Super Hornet vs Tomcat a Top Gun Maverick Reaction
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2022
- Did the Super Hornet Outshine the Tomcat? A Top Gun Maverick Reaction Video.
Warning: This video contains spoilers about the movie Top Gun Maverick
The "what-if" Tomcat Maverick could have flown: • Top Gun Maverick Super...
PilotPhotog Merch Store!
shop.pilotphotog.com
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @pilotphotog
Subscribe on Patreon: / pilotphotog
Patrons and channel members get early access to ad free videos
Follow me on other social media:
📸 Instagram - / pilotphotog
📖Facebook - / pilotphotog
🐦Twitter - / pilotphotog
👾Twitch: / pilotphotog
🎮 Discord: / discord
🎙Check out the podcast with full length interviews: pilotphotog.buzzsprout.com/
3D Models by EGPJET3D:
/ egpjet3d
Credits/Attributions:
Photography and video Credits/Attributions:
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Department of Defense
Lockheed Martin
Want to help support this channel?
Become a channel member: czcams.com/channels/z_aGg3uEnfE4hU6Pu6Wj3g.htmljoin
Subscribe on Patreon: patreon.com/PilotPhotog
After watching the film I was wondering if the f22 or f35 would have been a better fit for the mission
Good video but the F-14B pioneered PGMs,FLIR and other A2G weapons in the Fleet. The Hornet, Super Hornet and Tomcat could Self Designate targets. I was happy to see H-60s and E-2s in the movie but the Growler would have been great. The AIM-54 did not have a good record in the USN. The speed and range of the F-14 is a big loss but the Super Hornet brings lower operating costs, organic tanking, Electronic Attack and some RCS measures. A friend of mine actually flew a number of the actors as well as Maverick's jet and wore his helmet. His name does appear in the credits. Hats off to "Hans" and his brother who is a H-60 pilot for the US Army!
@@calvinlee1813 thanks for commenting and hats off to your friend and his brother Hans for their service. The Growler would have been great in the movie and is actually the subject of my next video. Cheers!
And EW and KC-135. lol
Hey! What about the 2 Biggest Plot Holes in the whole Movie???
#1. No way the E-2 , at long range, Detected the SU-57s by itself. I say F-35(s) Spotted them then, thru the Datalink, warned the E-2.
Tie for #1. Who was defending the Battle Group from Counter Attack???? Again.... the F-35s?????
Especially, with that Final Dogfight Scene where one SU-57, flying from Sea back to Land by itself, Finds the Tomcat.
What happened to that SU-57"s Wing-Mate???????
FUN FACT: The exact blue and black Super Hornet E that was used as Maverick's airplane in making the movie was repainted and issued to the Blue Angles as the #5 airplane.
BuNo 165667
cool! got a source?
I knew it wasn't just me!!
Just saw #5 today at the St. Louis air show.
Fame at last !!
My mother worked at Grumman for 30 years as a project engineer on both the F-14 and the E2C Hawkeye so my heart goes with the Tomcat.
My dad as well. I'm a cat person.
My Father worked at Grumman for over 40 years, started on the LM program, later the F-14, then the E-2C & E- 2D before retiring.
Fellow long islander?
@@Sole-tx9cx Yes, I don’t live there anymore though.
@@Waterratt4344 Me too. Sadly, NY is being destroyed. I miss the old LI and NY!
There's just something about the look of the Tomcat, with the wings being able to move back and forth, that I will always love. Loved TG Maverick. Fun and well done.
It is what I call the “Transformer” effect! 🙂
If you are feeling nostalgic you can take a look at the Tornado Panavia instead. It's still flying, sadly...
The f111 is the GOAT of swing wing planes
Same with the Panavia Tornado. Also a beautiful aircraft :)
@@Micha-qv5uf Always thought of it as the european answer to the F-14 or the german shepherd of aviation. Nonetheless old equipment. It was designed with the intention to fly below radar and then attack. But with modern day manpads this should be something you want to avoid at any cost. Also the Tornado has an incredibly annoying engine sound.
As a Navy vet who served on the USS Kitty Hawk from 82-85 my bias undoubtedly leans toward the Tomcat. I remember when we were launching the early version of the f18 and I'd heard that they would eventually replace the f14. I thought..that's gonna be a sad day for me. Just glad I was around to see the Tomcat in its heyday. Been almost 40 years now and I still get chills watching the f14 videos on CZcams and hearing that distinct roar of those engines on take off! F14 Tomcat "Any Time Baby"!
You do realize that the F18 Superhornet would wipe the floor with the tomcat right?
@@bigchungus1848...yes I do realize that but you have to remember that 43 years ago when I served the F14 Tomcat was king of the beasts.
@@bigchungus1848 Wipe the floor? you do realize you statement is factually incorrect. If I'm wrong please post any link claiming so. BVR the Hornet wouldn't match up very well, dog fighting would be pilot skills. The hornet is superior in the fact that it's not superior in anything. It does all very well. The Tomcat was SUPERIOR in fleet protection yes as mentioned in this video the Navy has yet to find it's replacement. BTW Vodkaknockers, I had the honor of seeing the first hornets arrive on the Midway when we were stationed in Japan replacing the F4.. Than Transfered to Nimitz to see both 18's and 14's. All great planes. And like any Carrier navy guy of our generation; I too am a cat guy.
My husband was on the Nimitz in the early 80s. We saw an F-14 at the Oshkosh air show in the late 80's. He still has an "anytime baby " t-shirt F-14 2/ Libya 0.
@@justinegorski2703 fox 1 fox 1. Good kill 👍
The F-14 is, in my opinion, the best looking fighter jet ever produced. It's the best looking aircraft, fighter or otherwise produced. It's one of the best looking pieces of machinery ever produced, it's a work of beautiful art.
Fell in love with the F-14 when I saw it for the first time in the movie "The final countdown". Also sexy: F-15 fixed wing brother or the russian beautys MIG-29, SU-27/32. The time of the F-14 was over when the AIM-54 Phoenix was retire - the Tomcat was the only plane to carry it. All Tomcats dismantled and distroyed because of the fear that spareparts could reach Iran.
Laughs in A-10
I see it the same way, but I'm also a child of the 80s. The Super Hornet is also beautiful. But my heart belongs to the Tomcat. It's no coincidence that in the Tomcat you can see the silhouette of another bird we're excited about: the Millennium Falcon. Look at the Tomcat from above... can you see the Star Falcon?
Personally I'm partial to the B-1 for the lines and the F-4 for gruff aesthetics, but the F-14 isn't far behind.
The XB-70 Valkyrie.
They cut the scene where Maverick is diving on the target and he hears Goose speaking in his head.
Goose: Use the Force Mav.
Then Maverick turns off his targeting computer and he uses his aviator instincts
to dive on the target and put two bombs right down the vent on the Deathstar.
😁
Actually, Top Gun: Maverick is a knock-off of Starwars... just analyze the characters, and it will blow your mind
Goose was talking to Rooster, not Maverick.
@@engeng1234 And? Star Wars ANH was itself was a knockoff of Valerian and Laura, various Kurisawa films especially Hidden Fortress, the Dam Busters plus a few other WW2 films, and a bit of Dune. Disney's The Force Awakens was essentially a remake of the original with as much of a blatant knockoff as it was.
@@engeng1234 Goose-baca says "oo-oowrrr"
I remember reading somewhere that Admiral Gilcrist, who was in charge of the evaluations between the then new F-18E/F against the F-14s it was replacing was quoted as saying, "We felt sorry for the Hornet drivers; we out flew them, we out fought them and we ran 'em outa gas!"
The Tomcat, in it's heyday (say 1974-1990) really was unmatched. It was the ONLY aircraft with the ability to shoot and guide multiple missiles to multiple targets and let them go active outside the first shot range of most other A/A missiles until the AMRAAM IOC in 1991 (not really widespread until 1995 or so). Every Hornet and Eagle out there was a Single Target Track (STT) Sparrow semi-active radar guided missile shooter. Most Vipers were not even Sparrow capable and were limited to AIM-9s air-air. I would argue that while the Superhornet is pretty capable in it's own way, it is really a "good enough" solution and is not nor ever was at the top of the heap. The Superhornet corrected two major deficiencies of the Hornet, fuel (range and endurance) and weapon load/bring-back. It didn't help speed. By 2020 standards the 1990 era F-14D Tomcat is pretty obsolete, but it could have received upgrades similar to the F-15EX/SA adding full FBW, AESA radar, etc.
Would have been cool to see a super tomcat
I think at the end of the day the government bean counters killed the Tomcat
dont forgot the f-14 reauired more maitainance
@@ProjectDanH technically is the D version to be referred to as Super Tomcat
It didn't guide anything. It carried the PHoenix missile, which was fire and forget. They were not designed to be dog fighters.
The F/A-18 E/F are absolutely amazing and definitely cool but the F14 just hasn't lost the lovin feeling yet.
under rated comment 😂
No it hasn’t
😆
This reminds me of the time when 2 F14s dogfought stolen F5 tigers, rebranded as MiG28s
Before the days of the Internet trying to find out what a mig 28 looked like was impossible, I knew they were F5s as there was no way the russians would allow their jets to be used, couldn't find the 28 in any aircraft book
@@pads-zr9ln because the mig 28 doesnt exist. no mig fighter has an even number in its designation
@@EthanThomson I know that now but when you're 7 in 1989 it's hard to find that information
@@pads-zr9ln 💯
was just 1 cause they mirrored the scenes for 2nd. and were they f5 or t38
Maverick was a good sequel, and allowed the film to showcase what the Super Hornet is capable of, while also showing that in the right hands, the Tomcat is still capable of holding its own
I love the Tomcact as much as the next person, but the Hornet is simply more versatile, and - not mentioned in the video, but of high importance to the Navy - has a significantly lower cost to maintain & operate. The F-14 Tomcat cost $35,000 to $40,000 per flight hour, and the F-18 cost $10,507 per flight hour, straight from DoD public documents. Dumping an aircraft that was 3.5 to 4 times MORE EXPENSIVE to operate while deficient in ground attack role and only moderately better in air to air was an easy decision to make for the Navy. Better value would be expanding training hours for all flight crew & maintainers and expanding the number of pilots & maintainers while still trimming operations budget.
