I do not thuink the F-14 is a need in 2007, first there are new longer range versions in design of the well proven AIM-120 and second the F-18E armed with AIM-9X canbeat even the Su-30MKI, as long as the US gets a Meteor or the AIM-120D

Please don’t make it the notorious F-18E vs. F-14 debate. We have had all this s__t.

Although it won’t achieve ranges quite in the MICA class (under comparable launch conditions) the USN is currently working on a datalink for the AIM-9x plus the BLKII
rnd will incorporate pre-programmed loft/Loft glide logic. The combination of these two will significantly extend useable 9x ranges (especially when launched from the F-22) though absolute max ranges will probably be under 40km – limited by the existing motor and the power available for controlled flight (mission duration <=60sec).

However note that whilst in *theory* the 9x seeker closely matches or even outperforms the airframe/motor in *practice* under operational conditions the atmosphere doesn’t behave like a theoretical ideal.Hence adding the datalink actually does make sense (because in practice the airframe/motor are frequently not the limiting factors) and hence the USN remarks about potentially doubling the range (i.e. operationally practicable rather than theoretical range).

REFS – see my article JM&R (oct 2005) and B.sweetman’s recent (Feb or Mar 07) article in IDR.

This is interesting, that an inflight guidance via data-link is added to a “short-range” missile. But your points make total sense, that the IR sensor might not acquire the target due to atmospherical conditions and is augmented by other sensors.
Modern IR-AAMs are quite lethal, so that any advantage which keep one out of the kill radius of an opponent are worth exploiting. With such a missile, an incoming opponent can be greeted with a BVR-IRAAM and the firing aircraft can turn around before the other has a firing option.

I know that the IRIS-T (IR-AAM for the Eurofighter) has something comparable, to get target information when launched “over the shoulder”.

The advantage of IR guidance would be that you can also engage stealthy aircraft. I think even a stealthy aircraft like F-35 can be detected, but not sufficient to gain a missile lock. Such a weapon would work best when it is able to receive inputs from several sources, so for example AWACS or other aircraft. Or possible guidance by linked RWR when the stealthy aircraft has its radar activated.

What it does not say, is anything about the performance of the F-14.

The “lightweight fighter” requirement was based upon CAS/Tactical Strike (A-7) and Battlefield Air Superiority (F-4) (protecting CAS aircraft from enemy aircraft), while the F-14 requirement was all about fleet defense. Two completely different mission specs, and the F/A-18A/C/D had nothing to do with fleet defense. The “Hornet” only got into the F-14’s mission field when F/A-18E began to replace the F-14 in the fleet defense mission.

Really? Why was the “most capable aircraft” unable to fullfill the air superiority mission on its own, especially as fleet defense was a mission that was sized by Soviet capabilies. A war against any other nation would leave the F-14 unemployed, no Badgers to defend against.
I think the Navy figured out that basing the air to air component of their carriers solely on the F-14A (the letter A is important) would be a gamble.