability post WWII in terms of striking distance and payload. Its dramatically lower than even the early 90s.
I’ve always heard the F-4 Phantom II referred to as the Rhino but never Hornet. Interesting.
Don’t forget the super bug also replaced the A6 despite the fact that a rewinged A6 (A6F) would have been cheaper, have better range and payload, and still have an unmatched CEP in a N/AW environment.
An even better plan would be to "navalize" the YF-23 the same way the YF-17 was "navalized" to become the F/A-18.
Guess we'll never know...
Imho of course.
Ok, so hate me...
5.56mm
So, how many F-14s did we give away to allied/neutral nations, and how many are mothballed at Davis-Monthan?
I am biased. I worked flight deck control on the Connie. Watching Tomcats being shot off the cats with full burners are some of my most cherished memories. Lord I loved those planes.
i was in the navy during the late ‘70’s (carter years)...
i was on the FID with the F-4’s, and the Kennedy with the F-14’s ( i was a plane captain, worked the flight deck )..
the F-14’s were magnificent birds, with one problem..
after they landed and shut down, you needed at least 6 55 gallon drums, with the top cut off and on wheels, to catch the hydraulic fluid that would leak out of them..
then, before they took off ( after they had been started ) you would have to pump close to 200 gallons of fluid into them so they could fly...
basic design flaw, and it pretty much rendered the bird useless...