Well said
Yeah I have heard the Super Hornet is a dream to maintain. Quicker, easier to maintain means the aircraft is returned to service much quicker. And perhaps new techs come up to speed much quicker working on the Rhino than the Tomcat.
The original F/A-18 while capable of more missions than the Tomcat didn't do either the attack or fleet defense as well as the Tomcat or A-6 Intruder (which it replaced in the attack role). The Pentagon had an axe to grind with Grumman. The Super Tomcat or Tomcat '21 depending the version looked at, is far superior to the Super Hornet in just about every mission role however because of politics and development focus on the F-35 and stealth, the Super Tomcat will most likely never be created. The Super Tomcat design fixed a lot of the maintenance, structural, and powerplant issues faced by the original Tomcat platform, and tackles the ground attack mission role which the original Tomcat struggled with as well.
Wouldn't it be apples to apples to compare with the Super Tomcat?
@@Leoneidas as others have pointed out, Super Tomcat was passed over bc the DoD was pissed at Grumman for the poor engine performance, insane cost overruns and ridiculously high maintenance costs of the Tomcat.
The F-18 is significantly less expensive to build and nearly 4x cheaper to maintain. I'll take a pilot / maintainers with 2-3x experience with an aircraft that's 90/% as capable any day.
I think the Tomcats had superior aesthetics from a film standpoint. They just stand out so much better than the F18's. But the mavericks sound did the f18's great justice too. I mean having real people pulling real G's. You cant really top that compared to topgun 86. Love them both.
Well said and agreed, thanks for commenting!
They did pull real G's and used real Tomcats to film Top Gun. the only problem was the actors weren't trained so they were passing out / eyes rolling to the back of their heads - none of the footage was usable. That's why Tom Cruise insisted on some rigorous training this time around; + the ability to have cinematic footage in the cockpit is new, which really created more sensational in-flight scenes.
@@lgbnz also the camera tech wasn't really there yet to really get good cockpit shots. They had to remove sections of radar panel to fit the clunky 80's cameras if im not mistaking
@@lgbnz But this time Tom Cruse is a veteran actor with considerable clout and could make that training happen.
I couldn't tell if the sequel was better than the original. To me it was a perfect combination of weaving both films together into one. I love them both!
Same
I legitimately think it’s better. I rewatched the first one right after the second and I feel as though it’s just not as exciting as the second. Much higher stakes a lot more action.
I was in the Navy when the first one came out and it was a great movie, but in the second one, I felt a twinge in my heart for him when he was looking at the end of his career. When my 20 years were up, I wasn’t ready to go and it was difficult for me. It was the only life I knew and it was a career that I loved. I was a sailor and I belonged at sea, but my high year tenure came up and I had to retire. That was 18 years ago and to this day, I long for the feel of the deck moving under my feet, the sound of the ship slicing her way through the water and the taste of the salt in the air. My ears still strain to hear the bosun’s whistle signaling the beginning or end of an event, or piping over the 1MC the end of the day, followed by, “ Tap, taps, lights out. All hands turn into your bunks. Maintain silence about the decks. Now taps.”
Most see a ship as just a machine, but those of us who lived on one know they are alive and that the crew is her soul. My feet no longer carry me across steel decks, but my heart still rides the waves on those gray ships.
The first is a much more emotionally moving experience with a better ensemble cast, better soundtrack, and is filled with classic one-liners. The second was really fun but it was carried mostly by Tom and the amazing flight scenes. Both are great in different ways.
@@jrfoster4225 wow dude, that was a beautiful and emotional story, and even though I am not a sailor, you described it so vividly that I could see where you come from. Thank you for sharing.
In my country, Iran, F14s and their pilots are always looked upon as war heroes and legends for the great service they did during the Iran-Iraq war, and people have a special interest in them. What a beautiful and legendary fighter.
I'd really like to hear more stories about the F-14's in Iran.
@@mac_pls Austrian writer Tom cooper wrote a book about F14s in Iran, I think that's a good source for your purpose. The name of the book is "Iranian F-14 Tomcat units in combat". Also there are many CZcams videos about that concept.
Cool. I hope the Iranian people can win their freedom.
Are you guys still flying F14s?
@@femtoeclipse860 Yep
Nice to see someone give the F-18 some love and be able to explain why while admitting the F-14 was so awesome as well. I'm not a pilot but what I've heard explained about the F-14 is it's still the best "interceptor" ever made. Very high top speed, exceptional dogfighter even by today's standards, and if that's not enough it had the almighty Phoenix. Planes today though have to be multi-role. The F-14 was too specialized for today's military and apparently very expensive to maintain. Although as the enemy continues to come up with new threats to the aircraft carriers we might see them have to do a design specifically intended to protect the fleet like the F-14 did.
F-14s all of them had data link. Even the A had data link. You can find it in Grumman's documentary from 1975. To keep it as unbiased as possible. I will simply quote what a Legacy Hornet/Super Hornet pilot callsign 'Jungle' (and a Navy F-16N Aggressor) said who also had flown the F-14D and taken both Super Hornets and Tomcats into war and trusted his life with the fighter he flew. His callsign is 'Jungle'. He said, he would take F-14 over any variant of the Hornet/Super Hornet into war any day in air superiority missions. Any air-to-air battle and it is all about the Tomcat while 'Jungle' said in close air support (air to ground), Super Hornet had advantages over the Tomcat. F-14's speed, acceleration, energy addition rate, power, capability to carry weapons and radar as well as ability to gain air superiority over the battlefield, was second to none while Hornet/Super Hornet was unparalleled when it came to air to ground strike missions.
That's why the navy needs to develop the F-14 as a "Super Tomcat 6th generation fighter which would be incredibly lethal.
What was the guys name again?
@@waynetaylor3353 The Navy is developing a 6th generation fighter from scratch. Much though I like the Tomcat, there's no point in bringing back a design from the 1970s when we have newer technology, mission requirements, materials, and design talent today.
@@revejmal You can watch his whole interview on 'F-14 Tomcast'. His call sign is 'Jungle'
Which is confusing… because the Tomcat actually excelled at BOTH. In fact, it scored the highest success rate in ground strike missions out of ALL coalition aircraft, when they were converted to Bombcats during the second Gulf War… north of 80% success rate.
The F-14 was an interceptor, not a dog fighter. It was designed to deliver a larger payload faster and further than any other fighter in its class…even the F-18 super hornet. Plane & simple.
It was absolutely made for dogfighting, and it is very good at it to, thanks to great power to weight ratio, and the variable swept wing. They used a lot of lessons from the vietnam war when they designed the aircraft.
The whole point of the Top Gun school was, and still is to learn pilots how to dogfight against smaller agile opponents like most MiGs.
If it had bin kept in service, it would most likely have rivaled the F-15 in kill/loss ratio.
@@haakonsteinsvaag top gun did a good job glorifying the tomcat, and honestly, it is my favorite fighter jet, hands down, she can scrap with the best of them, but…she was designed to carry AIM-54 Phenix. The Air Force didn’t need such a weapon because they are primarily a land based operation that has missed batteries strategically placed to defend most of North American from a ICBM attack or bomber threat. The U.S. navy on the other hand did not have such a luxury back in the 70’s when the tomcat was being designed. The tomcat had to be big enough to carry six phenix missiles that had a range of over a hundred miles. Now combine the range of that missile and that drag car of a jet that can scream to threat almost 2,000 miles from its carrier and deliver its ordnance 100 miles from its target, you got yourself one hell of fighter, Cold War era tactics that are now obsolete. No fighter pilot back in the 80’s wanted to fight the tomcat because they knew they would be dead before the saw him. If the enemy ever saw a tomcat, it’s because he let him. Same goes for the tomcat pilot, he knew his best chance of survival was to get the kill before the enemy knew he was there. The tomcat could dog fight, but it was no dog fighter. The F-16 would smoke his ass if he was in range. That’s a fact.
@@anonymouscitizen2732actually F-14’s would routinely make easy work of Vipers and Hornets in a merge. Go listen to the Tomcast interviews. The F-14 was absolutely made for dogfighting and it excelled at it. Especially down low with its wings swept all the way forward. They said once you avoided the initial pointing of the nose from a Hornet or a Viper, then it was a simple matter of tracking back to their tail and killing them. Veteran Tomcat pilots knew what the limitations of the Viper’s and Hornet’s fly-by-wire systems were and exploited them. The biggest trouble they had in a merge was with Eagles above 35,000 feet. But yeah, the whole Tomcats weren’t meant to dogfight thing is a myth.
@@sledgehammerk35 I will be the first to admit that I am no F-14 pilot, nor a fighter pilot of any nato aircraft. All the information I know was from F-18 hornet pilots directly. Maybe the stretched the truth, maybe they lied, either way, it was first hand knowledge and it made sense. The tomcat is just too big to be maneuverable enough to keep up with a dog fighter. Again, it was designed to carry the phoenix, the only fighter aircraft big enough to this day to cary them.
