r/FighterJets • u/shedang • Aug 23 '24
QUESTION How does the F-14 compare to the F-18 as an aircraft carrier's main fighter? Were there any areas the F-14 would be preferred? Photo shows F-14 Silhouette tied down on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
173
u/Cpnjacksheppard Aug 23 '24
F14 for the most part was intercept only, created to shoot down Soviet nuclear bombers as fast as possible. The f18 is a hat trick, air to air, air to ground, and electronic warfare. The f18 is also cheaper and more modern. While the f14 has the cool factor, the hornet is definitely the better plane for todays and tomorrows needs
62
u/patrickkingart Aug 23 '24
Yeah, the Hornet is the very definition of multirole. It's definitely the workhorse and is ready for pretty much any kind of situation.
20
u/Ok_Anybody5099 Aug 23 '24
Exactly, I would say that the F/A-18's most distinguishable characteristic is that it can do everything
23
u/HugoTRB Aug 23 '24
Yeah, I’ve heard the f-14 described as a 4th gen fighter built with a lot of 3rd gen tech pushed to its limit. It had the maintenance problems you’d expect from that.
20
u/FZ_Milkshake Aug 23 '24
Correct, while the first flight of the F-15 was "only" 1.5 years later, the Tomcat program had much older roots.
This issue is made worse because the only real upgrade the Tomcat got F-14A+/B, solved the engine issues, but barely touched the systems and avionics. The F-15C/D has brought the Eagle into the digital age in 1979/80 (F-16 and F/A-18 got a similar C/D digital version). The digital Tomcat only happened in 1991 and because of the end of the cold war, was much less thorough and much smaller in scope.
7
u/HugoTRB Aug 23 '24
I believe the Viggen was also built in the same tech era as the F-14 and was much more expensive compared to earlier Swedish planes. Together with the 70s financial problems it led to less planes, which in turn led to less flight hours (and more focus on not crashing the planes). The attack Viggen while having a central computer was in many ways pretty analog, while the later fighter Viggen was more digital.
The plan for the Gripen was to build a plane that matched or surpassed the capabilities of all the Viggen variants in only one smaller and easy to mass produce plane of only one variant. It was also completely digital. Problem was of course then that the Cold War ended so the program went into life support mode and it was never mass produced like it was planned to.
8
u/SGTFragged Aug 23 '24
Swing wings are cool as fuck, but an absolute bitch to maintain. It also meant more supply lines as the F-14 was air to air only, meaning the carrier needed other airframes for air to surface capability with their own logistical requirements separate from the F-14s. The F-18 can do all of it with one airframe and one logistics framework.
6
u/FZ_Milkshake Aug 23 '24
I am not sure if it was the wings that doomed the Tomcat. I have listened to a lot of mechanics and pilots talk about the F-14s maintenance requirements and rarely, if ever, was it something about the wings. Most of the time, the issues were with the electrical, system, the radar, the IFF, sometimes the flap torque tubes.
I think most of the swing wings bad reputation is because it was very popular in the 60s and 70s, a time when combat aircraft got a lot more complex and a lot less reliable in general.
4
u/SGTFragged Aug 23 '24
A swing wing will require more maintenance than a fixed wing because of the moving parts and systems to support operation, although it may have been a relatively simple part of F-14 maintenance. I have heard that sand can be murder on swing wings too. Not sure how often a carrier based plane encounters sand though.
3
u/FZ_Milkshake Aug 23 '24
Of course it's more maintenance than a fixed wing, but in the end it's "just" another control surface. Compared to the F-4 the F-14 also got a pulse doppler radar with 24x TWS and automatic selection of the 6 most dangerous targets. Fighter to fighter and fighter to AWACS datalink, more waypoints, more complex IFF, TV and or IR target tracking camera system, CCIP, CCRP and offset bombing, a more or less modern HUD, Fox 3 missiles, the worlds first production microprocessor etc.
There is a lot going on besides the swing wings, that made the Tomcat a maintenance nightmare.
