Navcad,
You make an excellent point regarding the Tomcat's size which was originally dictated by the Phoenix but there were many other factors including speed, range, loiter, AWG-9 and two crew.
I also agree that the F-16 is a superior dogfighter, I wasn't claiming the Tomcat was the best knife fighter (and the F16 is also superior to the Eagle in pure knife fighting). Wouldn't you know the USAF would take such a great little fighter, paint it green and sling bombs under it?...oh and before everyone points out they're grey, the originals were green.
The point I was trying to make is that all aircraft are a series of compromises and the F14 is no different. The big question is how well does it do it's intended mission? Another question almost as big as the first is what is the plane's growth potential? I know the Navy is restructuring the airwing and trying to reduce airframes. This really started in the late 80s when they cancelled the A-6F all the while knowing this meant the end of the A6 altogether in the 90s. A large (some would say the largest) part of this restructuring also included the cost savings by reducing the number of aircrew (i.e., two seaters).
Our position from a purely operational standpoint was that if you wanted a single airframe to do multiple missions, the F14 was a much better starting place than the Hornet. All of the missions they're now expecting the Hornet to do are easier with a larger airframe that's why the Super Hornet is completely different (except in appearance) from the original. The F15E is probably the best example of using a proven airframe (and two crew) for multiple missions. It's almost as big as the Tomcat, it's two seat, and it's also the best TACAIR fighter-attack plane the US has. (Also, another little known factoid is that Grumman's Tomcat 21 concept included a mix of one and two seat Tomcats because they saw what the Navy was really doing.)
The money spent on developing the Super Hornet could, and in my less than humble opinion, should, have been spent on new, advanced F14s (let's call them F14E/F). This also would have been a better investment to cover the gap between 1970/80 generation aircraft and a new stealth Navy fighter-attack plane. A lot is made of the fact that the airframe was designed in the late 60's but the YF-18 was designed in the 70s along with the F16. What's obten forgotten is that the airframe's job is to get the weapons where they need to be (well ok...ya gotta look good doing it also!). A new design airframe with a new design weapon system is the best of both worlds IF you can afford it which the Navy couldn't. But if you need a gap filler between older aircraft and a new 21st century one then new technology in the weapon system is far more important, especially when you have a highly capable airframe already, that airframe is more capable than the competition's AND it has more growth potential.
As far as the retirement of the F14, you're absolutely right that they needed to go, but only because the Navy made the wrong decision in the 90s. Oh, and Grumman would still be making Navy fighters and wouldn't be a wholy-owned subsidiary of Northrup.
Mace
BTW, you've got good ears NAVCAD. F14D Operational Test Director at VX-4 from 88-90. Yeah..ok..so I'm a little biased but I ain't wrong!:aok