@@anonymouscitizen2732 maneuverability is subjective. Hornets can point the nose at will, but at a cost. They lose too much airspeed too quickly. Whereas a Tomcat can tighten down, use it's very powerful engines, avoid the nose, then simply out rate a Hornet with ease. Tomcast episode 9 features former Tomcat/ Super Hornet pilot "Jungle" Jones. He flew them both and said this... "an F/A-18 is so slow, that it can't get out of its own way." In other words, he's saying that all he had to do was get the Hornet to bleed all it's energy by baiting it into a one circle fight, then take it into the vertical and it would be all over.
The F-14 was designed as an interceptor. It could do ground attack fairly well, after the upgrade it got for that role, but its biggest advantage in that role was the massive payload it could carry (which was also true for its primary role). It was fast as hell and armed like a video game character. But the F-18 was designed as a multirole fighter from the beginning, which makes more sense for carrier-based aircraft. Instead of a smaller number of each separate aircraft, you have more available aircraft that you can load out as the situation requires.
Hehe wow that's a neat description of the Tomcat indeed..hehe armed like a video game character 😂
There is a place in my heart where Top Gun will remain the favorite movie of my childhood, yup I was one of those kids that was 9 when the movie came out and grew up watching the VHS over and over again! Lol but with that said I think as a movie Maverick is a superior film in just about every way and I am happy about that! This is what sequels are supposed to be. They are supposed to not only continue the story but to take the potential of the prior film and realize it!
Damn. You were young. I was 13. When the movie came out.
I was 12 . I enjoyed the soundtrack/music of that film. The best ones were heard on the radio 📻.
Top gun was a better movie, but Iron Eagle 1 is my favorite military plane movie
@@phillong01 yeah I think even as a kid I notice a difference in production value between TG and IE but it's still good to me! Lol 80s movie cheese everywhere and I love it!
Wow, I can relate to this comment lol.
I’ll always love the F14 and it will always be my favourite but there’s no denying the super hornet’s versatility. I can’t help but wonder what could’ve been if the proposed super tomcat made it to production
Yeah as much as I love the F-14 and it's abilities, especially if an upgraded bomb truck upgrade was made like the F-15 got with the Strike Eagle, the cost per flight hour would have been a bit much, especially with the YF-23 waiting in the wings. But we all knew how that turned out, glad the new Top Gun movie thumbed their nose multiple times at the USN's decision about that versus the Felon!
@@anydaynow01 The navy has the F-35 they’re fine
It would have been the F-21. A thrust vectoring angel of death at ranges in heard of. The F-14 was designed to be an interceptor of other jets and ICBMs. The type of craft we have yet to make another of. If they continued with the F-14 production it would have been our new stealth fight/bomber/interceptor. It would have been all in one aircraft. Our world would be a cooler place. We truly are in the dark timeline.
@@theread3480 talk to anyone in the military and they will call the F-35 Fat Susie. No one actually likes the craft. It's not particularly good. The F-22 has better stats all around and costs less.
@@bombomos I’m going to disregard anything you say because you very obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Either that or you’re just spreading propaganda
I agree with Nightbringer. The F-14 Tomcat is the most badass plane to ever fly from a carrier. I was serving on the USS Dwight D Eisenhower when the first Top Gun came out. I had the privilege of working with these gorgeous birds as a “Grape” and they were a true joy on deck. They were easy to fuel and those fan engines were kind to personnel working around them. That is until they went to Zone 5 afterburner. 😂 I left the navy in’86 and was saddened when I learned the navy retired the Tomcat some 20 years later even though I know that aircraft designs only last so long before something else comes along. I was happy the producers of the movie found a way to include the Tomcat, and it’s really cool that Mav got all five of his kills in that aircraft. The F-14 will always hold a special place in my heart, and I will always remember it’s famous slogan, “Anytime baby!”❤
Agreed. What an amazing piece of engineering.
one of the main reasons was cost and maintenance, it was just cheaper long term to build the F18
No it was about dirty pay offs and back room deals
Tomcat all the way. The Super Hornet is no slouch, but variable wings, speed, Range, radar, Phoenix missiles and downright sexiness? Nothing matches The Tomcat
Phoenix missiles where not all that in reality. Yeah they had very long range but they also had high probability of missing the target.
@@adamdennis5249 I'm sure they would have worked out the bugs after awhile..
@@yourdrummer2034 No bugs really the enemy could just see the Phoenix missiles from very far away and have like several minute warning time.
@@adamdennis5249 I think it's more that The US never used it that much and of those few times they did there were failures, before canceling them and the F-14 retired. Had we had the chance or reason to use them more it would have been more successful. Other countries had great success with the missile with over 50 kills and 2 occasions where 1 missile destroyed multiple aircraft. 1 instance a single Phoenix missile fired at a flite of 4 migs destroyed 3 and damaged the 4th.
@@adamdennis5249 and something coming at you at nearly mach 5 with a proximity fuze is a little difficult to move out of the way of. The failures were rocket motor failures and one missed and it buried itself in the ground.
F-14 is a legend, and no one can deny that it's the basis for the design in popular (and yes, legendary) anime like Macross, those VF fighters ARE literally F-14 that converts to robots.
The F-14 Tomcat's design was so good, it became the inspiration!
Had the pleasure of talking to a guy who was in the Air Force back when we used the F14s....he said for every 1 hour of flight time it took 35 hours of service time.
That's quite interesting because F-35 has been criticized to be too costly to maintain and yet each variant requires less than 8 hours of service time (less than 5 for A variant).
@@Laerei yeah it seemed a little excessive to me but then again we are talking about our wonderful government and the way they spend 💰...the guy works at the hickory regional airport at the aviation museum...he seemed to know what he was talking about but who knows.
I grew up always wanting to be a pilot and in my mid 20s, I trained and joined the US Navy in VFA 213. Which I flew F-18Fs for. I was surprised I even saw one 213s jets in the film!
The Tomcat and Hornet both shine in their respective mission profiles. And the movie combined homages to Star Wars, Mission Impossible, and “the Admiral’s daughter,” with updated Navy equipment and classic scene remakes to make an excellent follow up to the original Top Gun.
That’s Why Travis In Ace Combat Assault Horizon I Have both of them Fighters. And there was a Special Paint Job for the Jolly Rogers Squad. They Have Both Of Them.
Hornet Replaced A4-6-7, F4-14. Here’s real world difference between 14 and 18. I worked on them from 80-89 VFA 125/106 and VMFA 314 (power line). One evening 10 went out and 9 returned down for our shop. By morning all 9 were returned to service by 8 mechanics. No interruption of the flight schedule.
Also separating accessories from the engine via PTO shaft to gearbox allowed rapid engine and accessories changes.
Well, all the electronics in modern jets is a HUGE portion about what makes them effective. So yeah the F18 being a lot more modern probably makes it more capable in a lot of ways. If you updated all the electronics in the F14 it would probably be more capable than the F18 in almost every way. One thing to keep in mind though is that the F14 really, really liked killing its own pilots. It did a much better job of killing its own pilots than it did of killing adversary pilots, I still love its presence though.
You're officially the coolest dude I've ever seen
MY FAV JET = F 111
Nice, VMFA-314! Black Knights of the USMC right? Fan of that squadron ever since the Independence Day movie.
@@robot336 that's an underrated aircraft!! Both aesthetically and performance wise!
I'm a Tomcatter. VF-84, VF-101, VF-143. The Hornet was originally introduced as a compliment to the Cat. The E/F is designed to do multiple things. As strictly a ACM platform, the Cat will swat it like a fly. If the 14 had the Phoenix, the 18 wouldn't even get within sight of it.
As a professional photographer, I have always reminded by students that it is the photographer behind the camera that makes the photos, in this case the pilot makes the flying incredible.
The Tomcat was only in the Top Gun Maverick to show love to Tomcat flyers, fixers, and enthusiasts. Which is appreciated.
Although it’s use in the film is quite unrealistic, it’s somewhat plausible since Iran still operates Tomcats
@@davedeville6540 The first Top Gun was equally vague about the enemy. Somewhere in the Indian Ocean meant that the enemy could have been in Eastern Africa, the Middle East, the sub-continent, Myanmar, Indonesia, and Australia.
In Maverick, the mission [SPOILERS] is to take out a uranium refinery site. This suggests that the enemy is not a established nuclear power but one on the cusp. That the enemy operates F-14s also suggests Iran. However, I think the film makers honestly didn't want to suggest a specific country and the original gave them the precedent not to do so.
The F-14 is like an old muscle car, beautiful, fast, singular in purpose, and utterly cantankerous from a maintenance perspective.
The F/A-18 E/F is like a modern crossover -sporty, but sensible and reliable, can be counted to drop bombs on targets as much as a crossover can drop kids off at soccer practice.
So, of course, they needed the F-14.
Yes it's a better plane
@@Rob_F8F I assumed Iran as well while watching the movie. Of course giving Iran 5th gen stealth fighters is a stretch but they needed it for the movie.
I really love both aircraft however, in my opinion.....The Tomcat was discontinued because of cost and it was NEVER obsolete. I served aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt with the last two operational Tomcat Squadrons, VF-213 The Black Lions and VF-31 the Tomcatter's. It is true that the Tomcat's one and only weakness was 80 hours of maintenance per every 1 hour of flight but that's because she was old. When a Tomcat flew, it outdid EVERYTHING! A new batch of tomcats with upgraded avionics, systems and air frames would be unbeatable.