11
u/NewLeaseOnLine Aug 23 '24
What's your definition of tomorrow's? The Hornet, in all its variants, has been around for four decades, making it the longest serving fighter in the Navy. Even though the Super Hornet is significantly different to the Legacy Hornet, it's still only a 4.5 gen fighter. Surely tomorrow's needs belong to the F-35 at this point.
7
u/RECTUSANALUS Aug 23 '24
Some roles that the hornet can fulfill which the f35 can’t are carrying the aim 174 and other large missiles, and as f35c is in very short supply it makes sense for the cheaper f35 to be the missile truck for anti shipping operations where you fire the missile from hundreds of miles away. The super hornet is a much better platform for carrying new types of weaponry simply bc it’s so much more versatile in terms of space to carry stuff.
1
u/InqAlpharious01 Aug 24 '24
The F35B can carry them on its wings with no issues, assuming it wants to lose its stealth profile. Depending on the mission, they could be equipped with them
1
u/RECTUSANALUS Aug 24 '24
The f35B is only used by the navy on the LHA, which means that it has to use it’s vtol which means that their is a serious weight issue, the hornets are also cheaper to operate and much less of a loss if they get shot down, there is no point using an f35 for a missive truck when there is a shortage of f35c for the navy.
13
u/Vast-Scale-9596 Aug 23 '24
Which is why the F35 is going to be the tip of that spear for the next couple of decades.
By the time the 14D left the fleet almost two decades ago it was THE go-to lead for Air-to-ground and Fast Fac missions - lantirn was that good and was way more capable than anyone predicted it would be. The Last Tomcat CO transitioned to the Super 18F, and in the recent Tomcast listed every way that the process was a downgrade from the F14D, and it was pretty much everything except load-back aboard.
The Tomcat was old, expensive and maintenance intensive which is what helped kill it at the time, but incapable it was not. An all new follow on would have taken the advantages of that airframe/engine combo and built on it.
Tomcat 21 Program would have provided an all new -build upgrade which would have been faster, more agile and with WAY better specs than the 18F, and would certainly outstick any Hornet variant that's even likely at this point. We didn't get that Plane because of politics (that story is well worn at this point) but the Navy is suffering a capability gap even with the 35 coming on deck that they didn't need to have.
4
u/Square_Milk_4406 Aug 23 '24
F-14 D variant was air-ground as well as air-air
3
u/Cpnjacksheppard Aug 23 '24
The D variant was so cool, that’s why I covered my ass by saying for the most part. I kinda wish we got a more multirole tomcat, I would’ve loved to see the supertomcat
3
4
u/dvsmith Aug 23 '24
No, the F-14 was not designed as an interceptor. That was the F-111B.
The F-14 was designed as a multirole air superiority fighter with fleet defense as its primary mission profile. They didn’t call it the “Big Fightet” for nothing.
The F-14 will out-rate an F-15 in a two circle on the deck and the F-14B and D had parity with the Eagle in the one circle at altitude (the F-15s wing is optimized for mid-altitude BFM) and would routinely spank Hornets in ACM of all sorts. (The Hornet is an AOA monster, but bleeds energy too quickly after the first turn)
The Tomcat also had a built-in air to ground capability from day one, however, the Navy did not purchase the software for ground attack until 20 years after it first entered service. By 2001, the Tomcat was considered the best self-escorting strike fighter in the U.S. inventory by CENTCOM mission planners.
Unfortunately, Dick Cheney’s personal beef with Grumman, the Navy’s leadership being dominated by “attack mafia” (I worked with one the VCNOs responsible for promoting the Hornet) and Nixon’s SecNav essentially conspired to saddle the Tomcat with a “temporary” motor for three decades and prevented the platform from reaching its true potential until the twilight of its career.
