F-14 Tomcat vs F/A-18 Hornet-Which is Better?
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 04. 2023
- Episode 163 guest Tom "Trots" Trotter compares the #f14tomcat and #fa18hornet based on flying more than 1,000 #flight hours in each over his 25+ #navy career.
Watch the full interview here: • "Trots" talks Tomcats ...
#fighterpilot Podcast
Website: www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/
Facebook: / fighterpilotpodcast
Instagram: / fighterpilotpodcast
Patreon: / ftrpltpdcst
Twitter: / ftrpltpdcst - Věda a technologie
Every time I hear the "which plane is better" discussion, I recall a Chuck Yeager story about a time he beat a younger pilot in a dogfight. The younger guy says "Yea, but you have the newer, better jet". So Chuck traded planes with him and still beat him.
"The quality of the box matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it."
Manfred von Richthofen
Yeah, Chuck said a lot of things.
It probably depends on the electronics of the aircraft and of the weapons.
He also told him the best trained man in a Dogfight would win everytime it was a Mig-15 and F-86 Sabre.
@@FighterPilotPodcast There was a British fighter pilot in Malta who was flying old aircraft against advanced Messerschmidts who was told something similar by his smug and safe-at-the-base commander. He said it was the only time he ever felt like slapping a superior officer.
I was an air traffic controller in the Navy and one of the best sights I ever got to see was during the Tiger Cruise on the USS Constellation. It was the last cruise of VF-2 Bounty Hunters flying the Tomcat. During the Tiger Cruise we had an Air Show out at sea and I got to see the F-14 do a super sonic flyby at 60 feet above the water. The most badass flyby I have ever seen. Watching the shockwaves hitting the water as the Tomcat blew past the ship was just AWESOME and something I will never forget!
I was on the Conny and on a tiger cruise and watched a Tomcat do a flyby at top speed down the port side. This was somewhere around Oct. of '94.
That fly by's sonic boom destroyed everything in our workshop lol. Everything that was in the shop ended up all over the place, regardless of it was tied down or not. The fire extinguisher even flew off its stand and that was strapped in! Fun times working there from '97-'00.
@@cocodojofirst time a Tomcat did a super sonic flyby when I was on the Connie, I was in air ops and felt the deck rise and then drop. I asked my DivO what the hell was that and he told me it was a Tomcat doing a super sonic pass!!
@@RazgrizF14D Haha, yeah, you can FEEL the whole ship pitch and roll when one of them fly right by like that. Even when its flight ops at night, you KNOW when a Tomcat hit the deck because it sound and feels totally different form all the other aircraft landing.
If I remember, Tomcat arresting gear settings was 54.0 and the next clostest thing was something like a Greyhound at something like 49.0? Beats me what the readings was, but the thing was a BEAST of a machine and a damn beautiful sight flying off or coming in.
@@cocodojo 100% totally agree with everything you just said. I loved going up on vultures row when I wasn’t on duty and watching them during flight ops.
The Tomcat has 5 or 6 features that we all fans loved:
1) Variable geometry.
2) Those nice twin rudders, widely separated and inclined outwards.
3) Those air intakes, aggresively pointing forward and also with that beautiful negative inclination.
4) The black and white Jolly Roger of old VF-84 color scheme (yes, many of use discovered it in The Final Countdown).
5) Top Gun.
5) Robotech, with their Variable Fighters VF-1 Valkyrie so obviously inspired in the F14, even with the Jolly Roger.
So in the end, there will be no other fighter with such a big fan population than the F14 for many decades to follow. It may fade somewhat when my generation fades away (I was born in 1978), but I think it will have to pass muuuch time for another one to come and reach thos level of fame
You win the comment section for the macross reference ....
I watched Robotech as a very young kid who didn’t know anything about military airplanes.
Later I saw pictures of VF-84 Tomcats with their Jolly Rogers paint jobs. I thought as a kid - ‘ they exist! Even the skull and bones! We have transforming planes!’ 😂. Then I leaned lol.
@@wfyfwfyf In Macross they were the Skull squadron if I remember well
Ummmm you forgot Top Gun Maverick
@@billy-sx8wx Of course, but it was the first Top Gun film that marked us more as kids or tenaagers by that time
Could've listened to them go on much longer. They covered so many details about the F14 that we don't know about its flight characteristics. Would've like to hear more on the F18 as well. These guys are seasoned pilots that know these planes like the back of their hands.
absolutely, can't agree more. good stuff!
Condition of I-15 south
@@schumy1975 9099oooookl0😅
@@alcald2000
I-26
Definitely a fun discussion, And quite informative
The Tomcat was the ultimate Bethpage, Long Island Beauty. In gloss gull gray over gloss white and in VF-84 or VF-111 livery, the F-14 may well be the finest looking military aircraft ever produced.
84 had the worst sortie rate I saw in my whole career. In fairness, the oldest airframes too.
P-51.
Yessir!!☠️ VF 84 Jolly Rogers ☠️!