The Tomcat in a dogfight may not point quite as sharply as the Super Hornet momentarily but in dense air, wings out.....The F-14 Tomcat can STILL out rate the F-18 Super Hornet in a battle of turns! The "D" Model Tomcat with the GE F-110 engines also went maximum thrust LESS afterburner saving tons of fuel on takeoff from the flight deck unlike the F-18 Super hornet which required full burner guzzling down fuel.
During operation Enduring Freedom our F-14's were also was able to deliver laser guided bombs from our carrier and return back to the ship without needing a tanker to refuel, unlike the F-18 Super Hornet! So here is my summerized comment.....The F-14 Tomcat can fly further, fly faster, carry more payload and out turn an F-18 Super Hornet in a rate fight. In my opinion it was operational COST that killed the Tomcat. It was NEVER obsolete and the newer fighter cannot perform the same missions as successfully as the original F-14 Tomcat. The Navy made a mistake in replacing the Tomcat with a lower performance less expensive aircraft.
politicians killed the tomcat D/21/22. Now the navy stuck with an ugly taxi bug. I realise now that the real planes are with the air force the navy is stuck with cut down aircraft.
@mandellorian You aren't the first person I read saying that the Phoenix missiles, are bad... the NG Tomcat would still use the Phoenix or they'd be replaced by the AMRAAMs?
@mandellorian So true, also not nearly as agile as other fighters. The back seater was also often tasked with pulling breakers and resetting equipment failures as they were fairly unreliable and their electronic tech was VERY outdated.
@@VeeAreSixed1 I mean it is 60s tech, it was all going to be modernised but we will never know
@@danielsfonseca From what i read, even the very late tomcat used the Phoenix, but there were experimentation with AMRAAMs.
About comparing these 2 missiles, you just have to see the surface of the phoenix (and therefore its penetration coefficient) to see that it has a big handicap by design if it wants to equalize the AMRAAMs.
You got it right in the summary. As a pure interceptor, the Tomcat's speed and range were a winning combination developed initially with the mentality "not a pound for Air to ground". A talent that the versatile multi-role Super Hornet can't match
I didn't think of it when I saw the film but when this narrator was explaining the plot, did anybody else get real big Star Wars vibes? Flying down a canyon, missile batteries on the sides, pulling up steeply to drop a weapon in an exact spot? Use the Force Tom, you can convince everybody that you are 5ft 10! "I am not the dwarf you're looking for!"
And if you go further back you end at David using a small stone to down Goliath. It's all variations on a theme.
I spent six years on the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) and two deployments on her in the mid to late '90s, I loved the Tomcat. We had the F-14D, the F-18 Hornet, the A-6 for the first deployment, the EA-6B, the S-3, the E2C Hawkeye and the C-2 Greyhound onboard. I stood watch on the CIWS Remote Control console in the Combat Direction Center (right under the flight deck) and you always knew when an F-14 was on the catapult, even if you didn't look at the Plat screen. At the time they were much faster, had much longer range and could carry a bigger payload (if I recall correctly). Talking to some of the air crews and they told me that at the time, the Tomcat required much more maintenance though, because it was such an older airframe.
Thanks for commenting and thank you for your service!
@@PilotPhotog Trust me, I was happy to serve. I’d do it again in a heartbeat if they’d have this old guy back. I got to be a part of something bigger than me and got to give back to the country that gave me so much.
That's awesome, thank you for sharing.
I remember from watching TV in the 90's that the Tomcat's engines had a distinct sort of howl while on deck.
It is clearly understandable that the F14 had much more complexity and those swept wings could be a concern for reliability. I have heard that this was the problem with the F111. In a dogfight, it is clear that the F14 would not stand against a F18 and a Rafale which is the other multi-role super plane of the West.
After working on both Legacy Hornets and Tomcats, along with seeing the introduction of the Super Hornets I have to say the Hornet is the better platform.
It comes down to two things fly away cost and maintenance manhours per flight hour.
the F/A-18 had a lower flyaway cost then the Tomcat per unit.
second the Tomcat had the highest Maintenance Manhour per flight hour ratio of 90 to 1, comapred to the Hornets ratio of 8 to 1.
although more capable and some better performance numbers, if it is down for maintenance it's not doing what it was built to do.
The Navy was able to procur more Hornets then they ever did of Tomcats due to lower cost.
Super Hornet is kind of like a Swiss Army Knife. If you look at all the planes it’s replaced. A-6, A-7, F-14, EA-6B, and even the tanker version of the A-6. Makes sense to have one airframe to do all those tasks on a carrier with its limited space for spare parts.
so basically your saying the tomcat was better but just to costly to maintain in terms of actual cost and man hours. I suspect the supertom cat as opposed to a legacy tomcat would have had less maintenance as the switch to digital electronics from analog as well as third generation engines would have made a difference.
I never liked the swept wing design of Tomcat. I think it is a bad idea. It adds cost, adds maintenance, adds weight. The wing is the most critical portion of a plane without which it does not fly, you can fly without engines and land, but you can't fly without a wing (well, you can if you are an F15, but that is an exception). So the swept wing mechanism needs regular checkups and heavy maintenance to ensure that the wings literally don't fall off since they are not physically bolted to the body of the plane. Or imagine a stray bullet from an airplane you are dogfighting shots the pivot and the wings comes loose... That is an extreme and I'd not worry much about that, I'd worry about the improper maintenance much more. Also, you can't have hardpoints beneath those swept wings.
I think thrust vectoring is much better tech to enable low-speed maneuverability for high-sweep or delta-winged aircrafts than moveable wings. You still need higher rotation and landing speeds, but that too isn't something unsolvable.
The problem is the Super Hornet, from a capability standpoint, is inferior to the F-14D. It’s much slower, has a smaller payload, and shorter operational range to name a few. Sure, they require less maintenance, but that mostly boils down to the Tomcat being 3 planes in one package. Plus, when there’s an anti-ship long range cruise missile heading towards a carrier (which is a VERY real threat that our carriers face today) what are you going to think is more important: The plane that needs less maintenance, or the plane that has the speed and agility to intercept said missile?
I’m not saying the Super Hornet replacing the Tomcat was a mistake. But it was foolish for the DoD (and more specifically Dick Cheney) to retire the Tomcat wholesale. Plus a pair of Tomcats paired with a pair of Super Hornets is a nasty combination for air-to-air defense, especially in a naval setting.
@@codyerickson3550 here it is from capability standpoint. An aircraft that sitting in hangar bay because of maintenance is one less asset available to do the mission. The cruises I have done hangar bay three ALWAYS had half a dozen Tomcats there for hardcore maintenance. Compared to the three hornet squardrons that had that many down the for hardcore maintenance. Grumman naval aircraft are maintenance intensive my last command was with a Prowler squadron we had as many personnel a Hornet squadron with just four aircraft we were averaging between 70 and 80 manhours per flight hour. While the Navy gave up the speed and range of the Tomcat they got more mission ready aircraft for a strike or a CAP mission.
Although my favorite aircraft is a tie between the F22, and the F15, of I had to pick between these two in the video, I'd have to go with the Tomcat. It's just such a cool plane with an iconic look, and it was incredibly capable in the hands of an experienced pilot. No disrespect to the Hornet, it's a great plane.
There was a flight engineer who worked on the tomcat's upgrades doing a guest lecture at MIT and he said it was eventually deemed a waste of money. No matter what you add to the tomcat it is still just adding tesla components to your dad's '67 Chevelle frame. They can make the planes lighter and more efficient by just redesigning from the ground up for next gens, even if it does cost more per plane at outlay, the maintenance costs of older air frames are just higher.
Thank you for the information!
A buddy of mine was a navigator (back seat guy) in a Tomcat. He went to its retirement party. He said it was one of the saddest days in his life.
I was half expecting one of the Pilots at the briefing to say "I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters." 😁
"Many argue that the Tomcat was the greatest and sexiest plane ever to fly."
No, the Tomcat WAS the sexiest jet ever to fly. It may be outclassed in some areas, it may have had a larger maintenance cost per flight hour, and it may be obsolete now, but sexiest never fades.
The F-15 Eagle is up there with the F-14 Tomcat in the most sexy department.
SU35 is sexiest plane to fly
@@zam023 No, the F-15 with it's narrow landing gear looks ridiculous on the ground.
It's close relative F-111 IMO was far sexier. Sleeker, and deadly. It was not however a fighter.
Not to mention LOUD! Even in the ship's library on CVN-65 you knew when a Tomcat was taking off, the whole compartment would vibrate with sound quite a bit more when a Tomcat was taking off.
Tomcat.
If you know anything about wings,
look from above,
Tomcat is a delta(triangle) wing fighter.
Hornet use a rather spread straight to side wing, Tomcat wing when takeoff.
Delta wing is use for fast fighter.
French Mirage use it.
Straight to side wing is for passenger plane, it's for efficient lift.
Afaik Tomcat was the only US Delta wing fighter.
It would be interesting to see Tomcat with upgrade mentioned + stealth.
In case you missed it, I think you will enjoy this take on a 5th gen Tomcat: czcams.com/video/XfxVneeVyKM/video.html
I’m a retired A/C mech worked for DOD Navy Depot I can verify the F-14 was really cool air craft but had a lot maintenance issues .Cost to do depot level maintenance was much higher than the F-18 . The F-18 legacy had air frame issues we did a lot center barrel changes to extend the life of the aircraft .