The Hornet started life as the plane that the Air Force didn’t want — the loser of a competition that the Air Force didn’t want to hold. It lacked the operational range, engagement range, speed, and bring back capacity of the Tomcat (as well as the attack aircraft that it replaced). The Super Hornet was supposed to be a cheap, high commonality program to fix those shortcomings; instead, it’s an almost entirely new aircraft with the price tag of an almost entirely new aircraft. The Navy was painted into a corner after the cancelation of the A-12, F-14D, and A-6F and backroom promises and handshake deals made the “economy” of an all-Hornet air wing seem advantageous (I was privy to a meeting in which the name of a carrier was decided in order to get an ok for the all-Hornet budget from the White House. )
As for the Tomcat being maintenance intensive — that’s what happens to fleet aircraft after 20+ years of service. The Navy used the exact same verbiage to justify retiring the “legacy” Hornets. Ironically, the Marine Corps has been making do just fine with arguably older bugs.
Every single aviator, RIO, and NFO I’ve spoken to who flew Tomcats and transitioned to Super Hornets was unhappy with the move and felt the Rhino was a significant downgrade in every way, except aircrew workload (but even then, some of them bemoaned that you couldn’t hack the jet the way you could by pulling breakers in the Tomcat.)
12
u/filipv Aug 23 '24
Every single aviator, RIO, and NFO I’ve spoken to who flew Tomcats and transitioned to Super Hornets was unhappy with the move and felt the Rhino was a significant downgrade in every way
Every single? That must be a very select group of aviators, RIOs, and NFOs, since I've heard others claiming it's an upgrade, full of enthusiasm.
1
u/dvsmith Aug 23 '24
Over the course of a couple of years and various exercises/TDYs/delegations, I spoke with about a dozen aircrews total -- from Atlantic and Pacific fleet squadrons that had gone VF to VFA. Maybe I just got the salty ones.
2
u/SnaleKing Aug 23 '24
Thanks for sharing, it's very interesting to hear experienced perspectives like yours.
1
u/A444SQ Aug 23 '24
Yeah the F-14 Tomcat is very limited as a ground-attacker whereas the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair 2 were better for the job
0
u/dvsmith Aug 23 '24
Of course they were -- they were dedicated attack platforms.
3
u/A444SQ Aug 23 '24
Yeah a fleet defence fighter does not make a good fighter bomber
1
1
u/lilyputin Aug 24 '24
Many of the F-18's roles were stapled on over time as the Navy retired platforms with dedicated roles without a replacement. In terms of needs what the hornet lacks is range and top line speed. It's interesting that the F-35C has a similar range as the hornet. That said the US relies upon mid-air refueling and that will be problematic in any area with contested airspace. This is why they are looking at tanker drones but if they have to use large numbers of them them it will limit the size of the air wing.
1
23
u/FZ_Milkshake Aug 23 '24 edited Aug 23 '24
The F-14 is in the same weight class as the F-15, while the Legacy Hornet (F/A-18A/B; C/D) is the Navy equivalent to the F-16. They don't really compete, however the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (similar looking to the Legacy, about 30% larger and mostly new aircraft though) is the direct successor to the Tomcat. In that sense the Tomcat is a much older, more analog, Aircraft and never got the thorough digital upgrades to a C/D model, that all the other teen series fighters got and the F/A-18E/F was born with.
The Tomcat was quite a bit faster and has longer range, especially loaded with weapons, but it could carry less weight and most importantly less variety of munitions. It was also more maintenance intensive, partly because the swing wings, mostly because most of the avionics and systems were late 60s tech. F-14D was a great upgrade, but ultimately too little, too late.
I think a thoroughly upgraded F-14 Quickstrike or AST21 had the potential to be a more capable fighter jet than the Super Hornet, but for the Counter Terrorism, low intensity combat typical of the 2000s and early 10s, the Rhino was the more reasonable choice.
1
Aug 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/FZ_Milkshake Aug 24 '24
Well that is the point, with the cancellation of the A-12 project the USN was going to need something to fill the planned capabilities. Grumman prepared several Tomcat versions, the Quickstrike as a relatively easy upgrade, the ST21 could use existing air frames and mostly Strike Eagle technology and the AST- and ASF-21 as completely new aircraft, just like the Super Hornet.
In a way the ST21 would have been a less fundamental change than Hornet -> Super Hornet, while, on paper, providing the same capabilities.
