Mace, I would differentiate between "aging gracefully" and "still being a capable performer"...
I believe the retirement of the Tomcat was hastened by a long string of crashes where otherwise perfectly normal Tomcats ended up going into the drink, and no reason was found other than age of the airframe? It seems (from an outsider perspective) that this sped up the retirement of the platform, and if I recall there were a couple of fleet-wide groundings trying to figure otu what happened.
So yes, while F-15s are aging as well, so were the F-14s. Each in their own way. Even the F-16s are so heavily patched with stiffener plates it's ridiculous. The only semi modern plane we have was the F-22 and it was cancelled. We need something new. Fresh off the production lines, with no stress on the airframes.
P.S. I wouldn't say that simply because you can put missiles on a plane that it is an air superiority fighter. Air Superiority is taking control of an entire airspace over enemy territory, denying them the ability to fly in that territory across a wide envelop of altitudes and speeds, and maintaining that superiority. The F-15 is by design an air superiority fighter. The F-18 by design was a "normal" fighter, so semantics aside I don't think it qualifies. It cannot dominate an air space either because of lack of range or lack of speed or what have you. It's a "fighter" -- but not a "superiority fighter." The Tomcat wasn't one either, being designed as a pure interceptor for nuclear bombers. Sure, they trained and practiced dogfighting, etc, and it could fire plenty of missiles, etc, but the desing wasn't "air superiority" per se. That is what I meant by saying the hornet wasn't an air superiority fighter. Fighter, sure, but air superiority? Nah.
Krusty, if you check out my last post I think I answer your question about the airframe. Yes, old airframes are high maintenance, there's no doubt about it. What I object to is the overly simplistic point of view that, by definition, the F-14 was hard to maintain. The problem was that the last airframe was produced in 1990 and we didn't even procure the airplane fast enough for the 10 years before that to keep the average age of the fleet down before production ended.
As for "air superiority" Stoney describes the doctrine well but the issue of what is or isn't an "air superiority fighter" is an interesting discussion. First, you have to remember that air superiority is a mission, not a fighter. The same is true for interceptor and fleet air defense. Sure, some airplanes are optimized for a particular mission (some may actually limited to that mission) and become known for that role but the F-14 could do all three missions easily because it was the most flexible fighter in the world. The swing wing (pure freaking magic), ability to carry Phoenix, Sparrow and Sidewinder, a gun and awesome radar made for an exceptional package and arguments to the contrary are specious. Second, air superiority vs air supremacy is a numbers game. A CVN doesn't carry enough fighters to establish and maintain air supremacy over a broad area say, like Iraq. The Navy's more limited numbers of fighters means it establishes air superiority, more correctly local air superiority for a limited period of time. All of this obviously becomes easier the more CVN's you have in the area because, as I said, lot's of it is simply a numbers game.
So, what missions could the F-14 do well? Actually, all of them and it did them very well.
Fleet air defense mission? Of course because the F-14 had the range and endurance plus the AWG-9/APG-71 and Phoenix missile. Was it just a fleet air defense fighter? Absolutely not. The Navy experimented with two other options designed solely for Fleet Air Defense, one of its own volition and the other was forced on it. The F-6 Missileer was designed in the late 1950's and was a straight wing plane that looked similar to the A-6 without the sexiness (jk, the A-6 was an ugly crate also). All it was to do was to hang around on a CAP station carrying a bunch of missiles to defend the fleet but was slow and that was all it could do so it was dumped. The crew even sat side-by-side so they could hold hands. In other words, it wasn't a fighter. The failure of the F-6 led to F-8 Crusader then the F-4 Phantom, both true fighters although the F-4 was more of an interceptor. When the F-4 needed replacement SECDEF mandated that the Navy would use a version of the F-111. The crew also sat side-by-side holding hands but the F-111 was at least fast. Unfortunately it was huge, couldn't turn, and had lousy visibility. In short, although the USAF calls anything that isn't a tanker or a B-52 a fighter, the F-111 was not a fighter. It probably could have served as a Navy bomber if it weren't huge but that wasn't needed because the Navy had A-6's and A-7s. The Navy knew it needed a fleet air defense fighter that could hang out on station and Grumman designed them one.
Interceptor? The F-101, F-104, F-4, F-106, etc., were all interceptors. They could get there quickly but couldn't turn worth a darn because they had wings optimized for speed, not lift. The Navy needed an interceptor that could launch straight off the deck and haul balls to a long-range target and kill it with forward quarter, beyond-visual-range missiles. Grumman designed them that to.
Air superiority? Download the Phoenix rails and load up four Sparrows and four Sidewinders and the F-14 could turn with most anything out there and was competitive against the F-15 (which also carried four Sparrows and four Sidewinders). Yes, I know some will object and there are a couple of caveats to the F-15. The F-15 could out turn the F-14 at high altitude because that's where the F-15's wing was optimized to fight; however, the F-14 could out turn it at low altitudes where low Mach meant we could get our wings out. Even with the TF-30's we did well because the F-14 maintained E much better with the high-aspect-ratio wings (out of course). With F-110's it was eye-watering. So yes, Grumman built that also.
The F-18E/F? Hummmm. I agree with Stoney. It's basic role is self-escorted attack but leave off the bombs, drop the two inboard pylons, upload a single centerline tank, AMRAAM and AIM-9X and sure, it could do the air superiority mission. Because it's slower I'd say it's not as good for either fleet air defense or interceptor. Defending a CV battle group against incoming supersonic bombers and missiles means you need to get places quickly or stay on a long range CAP for an extended period of time neither of which the E/F excels at.