Witnessed the last 3 Med cruises of that legendary squadron❤
@@michaelmappin4425PARTS for maintenance were a big problem, too. I was an AMS/AMH for E2-C Hawkeyes and did 3 cruises with them and the Blackjacks between 1992-1998. When it counted those birds and crews were absolutely on point.
Nah, an F8F in overall dark gloss blue.
Scooter was my C.O. in VF-2. Great Skipper. Tragic loss for not only his family, but for the Navy too!
Trots was in my airwing (CVW-14) on the Connie 1985-1987. He was one of the few Hornet guys who were cool to F-14 guys, including RIOs. He most likely saved my life by taking a timely go around (he was dash 3) as our flight lead and we ended up sideways on the short (east/west) runway at Fallon due to an ABS failure and subsequent brake fire on the lead aircraft.
I'm curious if either you or Mr. Trotter know-knew Terry Dietz or Stacy Bates. They were guys I knew at the Naval Academy who both went on to be Tomcat pilots.
The F-14A was late and way over budget waiting for the GE engine that was supposed to power the F-14. Out of desperation, it was decided to put the TF-30 engine from the F-111 into the "A" model. The TF 30, I think it was originally designed by Allison later taken over by Pratt &Whiney, needed to be modified for use in a "fighter" so they added an afterburner and a couple of additional compressors to the engine. When I got to VF124 in 1975, as one of the last non-fleet qualified F-14 instructors, the airplane started to have unexplained losses at sea. Because of where the airplanes crashed, they were unable to get to the airplanes to determine the cause of the losses. All the crews had reported was a flash of light followed by an explosion. As an aside I remember one of the RIO's at sea fell from about 20,000 feet without a proper chute opening, and he survived with minor injuries. One of the nuggets preparing for initial carrier quals was in the FCLP pattern at Miramar and an engine exploded on a go-around. Since they had access to the crash site they were able to determine the cause of the engine failure was a cracking compressor blade due to a stress fracture caused by a harmonic in one of the additional compressor sections. The fix was a spacer between the new compressor sections. We all wondered why this only happened in the F-14 and not the F-111. About 300 hours of fleet airtime later the same thing started to happen again. This time they got a crashed aircraft sooner and were able to determine that when they added the initial spacer they moved the harmonic to the other additional compressor section. The F-111s didn't have the problem until about 600 hours of airframe/engine time. It was determined that the harmonic was worse between 86-88% RPM. That was where the RPM's were in carrier landing practice and that flight regime was where a lot of Navy flight time occurred. The F-111's went on long missions practicing bombing missions and their engines were not in the 86-88% range during those missions but when they got about twice as much flight time on their aircraft, their engines had the same flaw.
I think the F-14 was originally supposed to get the Pratt & Whitney F401 engine, which was a derivative of the P&W F100 "advanced technology engine" being put into the F-15 and F-16. A single plane, designated the F-14B (this was before the GE powered A+/B) was powered by these engines. In the long run, that probably would have made sense, but there were initial issues the engines and costs. For a variety of reasons (mostly concerning budget, I believe), the USAF continued with fixing the issues with their engines in the F-15 and F-16, while the Navy settled on the TF30.
@@RocketToTheMoose I believe you are correct about the designation of the first F-14 A engine being a derivative of the P&W F100. After nearly 50 years the fog gets thicker and thicker.
@@RocketToTheMoose
Your are correct about the engine but i don't buy the budget excuse for one second, i think that like everything else it was just about denying the Tomcat any upgrades, just think about it, if we added the Tomcat to the list of needing that engine you would instantly need to supply 600 plus Cats with two engines each and spares, we are talking thousands more engines needed on top of the multiple thousands already needed for the F-15s & F-16s so based on the economy of scale these engines would have been extremely cheap per unit, then factor in how many lives and planes were lost using the TF-30s and its a no brainer, in a BS attempt to save a few pennies DOD lost millions and in my opinion people should have been brought up on charges because good pilots were lost.
@@josephkugel5099 Okay, but what would have been the reason then?
@@RocketToTheMoose My best guess is that someone had money to make selling the TF-30 to the Navy and had the proper connections at DOD to make that happen, On the face of it there is not one single GOOD reason to deny the Tomcat the same engines that made the F-15 a record setter and made the F-16 a blistering fast and dangerous dog fighter.
I notice the confidence in this gentleman’s speech, must have something to do with being catapulted from a carrier in an F14 and an F18. Love the channel, thank you for your service 🇺🇸
I love the jets, both for sure. IMO, it took more balls to launch from the boat in the E2/C2 with no ejection seat. When I was a T45C IP, led studs out to the boat, trapping and launching, I had a way out.
Naval aviators exude confidence. Unfortunately, too many are over-confident.
@@pb68slab18 "There's a lot of pilots in the Navy. There's old pilots, bold pilots, but not many old bold pilots."
“It’s a handful to land on a carrier”. He makes it sound like parallel parking! These guys ain’t normal people, much respect 👍
Shame we never got to see the Super Tomcat 21 :(
F-14D launching off the cats at twilight, then going ballistic into the night sky is one of the most beautiful sights ever.