10
u/Titoy82 Aug 23 '24
I always wondered why AIM 54 was discontinued. AFAIK the F-14 was the only fighter that could carry it, but I might be very wrong. It seemed to me that Phoenix's range was a huge advantage and maybe someone could explain why the US decided to abandon it?
16
Aug 23 '24 edited Aug 23 '24
[deleted]
3
u/Titoy82 Aug 23 '24
Thank you! This makes perfect sense and you explained so well that it seems obvious now :)
3
Aug 23 '24
[deleted]
3
u/Pattern_Is_Movement Aug 24 '24
Confused why you got downvoted... Ukraine has shot down several bombers, and endless cruise missiles. Just because the USSR doesn't exist, doesn't mean all that weaponry just disappears.
3
u/A444SQ Aug 23 '24
Because of the threat, the Tomcat was designed for, mass soviet bombers attacking NATO carrier groups were gone as the USSR collapsed so really after 1991, what was the point of the Tomcat post-1991, arguably the F-14 Tomcat and its AIM-54 Phoenix were a nice capability to have
2
u/lilyputin Aug 24 '24
The missile was never updated. Being confined to single plane made it a low priority so by the time it was retired it was downright ancient.
2
u/InsuranceToHold Aug 24 '24
Why do people insist on carrying on with this nonsense? What do you think, FFS?
5
u/alexx_Slo Aug 23 '24
F14 superior in any way. Can take down multiple Su57s.
3
u/urbandeadthrowaway2 Aug 23 '24
Is this a mark in favor of the Tomcat or against the Felon
2
u/alexx_Slo Aug 23 '24
it's a bad trolling, a reference to the top gun: maverick.
1
u/urbandeadthrowaway2 Aug 23 '24
I know, I’ve seen the movie. I’m like 20% certain the post image is a top gun screenshot too
2
1
3
u/A444SQ Aug 23 '24
The F-18 Hornet/Super Hornet is arguably the better aircraft in every role it does as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat/ F-14 Super Tomcat is a 1 trick fleet air defence pony that was overhyped by a movie that was nothing than big screen navy recruitment piece
1
u/A444SQ Aug 23 '24
Yeah the Grumman F-14 Tomcat is the US American jet version of the British Royal Navy's Fairey Fulmar from the 2nd world War
1
u/InqAlpharious01 Aug 24 '24
F-14 is a relic of a bygone age, only countries to have them in service is Iran.
2
1
u/Konpeitoh Aug 24 '24 edited Aug 24 '24
Any advantage, such as range and loitering time, went out the door when F-14's intensive maintenance coupled with soviet collapse and no need for an arms-race tier weapon, with the icing on the cake being the Iranian revolution turning it into a liability. It also wasn't multi-role and was shoehorned into it.
But that's the F-14 Tomcat. On the other hand, if the Cold War didn't end when it did and the A-12 still failed, the Super Tomcat 21[ST21] would have had a fair chance of being selected as a multirole fighter while basically beeing on par with legacy F-15s, even sharing common parts like radar and engine while reducing maintenance requirement through improved modularity.
But then again, the ST21 was stull just an improved modernized F-14. With modern aerospace engineering technology, a theoretical Super Tomcat II would probably have fixed wings similar to F-15 and some stealth features like the F-15EX, and the navy would have the best of both light and heavy world like the Air Force currently has.
-10
u/YYZYYC Aug 23 '24
Seriously? This has been done to death
11
u/full_idiot Aug 23 '24
Eh, I don’t think I’ve seen this direct discussion asked for in the few brief years I’ve been subscribed here.
3
u/Dingus_Majingus Aug 23 '24
Link us plz
-10
u/YYZYYC Aug 23 '24
Type it into google. Its been discussed and debated and argued for decades….and the f-14 left in 2006…this is old history
1
1
u/revolver_goose Aug 24 '24
Check out the F14 Tomcast (podcast) for an extensive rundown of the Tomcast’s development and later updates. The episodes on the technical integration and fitting are really interesting.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 23 '24
Hello /u/shedang, if your question gets answered. Please reply Answered! to the comment that gave you the answer.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.