The F/A-18E/F are 8.1 g aircraft and are restricted to that by it's software though there is an overide paddle to disengage the g limiter
The F-14A/B were 6.5 g limited aircraft that had no real limiter thus were known to hit 7-9 g's with some hitting 10g.
All F-14's were able to carry bombs and had the ground attack radar and computer from the A-7.
The procedure for making bombing attacks is outlined in the F-14's NATOPS manual
the paddle disengages AOA limiter not g limiter as in slow regimes(like a dog fight), AOA is the real limiting factor in turning performance as contrary to g. The paddle give the F18 the ability to instaniously pointing its nose for a snap-shot without changing its flight direction as fast (thus keep within the g limit), the cost is to lose a whole lot of energy and possibly stalling. However, the real edge of F18 over F14 is its JHMCS（helmet mounted sight in human words) and intergration with aim-9x high off boresight missle, this give F18 pilot the ability to look anywhere within its forward hemisphere and destroy pretty much anything he sees while the F14 pilot are still working hard to pull F18 into its hud.
@@ahadicow When you shift your AOA like that, you increase the lift being generated by the wings, and that translates to increased g as the plane just tightened it's turn
@@ahadicow it’s actually a G-limiter override. there is a FBW override switch but the paddle switch your referring to overrides the G-limiter by 33%. With certain loads the hornet was limited to 7.5 but was rated for 9gs. the 7.5 limit was to extent the life time and maintenance costs of the airframe
Confirm. Somewhere I have pics of the red and white pre-production Tom with a small but-load of Mk-82 slicks.
Also, later versions of AMRAAM have better % of kill at long ranges than the AIM-54 ( as they should, they are decades newer ) the 54 may have been the most over-hyped missile of all time.
@@trickn2819 The AIM-54C was supposed to be a decent anti fighter missile but at over 1000lb it was heavy and slow to accelerate. If the F-14 had continued it's development, it would have gone on to the AIM-120, the AIM-260 and eventually the Long-Range Engagement Weapon that Raytheon is working on
The attack plan in the movie would have benefited greatly from the EA-18G Growler helping to suppress enemy air defenses.
Or just letting F 35s or B 2 bombers do the job.
@@dylonmc4323 That idea is raised and discussed in the movie. When Cyclone presents the mission profile to Maverick, Mav ponders an F-35 strike, but dismisses it immediately - the enemy's defensive preparations include blanketing the whole region with GPS-jammers that would make JDAMs too inaccurate to hit the target-point needed. The SAM network means anything other than a nap-of-the-earth approach is suicidal, the accuracy requirement calls for laser-guided weapons, and the massive workload involved in both the flight-profile _and_ the need to guide the bombs means they need two-seaters to do the lasing - and there _are_ no two-seat F-35s.
A B-2 strike with a ground-team to lase the target might have been viable, but at that point, you're not _making_ a _Top Gun_ movie any more, you're writing a mission for _Call of Duty_ detailing the ground-team's adventures getting into position and escaping in the aftermath.
@@TraceCoburn One of the very few things I didn't like about Top Gun Maverick.
Laser guided munitions are not suited for low level bombing mission profiles, because the targeting pod would get masked before bombs would impact, not to mention that laser guided bombs themselves would probably not have the time to correctly adjust their trajectory.
F-35 has integrated EOTS with which it can lase targets. As such, a mission would've been a cakewalk for a two ship F-35s, each carrying two GBU-24s, plus a couple of AMRAAMs each in case any of the SU-57 Felons had a misfortune and present themselves and become targets of opportunity.
Given F-35s' stealth characteristics they could've easily and leisurely dropped the payload and self-lase from high altitude, then get out with no one being the wiser, provided no one is unlucky enough to get in their way.
@@NLozar22 F35s are not that stealthy and have no rear aspect stealth
@@TraceCoburn couldn't you just carpet bomb the area
Both were excellent movies and the planes were the secret stars. It was a real treat to see the F14 in action again as so many people love it. The reality is that for the last 30 years we haven't needed a big carrier based interceptor and the long-range phoenix missiles were never battle tested/proven so we don't know for sure, but that capability to carry 6 long range weapons is unmatched to this day. The variable wing geometry was really what made the F14 possible for carrier operations, but it was also what made it so expensive to maintain. A more modern plane with similar size/capability would have to make compromises for stealth. Imagine an F-22 Raptor with a larger internal bay trying to constantly be shot off and land on a carrier. Would it be durable enough to have a decent service life? We may never know.. but the F35 works fairly well as a naval platform so far. Would a larger version? Would love to see it.
Plus the Tomcat was the airframe for the Veritech Fighter, currently based at the Skunk Works development site.
The screen presence of the Tomcat is unmatched
This. The tomcat seems a wild beast with so much STRENGHT that at any moment can make somethign violent. The Hornet looks like a ninble knife fighter .
@@tiagodagostini it's crazy cause the 14 is more manueverable.
All the hornet has going for it, is it's able to swing it's nose onto target and dump all of its speed... And given that's it's got Pringle containers for engines, it would get lunched by the F14.
@@pocketpunch9920 No it is not more maneuverable on the wider sens of the word. it has a smaller turn circle. That is NOT maneuverable. The spitfire also had a much smaller turn circle than the FW190 , yet the british piltos considered the FW190 more maneuverable. Why?
The combined inertia on the 3 axes is a major point in maneuverability. How fast a plane can reverse a turn and go into an opposite turn is MORE represenative of maneuverability than sustained turn radius.
It has two major movies I can think of off the top of my head The final countdown and top gun
@@pocketpunch9920 depends on what you mean by maneuverable if it were to swing its wings all the way back yes it would be it would also kill its speed
The tomcat is better in some ways than the f18 but for the new generation of aviator the f18 is now the king still love the f14 wish they upgraded it instead of retiring it
To expensive to upgrade
In an alternate timeline, the Super Tomcat and the Super Hornet are flying alongside together in the United States Navy.
@@rojichama with all the money they ended up plowing into the F-35, they could have upgraded the Toms.
@@rojichama The F/A-18E ended up costing as much as an upgraded F-14D and the proposed F-14 AST21.
@@gec-o2167 They have different mission packages the F35 is a multi rule strike fighter that's supposed to replacing the F/A-18 super hornet.
Meanwhile the F14 was designed as an interceptor, air superiority, and fleet defense aircraft it has more in common with the F-22 than it does the F-35 due to the F-22's primary focus being air to air combat.
About a year before I got out of the navy the tomcat came out. I was stationed at Oceana, Va. The first flight was a demonstration for the controllers, I was one, and the bases captain. I was working departure and got a request from the pilots of the F-14 tomcat and the F-4 phantom for an unrestricted climb to 30,000 feet. After I cleared it with the center, our airspace only went to 18,000 feet, I issued the take-off clearance. The F-14 and the F-4 lined up side by side and started their takeoff roll. The training people had a monitor from the tail of the f-14 to the monitor in our radar room. It was amazing. When they started you could see the f-4 behind the f-14 and then the f-14 took off. You could see the f-4 still on the runway just about to lift off with the f-14 passing thru 14,000' and the f-4 disappearing. An amazing aircraft and fun to control.
wow that is quite a difference in rate of climb! Thank you for your service and for being a controller - you keep all of us pilots safe and separated!
"Why not F35s?"
'They're all singles, can't have an actor with cameras getting flown around in the back of a single. Need 2-seat Hornets.'
When it comes down to pure emotion and aesthetics you just can't beat the badass looks of the Tomcat. The Hornet has never been a "pretty" airplane in that sense.
Sorry pi, though I feel the Tomcat was and is the most beautiful aircraft ever built....The Hornet is gorgeous 😍 !!
In all fairness, its like fighting over who's the hottest Sports Illustrated models.....
"We're not worthy!" ...lol!
Still the Hornet was awesome to see on the big screen.
@@fishwagt1514 " hence the nickname the Turkey."(sic)
The turkey moniker comes from the resemblance of the Tomcat in the approach to a strutting tom turkey.
the hornet is one of the ugliest fighters in existence even uglier than the f-16
The military isn’t meant to be pretty. It’s meant to be effective and get the job done.
The F14 will forever live in my mind as the greatest plane that served America. I remember being around these as a child growing up in the 80's and then seeing the og top gun.
I served in The Navy when the F-14 replaced the F-4. I was a F-14 ordnanceman. She was the most advanced technological Aircraft during its time period. It was designed to be a fighter and a Bomber. She was used as a fighter up until the late 80's early 90's. She was the answer to the Russian Migs! Being able to track 21 targets and eliminate 6 of the most dangerous. Proven combat capability. We've never lost a Tomcat in combat. She was a treat and every one of our enemies knew that. So, coming from a me and probably every every F-14 pilot, every f-14 Tomcatechanic and technician, The F-14 TOMCAT is the Baddest Aircraft ever made. It's design is to track the enemy and eliminate it! Not run around the sky seeing who can out maneuver each other. Pound for pound, they haven't come out with a replacement for her! 😊
As for the sequel. I think the first one was more exciting! 🤔
With the history established with the SH, you can look at combat effectiveness, mishaps, mission ready status or FMC rates, upgradability. The f18 SH is definitely all that. At the time the Tomcat had the large radar and the Phoenix was only for large bombers it was not effectively used in combat with the US. Fast forward the AIM 120C-5 and so forth you can extend range with these missiles and they have done that.
