As to the upgraded F-14s, this was never a real possibility. First, the basic Tomcat airframe did not possess the built-in necessary “growth space” or usable internal volume that the Super Hornet did. Basically, to incorporate the technology in the F-14 that has been done with the E/F would have required a significant redesign of the aircraft’s interior-not a cheap prospect at all. Upgrade it all you want, but you still have 30-plus year old airframes being remanufactured at a rather high price versus an entirely new aircraft.
The A-6F? Well, that was cancelled in 1989 in deference to the planned A-12….which itself didn’t materialize.
Not sure about the space part but the F-14 like any other large plane always has more internal space for growth than any other smaller plane.
BTW the F-18E/F is a 30yr old airframe too being remanufactured at a rather high price too.
Now, what exactly can the F-14 do versus the E/F? Is the Phoenix a proven ultra-long range weapon against tactical aircraft? Uh, no. The Phoenix was designed for use against larger, slower flying aircraft which had limited maneauverability at distance-i.e., big Russian AVMF Tu-16s attempting to get close enough to fire AS-2s, AS-4s, AS-5s, etc at the general center of a battle group. But, not so much against Su-30s with tactical anti-ship missiles.
So, when you realize that the effectiveness of the Phoenix against modern threats is questionable and when you understand that the primary weapon of a modern F-14 against this type of threat would in fact be the AIM-120 anyway, what differences are there between the Tomcat and the Super Hornet?
First would be speed. Undeniably, the Tomcat is a faster plane and the E/F is a Mach 1.5 airplane with a decent weaponload. Does the Tomcat reach preferred launch range quicker with the AMRRAM than the E/F? Yes. But, the Tomcat’s 6 Phoenixs are 50/50 at best and then it’s down to the AMRAAMS-which it only packs 2 anyway. The Super Hornet arrives a little later, but with 4-plus missiles which are more likely to achieve a kill in this scenario. Winner?
Also, look at the basic airframes themselves. The Tomcat may beat the E/F to the spot, but it will show up much sooner on the enemy’s radar screen due to it’s structure. The F-14’s right angles and aluminum body glow like a Christmas tree on the Flanker’s radar screen at around 60 miles. The E/F is blessed with a lower RCS due to basic design and the materials used, so who has a better chance of getting into firing position with their AMRAAM before detection? At best, it’s a tossup in which case the Super Hornet’s AESA will be the determining factor.
Have you not read ACIG or something? Phoenix was credited with more kills on Mig-23s, Mig-21s, Mirage F-1s, Mig-25s than any other AAM in the World with possibly except AIM-7 in Israel. This missile was more than proven. This is why the F-14 is far by the best BVR fighter in it’s generation, with Mig-31/R-33S somewhere around there, which are unproven.
If hte F-14 was upgraded, it’s AWG-9_ something would’ve been way better than any radar that could’ve gone into the Super Hornet. Besides this the AwG-9 is way more powerful. Even if it came down to AIM-120s, the Tomcat would’ve decided the engagement since it’s a lot faster and can see a lot farther.
I think a lot of people underestimate the RCS of a lot of newer fighters like F-16E/F, F-18E/F and Rafale, these might have lower RCS when clean, but attach fuel tanks and AAMs on them and thats not so low anymore.
I dunno, I just feel that F-14 nor the SH were needed at all when the F-35C could’ve done everything, better and probably cheaper.
Sign In
