That doesn’t wash. S-3s can be buddy tankers. We flew many a KC-135 sortie with MPARS pods or a drogue on the boom to support naval aviation, and that doesn’t even count the KC-10s have integrated drogue systems. There was more than enough in the way of AR support in-theater for both USAF and USN type assets. The impression I got was that the Hornets were tanking so they could fly. C/D models were over Iraq often enough, where were the new, great Super Hornets? They might have been around somewhere, but I never heard of it.

It was the relative value of their roles. For one thing, most of the Super Hornet unit in theatre were relatively new to the type and needed training on buddy refueling from the perspective of the tanker and not the tankee, considering the fact that they primarily came from already retired Tomcat units with no such experience. Additionally, the C/D units were over Iraq because they also needed to fly some, as well. A Hornet can drop a JDAM just as well as anyone else, since-as a Tomcat driver put it-“if you can use a keyboard, you can drop a JDAM”. The S-3Bs were best-suited to live video feed, surface surveillance, and targeting roles, since these could not be as easily accompished by any single other type. For that reason, they were passed over in the buddy tanking role. Guarding the Gulf against potential attackers in small boats was a role the S-3B was best-suited for and using it in the buddy tanker role would have been a waste of resources. Since the F/A-18C/D and F-14D could carry the small amount of munitions necessary to be bomb trucks in this low-intensity conflict and they could not do buddy-tanking, anyway, that was the role the Super Hornet was best-suited for.

Hmmm … just a question ! What does this ongoing discussion on US naval aviation have to to with the topic ???

“F-10 compared to EF and Rafale?” :confused: :confused: :confused:

Basically, as I understand it, it stems from the implication someone made that the fact that the Super Hornet was omitted from comparison due to the fact that it is incapable of performing well as a fighter, in essence, an admission by the government of the Super Hornet’s failings. This led to the current debate of the Super Hornet’s usefulness and therefore the validity of the F-14D’s replacement. Is that a correct assessment?

Logan Hartke

Kinda reminds me of when I was in Iraq. Never saw a Hornet over Baghdad. Saw lots of Tomcats though…and it was the Super Hornets that were serving as the tankers needed to give the Tomcats their legs. Always thought that was pretty funny.

Hi, I’m new here as well, but I’ve been looking into many of these issues, lately. I personally think that the Tomcat was a great aircraft and truly the star of naval aviation over the past three decades (and rightly so), but I do agree with the overall decision to remove them from service. Furthermore, I find your comments on the F-14s over Iraq versus to be either misinformed or misleading (judging from your apparent knowledge in aircraft matters, I lean towards the latter assessment).

The reasons for the F-14 having been removed were valid, and from what I have read in the recent reports, articles, and interviews of F-14 squadron commanders, the time for its retirement had come. By their own admission it was taking a “Herculean effort” to keep the F-14s flying on those last few deployments, not because of a lack of parts due to the types removal from service (since a program started some time before that assured that there were more spares available to the F-14Ds than there usually were 5-10 years before), but because of the inherent complexity of the F-14’s electrical and hydraulic systems only compounded by age and wear. It was taking no less than three (and as many as six) times as many service hours to keep F-14s airworthy than it was Super Hornets; a practice that Tomcat commanders admitted would have been unfair to their men to continue for much longer.

Also, the preference of F-14s for ground pounding in Iraq was due entirely (again, straight from the horse’s mouth on this one) to the type’s recently installed ROVER system that the Super Hornets were not yet equipped with. This allowed for more precise communication with the ground troops and therefore, more precise targeting. It was arguably the clearest ROVER feed in theater. In this case, the F-14D’s ROVER capabilities made it a hot commodity, but the Super Hornet will soon have this as well. Additionally, the recent ability of the F-14s to carry the 500lb JDAM made the combination highly useful in the unique environment of 2005-2006 Iraq. One Tomcat commander’s estimate was that without those two abilities, the Tomcats would’ve only dropped 2,000lbs of ordnance (four bombs) on this last deployment instead of the 5,000lbs they actually used (ten bombs)/

Furthermore, another reason you saw the Super Hornets tanking was that they can, whereas the F-14D cannot, obviously. That just shows the more multi-role nature of the Super Hornet. It can carry more to the target, can take it farther (with buddy tanking), will soon be able to drop it more accurately, do it cheaper, and do it more often than the F-14. Not only that, but with the retirement of the unreliable and aged Phoenix some years ago and the recent development of longer-ranged AMRAAMs and AESA radar for the F/A-18E/F, the Super Hornet will soon be giving up very little to its predecessor in the air-to-air role, as well.

In the case of the Super Hornet, you’re gaining a number of capabilities, losing none (although admittedly being able to perform then at a somewhat lower level), and going to a lot less trouble to do it. You’re not spending as much time or money working on it, you’re not spending as much gas (and therefore gas money) doing it, and you’re keeping your logistics guys happier by ditching the Tomcat altogether.

The Tomcat was a great fighter, and if the US gets in a large-scale conventional war with a large enemy air power, it’s unique capabilities will be missed, but barring that unlikely eventuality, I think that it can be justly stated that the F-14 Tomcat’s US Navy retirement came fairly and at the right time.

Logan Hartke