I spent 11 years in the U.S. Navy and i worked on BOTH airframes and the superhornet as a civilian contractor, i also spent 2 years working with Top Gun, and in an aggressor squadron, the F/A-18's were little more than targets for the F-14 in a strictly air to air role, I do not know if the Super hornet ever flew against any F-14's in ACM training, but i do know, when the Navy fielded the F-14 A Plus later to be designated as the F-14 B, the U.S. Air force would no longer fly 1V1 against the Tomcat, because with the addition of the F-110 engines, the F-15 C kill ratio of 50.4 over the F-14 A Tomcat, was slashed to 34.6, the performance gains were that significant, and they NEVER flew against the F-14 D's, but when i worked at Top Gun, the F-14, F-15, and F-16 all easily beat the F/A-18 A,B,C, and D airframes, again, i do not know for certain about the E, and F variants flying against the F-15 or F-16, i do KNOW that the F-14 A, had very little problems handling the F/A-18 and F-16, but BOTH the F-15 C and F-14 A crews did really have to work to get a "KILL" on each other, the ratio was 50.4 to 49.6 in favor of the F-15 C, with the introduction of the F-14 B, that ratio changed wildly to 65.4% to 34.6% in favor of the F-14 B, I imagine that would have gotten worse IF the Air Force would ever have considered flying against the F-14 D, which was by far the most capable F-14 that ever got built, it is a shame that we never got to see the full potential of that wonderful airframe! your video shows how the F/A-18 is a multi role plane, but you ignore that the F-14 was also a multi role plane, it was designed first and foremost as an air superiority fighter, but it also had the size and speed to make a VERY EFFECTIVE fleet defender and interceptor, and later on, because of it's speed and maneuverability, it was able to add photo reconnaissance to it's abilities, now the F-14 did all 4 of those jobs with an exceptionalism that had never been matched before, and likely never will again, while they have "FORCED" the F/A-18 to fulfill A LOT MORE ROLES, than the Tomcat ever did, and it DOES perform those roles, it does NOT perform ANY of them with a high level of excellence, like the F-14 and A-6 platforms did, yes the A-6 was also a multi role aircraft as well, it was designed and built first and foremost as a medium weight attack plane, it could carry and deliver with accuracy a large amount of ordinance, because it could carry so much weight, it made it IDEAL for the air to air tanking role that it did so well for decades, and the EA-6B was outstanding in electronic warfare mission as well as SAM and anti-aircraft suppression/demolition, again, making a plane like the Hornet/Superhornet to accomplish ALL combat roles is one of the stupidest and retarted things that anyone could think is a good idea, and the Hornet/Superhornet programs did nothing more than prove that, the A-6, KA-6 D, EA-6 B is an example where one airframe could perform several missions, (CLOSELY RELATED TO EACH OTHER) as did the F-14, but the F/A-18 now performs all of those missions and more but not to anywhere near the level of competence of the planes that it replaces!
The Tomcat drivers I have PERSONALLY spoke too have all said the same thing when they flew against the F/A-18. " We would out fly them, then run them out of gas. Every. Single. Time. " They also described the F/A-18 as a " minivan ". Not exceptionally good at anything.
A tomcat versus an f-18 In a dogfight would always end with a dead f-18.
The legacy hornet guys said the same thing when they first came on the scene. The newest super hornets are pretty cool though.
I knew an F-15 driver who got a cross stint with the Navy. He got to fly F/A-18C's. He said they would routinely spoof and beam the Tomcats, close on them from behind and below and get gun kills on them.
Both movies are equally well done. Shows how the military and Hollywood can work together to create something positive.
I'm no expert but my understanding is the Super bug is slow, short legged and really draggy, but does have some useful RCS reduction. It's basically a compromise solution that stepped in when the A-12 was cancelled. The F-14 was fast, long legged and a superb weapon system for it's day. The ultimate interceptor. It was also old, analog and really expensive to run. Great plane, but its' day was done.
Of the two, I'm a Hornet guy.
Same. Other than speed and range, the Hornet is better than the Tomcat in almost every single way. I guess most people are biased towards the Tomcat because of its looks and how romanticized it was because of the first movie.
@@cleeiii357 The new Block 3 Hornet now has the same range that the F14 did.
@@adamdennis5249 Then the tomcat really is more inferior now.
@@adamdennis5249 the Block III was initially intended to have conformal fuel tanks (and internal IRST) but they don't get them in service. So the SH is still short-legged.
@@manuairborne not really it has more internal tanks too
What a comparison :D I think the Tomcat can't ever be beat by sexyness. There's just no way!
As the Rhino is the "Super" Version of the F-18, the correct plane to pit it against it is the Super Tomcat 21 as you said. The competitor to the Hornet 2000 Program which resulted in the Super Hornet. And that new F-18 is essentially an all new plane, sold as an upgrade with similar looks. But the general size and the intakes give it away - this is a new beast, a new Fighter.
But the Super Tomcat 21 would have probably been the greater plane. New hydraulic and electric systems as well as more fleshed out manufacturing would have allowed for a huge reduction in maintenance (a welcome outlook, as this was the F-14s main gripe). A fuselage of composites would have made the large plane much lighter and Gruman was dead set to use every single pocket of air in that airframe for fuel. If a system could be replaced by a smaller, newer one, fuel storage was put in the freed up space. Supercruise and potentially thrust vectoring as you pointed out. And of course, new avionics were included in the package as well.
The Tomcat would have gotten meaner, faster, smarter and would have been a great platform to integrate new systems of future generations.
But as history goes it didn't work out. There are multiple stories why the ST-21 did not come to life. Some say that the defence secretary at the time had a grudge against Grumman and didn't even look at the proposal. Others say Grumans proposal was too advanced and could not be seen as the "upgrade" but rather as a new plane, also blaming the Name: Tomcat-21 rather than F-14E.
Regardless, this Tomcat would have been the real competitor to the Super Hornet. A plane which is not bad by any means, but which has been labled as "grown nearly to the size of the Tomcat, while still remaining less capable than the "big fighter" by some people in the fighter community.
The F-14 was my first favourite aircraft as far back as I can remember. I just loved the look of the Tomcat and I also love the F-18. I've been a modern combat aviation nut since I was young thanks to my grandfather.
I was in from 85 to 90, and i got to see the last of the f-4's as well as the peak days of the f-14c when my boat did unrep with the Eisenhower as well as the America. I was also witness to then the new fangled f-18's maybe a few years old at the time. What a time to be in the Navy, and what a time to be in America!! It was a blast!
The panavia Tornado (GR versions) was designed to do the mission depicted in the film. Low level bomber with GTFR, a heavy payload, twin engined swing-wing proved its worth on several low level bombing missions over the 3 decades it was in service with the RAF
the last acronym of your reply says why it wasn't in the movie.
Yeah, but those runway cratering missions were nuts.
Everyone likes the folding wings it’s like having pop up headlights on cars in the 80s it’s just so cool👍
The Super Hornet does have a lower RCS. It was designed to handle the newer more modular avionics and fire control systems. It is a little smaller, and saves space on the carrier. It is also about half the cost to maintain. This is a huge concern when faced with budget constraints.
The Tomcat is a Fleet Defender. It was meant to intercept at high speed and shoot down any aerial threats to the fleet. In this regard, it is still better than the Super Hornet.
I'm definitely not an expert on fighter jets but I do have a question for you since you seem so knowledgeable. I was listening to two fighter pilots talking about the f-14 and f-18. The f-14 pilot said the most g's he ever pulled was 6.8 and the hornet pilot said the most g's he ever pulled in the f-18 was over 8. Does that mean the f-18 is a more maneuverable jet and would have the advantage in a dog fight between them?
@@RobertA-oi6hw Both aircraft can pull more Gs than that the problem is that doing so damages them so the Navy and Airforce tell the pilots not to exceed certain G loads for each type in order to get more life out of each aircraft, for example the Tomcat was rated at 6.5 Gs by the Navy but if you look it up several Tomcat pilots have had it pushing 10+ Gs for limited actions.
@@josephkugel5099 so if they had to, the f-14 could maneuver just as well as the f-18?
I wonder if they both had the same modernized systems inside which would win in a dogfight? Are they evenly matched enough to where it would depend on the pilot?
@@RobertA-oi6hw Keep in mind that pulling Gs does not necessarily translate to better maneuvering in a dog fight, other factors like sustained turn rate and AOA must also be included and each fighter has its own performance spectrum, for example the Tomcat was at its best dogfighting prowess below 20,000 whereas the Eagle was better at higher altitudes so it is incumbent upon the pilot to force the other guy to come fight him and his plane where its at its best, so to answer your question the pilot is the most important piece of the puzzle and will usually win if however you say what if both pilots are equally matched then the Hornet has a slight edge because its smaller and lighter but if you compare the Super Hornet against the Tomcat 21 i say the Tomcat would win 8 out of 10 times no problem.
@@josephkugel5099 so cool! Thanks for the information. Are you, yourself, a pilot?
Tomcat is like a vintage muscle car, while Super Hornet is a modern turbocharged sports car.
The F14 was an interceptor. It only entered the multi role fighter. When they added Air Force Lantern pod. But by this time they leaked so much hydraulic fluid. They started to become unmanageable.
I remember drip pans and drip cloths under every F14. The F14 airframes were in need of replacement badly at this time.
Me personally the F14 was my favorite. It was an awesome aircraft. With massive amounts of power. Nothing broke the sound barrier better in level flight. The F18 would always take a shallow dive before it’s run by the carrier. The 14 would just hold it on edge till mid flight deck. And boom! Absolutely amazing to see.
Had the rare chance to see a tomcat on a carrier once and seeing it in real life is an experience. First thing that struck me was what a massive plane it is.
