Originally posted by Krusty
Bah it's like the world's largest, heaviest, most lumbering fighter ever. The Tomcat has ONE purpose -- mach speed 150+ miles interception, using its powerful afterburning engines and its long range phoenix missiles.
The cold war is long over. We tried to update the Tomcat, it didn't help. The -14D had improved G-limits, but an F15 could still easily best it in 1 v 1 combat (one f15 driver mentioned "I could instantly tell the improved Ds from the 'plus' tomcats because they could turn a bit better and pull more Gs than the older version, but they were still nowhere close to what I could do").
We then tried using them as bombers (HAH!!! Whatta waste of resources) with the "Bombcat". Frankly, the times change. We no longer need F102s patrolling the northern ice cap for incoming russian Bear bombers, and neither do we need the F14 tomcat.
The design is old, and uneccessary. You can probably fit 3 super hornets in the space that 2 tomcats take up on a carrier hangar deck. Not to mention they have more efficient engines, can carry more, can do more (tankers, bombers, fighters, ELINT, recon, etc, etc). It's a practical decision made by the US Navy.
I agree from certain angles the Tomcat looks wonderful. And from certain angles the Hornet looks butt ugly. The reverse is true as well, from different angles 
Man Krusty, you opened a big can of worms and are wrong on every single count so sit back and take your medicine. Here's the real story:
The F-14 was designed from the beginning as an air superiority fighter with built-in a/g capability (for dumb bombs only). The bombs ended up being left off because the Navy fighter community believed the same as the USAF...that a true fighter didn't carry bombs (that's what the A-6 and A-7 were for) and NAVAIR did not fund the costs for fixing some relatively minor development problems found during flight test. First, arming clips for the forward bomb racks were ahead of the intakes and could potentially FOD the engines. Second, there were some bomb separation issues under certain flight regimes due to the fuselage tunnel. These issues were addressed by VX-4 in 1987/8. The plane always had maneuvering performance as a key design requirement. While the F15A could out turn it at altitude, this was the reverse at lower altitudes. One thing everyone forgets also is that there is a hell of a lot more to a fighter than turn performance. The F15 has better flying qualities and the Tomcat was saddled with the TF-30 Pratt and Worthless engines. A favorite saying was: "if it says P&W on the engine, it had better say Martin Baker on the seat."
When the D came out there were two areas of improvement, the engines and the avionics (principally the radar). With the GE F110's (first introduced in the F14A+) the D could out accelerate the F15 and had better sustained turn capability at mid/lower altitudes than the F15C. The F14 lost out at high altitude because the wings programmed as a function of Mach which meant that at high alt/high Mach the wings programmed aft which limited sustained turn even though Q was low (VX-4 tried unsuccessfully to get NAVAIR to fund a new flight control computer for the wings to fix this). The F15 was designed as a high-alt fighter so it was better there. The F15 also had better flying qualities and was easier to fly primarily because it has digital flight control computers and ailerons while the F14 had an analog stability augmentation system and spoilers plus the P&W TF30s which lacked power and were subject to engine stalls. A lot of this changed with the F110 which gave it better than a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio and eliminated the piss poor reliability of the TF30. Later on, I understand NAVAIR finally funded a digital replacement for the SAS but I don't know how much this improved the flying qualities as it was primarily meant to prevent loss of the aircraft due to high AOA departures and spins. Grumman did a study that showed with a full digital FCS they could move the CG aft giving relaxed static stability which would improve the maneuvering performance even more.
BTW, your quote from the F15 driver that he could tell the difference between the A+ and D is absolutely wrong since they both had the same F110 engines (that's what made the F14A into the A+). Even RL has dweebs and this Beagle driver R1. The A+ was actually slightly better than the D in turn performance because it had the new engines but was lighter. None of this is meant to say the F14 is better than the F15, I'm simply saying that oversimplistic comparisons are specious. Each plane has its own strengths and weaknesses. Bottom line though is that 1v1 between them is far more pilot than airframe dependant and air superiority isn't based on turn performance but the whole package. For instance, a Zeke can out turn an F14...which is better? Sorta matters what you want to do with them doesn't it? Also, you don't do 1v1 in a war (at least a modern war with A/A missiles). If the MA were a real war don't you think we'd probably all be in Doras doing B&Z rather than dropping anchor in the middle of a furball where you're probability of survival is nil? The real answer to the question of "which is the better plane" is that it depends (BTW, this is also TOPGUN's answer to that question). It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're on a fighter sweep, the "best" plane is probably not the one carrying bombs but if there is no A/A threat what's the point of a fighter sweep?
Regarding your less than enlightened comments about the "Bombcat". The F14 with FLIR carried a huge amount of ordinance a long way into Afghanistan and dropped larger loads with greater effectiveness than the Hornet using far fewer tankers. Carries more, goes farther, goes faster, stays longer, is more effective and has greater bring-back (ordinance you can land with). Oh, it also has two aircrew. Even the lords of the single-pilot-is-king-group...the USAF, as much as admitted that when they decided on a crew of two for the F-15E (probabaly the closest you can get to a perfect airplane for its mission). Two work better than one during high workload missions which is part of the reason the F14 has higher overall effectiveness in "strike-fighter" missions. In the end, all of this is pretty damn good for an almost 40 year old design.
Regarding your comments about the Navy's "practical decision" you're right that it was "practical" but not because the Hornet is superior. As I mentioned before, the F14 carries more, goes farther and faster than the Super Hornet. Here's the real kicker. VX-4 participated in comparison modeling and simulations at China Lake pitting the F14D, F18 C/D with the proposed Tomcat 21 and Super Hornet. The Hornet lost every single analysis except one.
So why did the Navy make a "practical decision" to go to the Super Hornet? What was the one catagory the Super Hornet won? Total weapon system life cycle cost. And what was the principal difference in the life cycle cost? One vs two aircrew. The cost of training two guys, their paychecks, their medical, and their retirement is what it was about. Nothing to do with which plane was better. Most of the development cost of the new Hornet was related to the all new airframe (larger for range and payload), all new avionics/radar (trying to get as good as the F14D's) and all new engines (to push this all around the sky). BTW, even with all of these changes to the Hornet an F14 (with combat load) would still out turn it (with the same combat load). Stripped down the F18 is a better turner but what's the use of a stripped down fighter in war? The F14 already had the airframe and brand new engines as well as room for more new equipment than the Super Hornet could dream for. Grumman already knew what needed to be changed and what the plane could do, as a matter of fact the F14 w/F110 engines was the first fighter to demonstrate super cruise (supersonic flight w/o afterburner), something the Super Hornet can't do. 1/2 of the development cost of the Super Hornet would have paid for the F14's legacy maintenance issues (things like replacing hydraulic swivel joints with flex hoses and switching over to digital buses vice analog wiring) AND all of the avionics and weapons planned for the F18E/F AND it would have been in the fleet sooner.
Ultimately, the long range money issue of aircrew ended up driving the stake through the Tomcat's heart, not which airplane was better or older or prettier. The F14 community was so incensed and vocal about the bad choice that eventually the CNO (a boat driver) told everyone to shut up and color. The F14's performance since then, even given the minimal upgrades given it, shows that the F14 community was right and the Navy wrong.
Oh, and by the way. The loudest sound you'll ever hear is standing on deck 15 feet from a Tomcat in full afterburner right before the Cat officer hits the launch button.
Mace
