‘As for which would have been a better air-to-air platform, it depends on what specific mission profiles you’re talking about, and which version of either jet carrying which AAMs,’ Dave Andersen, former US Navy F-14 Tomcat RIO
A fleet defense fighter that could engage high-altitude bombers from well beyond of visual range was necessary because Soviet long-range patrol and bomber aircraft during the Cold War had advanced. Grumman’s response was the famous F-14 Tomcat. With their long-range AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles, F-14s could fight numerous adversaries from a distance of nearly 90 miles. With this hefty armament, an interceptor’s fast speed was required, therefore Grumman created the F-14’s very effective variable-sweep wing, which allows it to fly at a variety of airspeeds.
Two Libyan Su-22 fighters were shot down by an F-14 in August 1981 over the Gulf of Sidra. It served for a significant amount of time in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gulf War. As the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a development of the F/A-18C/D, took its place in 2006, the final F-14D Super Tomcat left active duty.
In air-to-air combat, wouldn’t the F-14 have been more efficient than the F/A-18?
‘The F-14 was ultimately retired for a combination of reasons, but mostly due to post-Cold War budget constraints, which forced the Navy to make hard choices,’ Dave Andersen, former F-14 Tomcat RIO at US Navy (1983–1992), explains on Quora.
‘Among them was consolidating the carrier airwings into fewer different airframe types and multi-role aircraft. The Navy had not adequately funded F-14 upgrades and modernization throughout the 1980s and early 90s, to give the jet multi-mission capability as the Cold War ended, and the F-14D program was canceled after only a few dozen airframes. Plus, given that NAVAIR in the late ’80s and 1990s was dominated by the so-called “light attack mafia” (lots of A-7 / F/A-18 drivers), the “jack of all trades” F/A-18 Hornet came out on top, at the expense of the F-14A/B/D, A-6E and (later on) EA-6B.
‘The need in the mid and late 90s, after the A-6E was retired, for long-range all-weather strike capability gave the Tomcat a temporary reprieve once it proved, with LANTIRN integration on a shoe-string budget, that it could perform well in the strike mission. But as more Tomcats were retired (and airframes, spare parts and test & calibration equipment destroyed to prevent them from ending up in Iran), and as remaining airframes aged and accumulated more flight hours, combat time and time at sea, the Navy deemed them too costly to maintain and support their shrinking numbers. So, they were retired from the fleet in 2006.’
Andersen continues;
‘As for which would have been a better air-to-air platform, it depends on what specific mission profiles you’re talking about, and which version of either jet carrying which AAMs. Broadly speaking, though, the Tomcat (A, B and D) had much better legs (range and endurance), speed and long-range AAM “stick length” than any Hornet (A, C, D, E/F). The Super Hornet with latest AESA/AIM-120D somewhat closed the long-range missile capability gap with the F-14/AIM-54C, but not completely in all scenarios.
‘The Hornet has better cockpit automation and better overland “look down/shoot down” thanks to medium PRF radar and AIM-120, which the Tomcat never had. In a high task load environment, the two-seat Tomcat had some advantages over single-seat legacy Hornets, but with single-seat E and two-seat F Super Hornets with AESA radar and modern integrated sensors /avionics, cockpit SA is much improved, so the advantage there goes to Super Hornet. Hornets were/are also superior in the slow-speed high-AOA maneuvering arena, although experienced Tomcat pilots who knew how to use the “Big Boys” (i.e., use full flaps during ACM, which was officially verboten) in a slow-speed high-AOA fight, could outmaneuver a Hornet.’
Andersen concludes;
‘Today against China in the Westpac AOR, Super Hornets are all but worthless. Unfortunately, the Big Navy didn’t have the foresight to require long legs and speed with the F/A-18 E/F. So, we’re now without an effective long-range, high-supersonic carrier-based air-to-air capability until presumably, NGAD/F/A-XX hits the fleet, whatever and whenever that turns out to be.’
Photo by: U.S. Navy