She’s like a beautiful ballerina that ate a few too many hotdogs. Big and heavy without sacrificing her looks, yet graceful and agile.
I might want to point out also that the full Block III Super Hornet capability improvements (especially with the GE F414-EPE) might have gave the Super Hornet some much needed enhanced performance capabilities for it to better accomplish the infamously difficult bombing run as depicted in Top Gun: Maverick.
Its not a 9G capable aircraft. No Super Bug is, so none would have survived the canyon walls.
The Rino was never meant to be more than a "as cheap as possible" and "good enough" replacement for the legacy F/A-18.
It's impressive how good it turned out despite the limited resources and dev timeframe.
Most people would've preferred to see upgraded F-14s, F-15s and F-16s tho ...
Correct and I believe the Rhino was also the replacement for the A-6 Intruder as well
Navy chose to retire the Tomcat for a reason (a whole plethora of them, really). But at the end of the day, the most important one is also the most boring: supply chain simplification.
With Tomcats as the premier air-dominance platform, the Navy was forced to carry additional aircraft of different types to cover other mission cases. Back in the 50s and 60s, this was just accepted as the way military airpower worked. But as modern technology has enabled the design of aircraft which can achieve a high rate of utility in multiple tactical domains, having aircraft dedicated to one or two roles becomes a hinderance in more ways than one.
Sure, maybe a tomcat has a little more to give on the ragged edge of a dogfight, but two hornets for the price and hangar space of that one tomcat will still carry the day.
Sure, maybe the tomcat can get to the scene of the crime and start laying down the law sooner, but since going 100% Bug gives a carrier more planes to work with, that problem is solved by having more aircraft on patrol, covering a wider area to mitigate the need for a high-speed response.
Sure, maybe the Tomcat can carry a more powerful radar set, but it can't carry a more powerful radar than the dedicated AWACS platforms the fleet carries anyway. And modern missiles like the AIM-120D can be guided directly by those AWACs assets, so the more powerful radar in the fighter is now a liability in terms of extra weight, a wider frontal cross section, and a second inventory of parts and maintainers required.
I worked on "Top Gun 1" and we walked out of the crew screening at Paramount saying "Did we work on this movie?" since it was extraordinarily good. But "Maverick" is a superior film in terms of the human storyline and of course the onboard aerial footage. I've seen it twice and plan on a 3rd visit to an IMAX theater which is a more immersive experience.
The music in the original is infinitely better.
The movie was good but very predictable. I said of course Rooster is going to be on the mission, of course something mechanical will go wrong, someone will come back to save Maverick, he will steal a plane to get out of there, and when the enemy plane was on his tail just waiting for a US plane to blow it out of the sky, I thought it would be a woman, but it was Hangman.
I served in the Navy when the Tomcats were being retired and the Super Hornets were coming online as an Avionics Tech but I always loved aviation and my original plan for my Bachelor degree was to go into Aerospace Engineering before changing it to IT. I saw many of my classmates from A-School transitioning from Tomcats to Super Hornets and also saw and heard how many pilots felt about the change to the rhino. Having grown up in a family that had many military members and a few pilots that flew Tomcats in the 80s and 90s I was able to witness many first hand accounts of the capabilities of the Tomcats and how the Rhino was a lesser aircraft because someone decided to have one Airframe to do all the jobs that originally were done by several different aircraft. I understand that it was a cost cutting decision to just use one Platform to take care of all the mission required during flight operations but when you do so the Missions are going to SUFFER! We used to have S-3 Viking that was both a Mid-Air Refuel and Anti-Submarine Ops, A-6 Intruder a Bomber, EA-6B Prowler Electronics Warfare, F/A-18 Hornet Light Attack Close Air Support, F-14 Tomcat Air Superiority Fleet Defender, E-2 Hawkeye Command and Control, C-2A Greyhound Logistics Carrier On Board Delivery. Each Aircraft was designed with a JOB to do and they did those jobs very well. Someone is the Pentagon got into their head that it would be more cost effective to just have the Super Hornet, Hawkeye and Greyhound COD but by doing so the amount of spare parts that the carrier has to have on board are less but the mission suffers because you do not have an aircraft that for example Launch on a Ready 5 Alert and go to Mach 3 like a Tomcat could but the Engine would have to be overhauled afterward and take care of something that could harm the Task Force.
This is exactly what Im thinking, too many specialty aircraft isnt good but they all do their job very well, when you put in a tool to do every job you have to make some very serious compromises on just about everywhere to make it work just average on all of the tasks it now has to preform
Dang. We should have Toyota build them 😄
It’s like comparing a Leatherman tool to a pliers, knife, wire stripper, Phillips screwdriver, flat head screwdriver . In a pinch Leatherman does all these jobs but it’s clumsy. You won’t find many mechanics at a dealership using a Leatherman. They reach for the proper tool to do each task because they’re much better at it. A multirole fighter can accomplish many tasks but it’s not a master at any of them. A A-7 A-6 A-4 or probably better attack planes. The prowler was much better at jamming enemy radar then a super Hornet with a jamming pod. The F 14 which probably a better air superiority fighter. Even using the F 14 as a bomber was never as good as bombing with an A-6 intruder. The bottom line is that some bean counter at the pentagon is making the decision based on budgets not actual performance.
@@jeffstone7912 It was not even the bean counters in the Pentagon it was more of a Political decision by where the Aircrafts were going to be build which is a WORSE Case Scenario in my BOOK! I main ISSUE is that instead of getting something that can handle to tasks properly the NAVY ALWAYS GETS SCREWED OVER when it comes to Carrier Aircrafts. I worked on a Platform where we were cannibalising parts from a few Static Displays back in mid-2000s because we did not have the parts available.
There is a REASON why the Flight Deck of a Carrier is the most dangerous Work Space in the World with everything going on and it does not help when we are working our asses off because some idiot politician got paid off and we are working extra long hours to keep birds up to get a mission done when bird was not designed to do that job to begin with.
That reminds me of an attack on a station that had a thermal exhaust port only 2 m wide. They also had to maneuver down a trench below enemy AA weapons.
The F14 was initially designed and built as a interceptor and dogfighter (not a fleet defender) during the cold war era to counter Soviet air threats. Versions were designed for both the US Air Force and Navy.
Although it was retired, recent global circunstances have surfaced rumors that the F14 may indeed be brought back because of its intercepting capabilities current aircraft are not able to do as well.
I was a jet mechanic on the F/A -18ABC and D models. And I was able to to talk to a couple of F-14 mechanics and they hated working on them. It was not a easy plane to do maintenance. I found that the Hornet was very easy to work on and faster turnaround in maintenance. Even when swapping engines. Also if you see in the movie Maverick tells Rooster to start a External air power unit, to help start the engines on The F-14. The Hornet has a APU built into the planes. So all you have to do is jump in Cockpit and start it all by yourself. Plus APU puts hydraulic function into play right away. Before fly by wire is fully functional.
It was the first 4th Generation aircraft, charged with protecting the Carrier Battle Group from the Soviets. Capability was all that mattered circa 1970. even if the techs had to work harder. The last few years of F-14 service was the best it enjoyed. Techs wanting to work on her during her last cruises and all the parts support for just for a couple squadrons. The maintenance hours were the best they ever were. Could take off at 74,000 pounds and still go Mach 1.9 weighing 60,000 pounds with 6 AIM-54. The Marine Legacy Hornets are currently becoming super deadly, just like our CF-18s. Getting AESA radar and AIM-120D Block II capability.
I’ve worked on F-14 A/B/D and all F/A-18 Legacy platforms (as well as all C-130 platforms and SH-60s) and currently on the Super and Growler platforms and O, I, and currently the D levels. Been in it for almost 30-years. I’ll take the maintenance of the F-14 any day over the Legacy or Super. The Tomcat has a lot more room to work with without having to get formal approval by the manufacturer, which takes a lot of time and money.
Comparing the F-14A 'Tomcat' to the F/A-18E 'Super Hornet/Rhino' is like comparing a 1986 Pontiac Firebird to a 2022 Ford Focus RS.
Yes….well it’s like comparing a 1987 Ferrari F40 to a 2022 Ford Focus RS.
I’d still take the firebird all day everyday. 😎
Firebird > Focus
It's not really though. First off aren't we being a touch glib comparing the earliest F-14 to a 2012 F-18? Overall the F14 came out in 1974, the F18 came out in 1983. The F18 certainly is not brand new. They could've kept upgrading the Tomcat just like they did the 18 but again .. Politicians
It's more like comparing a 71 Challenger 440 with a 79 Mustang 2.3 . 8 years between them but just enough difference in size , 'technology' and economy to make you yearn for your Charger back.
Ones bigger, ones smaller. One's the coolest fighter ever produced and a literal legend, the other one is drab and boring most people forget it even exists. (That doesn't make it a bad platform by any means)
I actually feel sorry for F-18s, because if the F14 had never existed,the F-18 would've been just another cool jet like an F-16, EF Typhoon , Rafael etc But because we all grew to adore the Tomcat, I think there is a subconscious resentment that the F18 .. killed the F14 (it was DICK Cheney who killed it really).
too bad super tomcat 21 never got approval
Many thanks for this video! After watching "Top Gun: Maverick," I had wondered how the F-18 compared with the F-14, and you fully answered my questions. (I also appreciated the 3D CGI!) As for the movies: I liked "Top Gun," but I loved "TG: Maverick!" Tom Cruise said he didn't want to do a sequel to "Top Gun" unless it had a "really good story." In my opinion, "TG: Maverick" doesn't have a "really good story," it has a REALLY GREAT story--a PHENOMENALLY great story, in fact. Thanks again for the video!
If you're a true aviator, and it doesn't matter whether you're fixed or rotary. It's the Rhino hands down. First time, fricking navy made a sound decision on their choice for once.
“It’s not the plane. It’s the pilot.”
Liked the video, very informative. The tomcat will always be my favorite Navy plane, but I have to say, the sequel is way better, more realistic and impressive, not so much because of the F18, but because it just is. Thanks
realistic? I think sequel was much less realistic based on the actual bombing run and them being shot down and blowing up a MI27 HIND. Was very unrealistic. first movie just had then intercept a few MIGs
It was ridiculous that Rooster was surprised by the moving wings, he surely knows the F14 considering was his father's machine.
The Navy is on the *F4F Wildcat mode* in terms of speed, its Super Hornet is not fast enough with only Mach 1.6 while other adversary jets are at Mach 2.
Man...a Tomcat with thrust vectoring...THAT would have been epic.
The Super Hornet is a workhorse. But the Tomcat is a legend! Still my favorite fighter of all time.
Everyone a gangster until the Tomcat starts transforming.
Macross fan here.
Aesthetics are funny. As a child of the 80s, I grew up with posters of Tom Cruise and F-14s on my bedroom wall. The F-14 just has that pugnacious aura of power around it - a visual characteristic shared by the F-15 and the S-27 family. While I don't have a dog in that fight, I was kinda disappointed when I learned the F-14 was to be mothballed in favour of the F-18, which by comparison looks very appliance-like and lacking in character. It looked like a hopped-up F-5 to me.
That is, until the Super Hornet came around and I learned how near-perfect its aerodynamic design is. I now look at it with different eyes and while it doesn't have the raw sex appeal of the Tomcat, I no longer view it as purely utilitarian. But can it outshine the Tomcat? Maybe if you're a young'un - but to someone who had posters on their bedroom walls? NEVER.
After working on the F-14D, as well as #2&3, Tomcat is tops in my opinion. I also wanted to give a shout out to the A6DSD , awesome aircraft that never made it to production. Awesome work experience at flight test Grumman Calverton NY. USS Nimitz 1985.
Thanks for the comment and thank you for your service!
Good Stuff, Thank You
I've always been a fan of those aircraft with long range radars and long loiter times. Probably goes back to my air-defense days at NORAD. With that in mind, my vote goes to the tomcat.
Naval aircraft did not serve in the Air Defense Command and NORAD. So why again would you be so thrilled about these aircraft?And the Super Hornet has no loiter time and is Notoriously short of fuel …
@@CH-pv2rz Which is why my vote went to the F-14. Longer range, longer radar, longer missiles.
@@E3ECO those missiles cannot be effectively used against other fighters in comparison to other bvr missles there's also a fact that in US service they have never been fired at a Target in anger
tomcat for its day, 18 for today, tomorrow, well, let's just wait and see what comes off the line next.
@@spartanx9293 iran made pretty good use of them
The Tomcat is still hands down the best looking fighter jet - and probably always will be given most designs now are very much dictated by stealth capability which limit's their aesthetic appeal IMO.
The Hornet and Super Hornet has modular components making repairs and maintenance easy as well as upgrades. The Tomcat was difficult to maintain and repair due to it's non modular construction. It worked well but had much more down time.
Exactly. Having a dedicated two man crew also put a burden on limited resources of an aircraft carrier. And the actual combat viability of the Phoenix was questionable.
I love it when I see people talking about how “easy” Hornets and Supers are to work on and maintain, especially coming from the Depot level. They’re not as easy and friendly as you may read about, especially when compared to the F-14.
Great video! Just one correction, although a datalink can share a target, it is not a datalink pod that they simulated in the movie. It is a laser targeting pod. One jet shines a laser on the target, and the other releases a bomb(s) that tracks that laser and guides to the laser-designated target.
Good clarification and thanks for commenting!
That's the only thing bothering me in the movie. The drop was so low, why bother with laser designation in the first place, which is meant for precision strikes from high altitude. Just do an old school dive bomb drop. That's where pilot skills show off.
The second plane should be the Growler, showing us some made up electronic jamming and radar hacking, while the first one makes the drop. It made no sense to drag the second plane along just to lase the target.
@@after_midnight9592 I agree. why cant plane dropping bomb laser target?
@@SgtJoeSmith The RIO/WSO has to be the one to las the target, hard nuf to fly the plane without having to look down and aim the laser and keep it on target. 2, This assumes your laser still has line of sight since you have to do an 8-10g pull up after bomb release in order to avoid hitting the mountain
@@SgtJoeSmith One of the issues with self-lasing is the geometry between the aircraft dropping the ordnance, the bomb, and the target. It's kind of like playing with a cat using a laser pointer. Depending on where the cat is, what you can paint with the laser might not be where the cat can see the dot. If your strike aircraft is flying over the target (as opposed to making a turn to one side or the other), the bomb will tend to fall behind the aircraft along the target bearing due to drag. In this case, the target was an angled shaft opening that they were trying to hit along the axis of the shaft. You might have to do a simulation to see where things would really wind up, but it could easily be the case that the delivering aircraft would be painting the top or back side of the structure while the bomb is still looking at the front side. So, for the given target, it would be more reliable if you used a buddy-lase delivery with the laser designating aircraft flying a few seconds behind the delivering aircraft. Then the wingman's laser would still be on the front side of the target where the bomb will see it.
As to the choice of weapon, when you absolutely, positively need to hit something tiny, a precision guided munition is the preferred choice. It's possible to hit small things with a visual unguided delivery, but with so many variables working into the firing solution, luck becomes such a big factor that it's hard to mitigate the risks when you have just a couple of rounds and a few seconds to get on target. Ideally, a missile with an electro-optical or imaging-IR sensor would be able to hit the target without the complexity of a laser-guided delivery, i.e. it could be "fire and forget", but most of the current ordnance with that capability (such as AGM-65 or AGM-84H/K) doesn't pack nearly as much punch as the 2000 lb-class bombs they were using in the film (they looked like GBU-24s). And as they state in the movie, the target area had a whole bunch of GPS jammers, so GPS-aided weapons like JDAM and JSOW would not be operating at their optimal precision levels.
Personally, I would have preferred to do the whole "roll back the IADS" approach with a ton of electronic warfare aircraft and SEAD, accompanied by offensive counter-air, but that would take a lot more resources and time, and it wouldn't be particularly sneaky.
As you say, which one is better is really a matter of the mission. A tomcat doing a low profile ridge maneuver and a near 10g climb out of a crater, no way. I personally have always loved the F/A-18 super hornet, as it was the plane I grew up knowing as the big bad of the American skies. But I'll still never forget the first time I saw maverick and goose flipping of the Russian pilot inverted in a dive. Truly they are both incredible fighters, and a statement of America's dedication to pushing the limits of our capabilities.
Tomcat could pull near vertical with no issue. I don't see the problem with the pull out.
THAT WAS A MOVIE, NOT REALITYY. GEEZ LOUISE, GET A LIFE.
Nice content man.. Watched both the Top gun movies multiple times. Surprisingly my son (7 yr old) loves the Tomcat more than me. lol. For its super cool wing design. I personally loved the Top Gun Maverick for the more closer to pilot action sequences and the way they have put the F18 SH to its limits. Simply loved the movie!!
I'd have to say the Tomcat.
W.C. Fields once said never act with children or animals. I mean sure they can be unpredictable, but the real issue for an actor was being upstaged. You look at the original Topgun movie and the plane was the star.
W.C. Fields should have said don't act opposite children, animals, or the F14 Tomcat. Maybe he would have if he had seen one. It's a machine with charisma and mystique all it's own. The F18 though a very capable aircraft just doesn't have that x-factor.
I actually grew up with the Tomcat in a way. My dad worked for Grumman and was on the F14 program for 22 years. He actually had a hand in building the first Tomcat back in '69.
Having served in the Air Force and later involved in acceptance testing of components of the AN-APG 65 radar system and the plane's DFCC, I've always been a fan of this awesome fighter. Like a parent, proud of its accomplishments.
Sorry but which plane are you referring to? As the Air Force didn’t have Tomcats.
visually , the f-14 has better screen presence , variable geometry wings will always be cooler to watch than fixed wings
Plus (look at us all with our cheese usernames), the bulge in the ... 'shoulder' for the mechanism makes the Tomcat look Hench and muscular.
@@realMaverickBuckley the rhino looks good too , unlike his scrawny cousin the hornet , but man , swing wings give it that extra UNF visually
@@Maverick626 The Rhino looks fat compared to the Legacy Hornet... I'm not a Hornet guy /at all/ but I have A LOT more respect for the Legacy Hornet than I do the Super Hornet... the E/F did nothing but make the problems of the Legacy Hornet worse... it didn't significantly increase combat range for the CAS/Strike loadout, and didn't improve the absolutely awful energy issues... in fact it made both issues worse. What they gained was more drag and a larger deck footprint, a slower aircraft and a new parts supply chain... I think Switzerland and Canada pegged this one correctly... the Legacy Hornet, as far as Hornets go, was the better model.
Compared to the Tomcat... there is very little about the Super Hornet which is an improvement... ease of flight, ease of maintenance and lower cost per airframe, for sure... but you traded that for a much larger need for tanker assets (vs the F-14) and I'm not sure that was necessarily less expensive for the navy when looked at IN TOTAL.
I believe F-14 is positions as “Interceptor." But The F-18 is a "multirole fighter."