Man, you ain't kidding! I did two Med cruises on the Independence in the early 80's...there's nothing like climbing up in the superstructure somewhere and watching night ops. Just beautiful...
@@brianpalmer4643 I was V-1, so I watched it every night from the Flight Deck. Never got boring.
when I was kid I lived next to nas oceana at night time we could see f14 full afterburner really high up there
F14-A+/B/D engines were restricted to military only for the Cat Launch. The Afterburner was so hot that it would melt the JBD(jet blast deflector).
From an aesthetic standpoint, I go for the F-14 every time. In the 70s, when my step-dad was in the navy, the tomcat was my poster plane. It was the reason I wanted to work on a carrier deck.
Aesthetics, F-4 Phantom.
F16 !
As a kid of the 80’s the F14 is so iconic. I think the F16 looks like a sports car while the F14 more of a muscle car … and the F18 is their child somewhere in between. It’s also amazing that the F14 is the first aircraft to use a microprocessor.
Some pilot said the F16 was the best. Not big and bulky.
Good analogy!
Excellent point.I would say the same comparing WW2 planes like Bf109 (German) and Mustang (USA).Like comparing BMW M3 80s edition (short and versitile) and Dodge Charger (way bigger yet still fast beast for longer trips).Beautiful differences between two styles.
Yeah Im the same generation, man we just didnt respect that FA18A at all did we? I'd have never guessed back then that the next Hornet would actually succeed both the F14 and A6, and do both jobs better, but here we are.
And the F-15 looks like a streamlined tank!
CDR Dale Snodgrass was my CO in VF-33 he brought a Tomcat back with a blown airbag from a 2 V 4 hop in Key West. As young PO3 I jokingly said "they must have been chasing you all over the sky" He smiled patted me on the should an said " Nobody Chases ME!" To this day I believe him. Good man Great leader. Me he rest in peace.
The funny thing about "analog vs. digital" is that the world's very first microprocessor's very first usage was to control the swing wings on the F-14. Only after that, was the 4004 microprocessor used for a calculator then a pinball game!
Interesting!
Thank you! :)
Grumman was big on silicon in the 60's. The A-6 Intruder was the first aircraft to use solid-state technology!
Yup but many other systems on the F14 are still 'analog'
:O Woah
Technically the F14 used a ddicated integrated device, it was not a microprocessor as it was not programable .
On Enterprise, the recoil from a loaded Tomcat shot could be felt down in the propulsion plants.
When experts in any field are having a technical discussion, it’s almost always interesting to listen. Not just any average joe, an expert. They have that bit of confidence and assertiveness you don’t find anywhere else.
Too much confidence and assertiveness, one could argue. Chuckle.
I watched the upgraded Hornet at an air show the other year and it was my stand out plane. The pilot pulled manoeuvres in that thing in such a small amount of airspace I was quiet amazed. There were eurofighters which ripped the sky apart and migs but that plane stood out for me.
The older Legacy Hornets were lighter and could do those same maneuvers as well or better and had longer range.
@@socaljarhead7670 Older legacy hornets perform way better than super hornets at airshows.
@@socaljarhead7670 The Super Hornet has the range advantage as it's larger and carries more fuel than a legacy Hornet.
Excellent conversation. Thanks for letting us eavesdrop.
As a kid, my favs were always the F-18, F-14, and the A-10. Had so many scale models of those and owned every toy I could find that represented them - GI Joe, Transformers. Never got into Robotech, but seemed interesting.
Aviation Maintenance 05-09. I was lucky enough to get to see Tomcats still flying right before they were removed from service as I entered my first command. One of my first memories of my arrival at Oceana as I made the left turn to head to the BEQ, I looked up and there were four of them flying pretty low, in formation. They were gone within a week or two. It was awesome. Ironically enough, I was arriving to maintain their replacements as aircrew obtained all their quals at the RAG. Brand new F/A-18E and F Supers. And now, those are set to be retired in two years.
Not retired, production of new aircraft will end in '25. The Super Hornet won't be replaced until the F/A-XX program (Navy NGAD) is chosen and becomes operational, probably in the mid 2030's.
Fascinating little gouge. Thanks Jello and Trots.
I noticed the 82nd Airborne Division patch on the wall behind Trots head. That's where I served back in the day. Loved it!
Perhaps I should mail you a 505th Parachute Infantry Regimental Crest patch?
Excellent info here. Love it! I was a Plane Captain in VFA-113. The first time I saw a Tomcat do a fast run, the flight deck was cleared( I just happened to walk out my berthing and onto the deck, I wasn't supposed to be there. Didn't know) when I saw this bird screaming straight down the port side. Broke the sound barrier right next to me! Holy f♡€《n s#|t! What a rush!
what a great informative sharing, enjoyed this episode a lot, thanks guys!!!
Man I love this conversation! So much comprehensible information for a military aviation enthusiast like myself
FINNALY !! The definitive description, and last word on A Vs D and F-18. Thank you aviators, and good night nurse ! BTW 150kts, to 610, in 9.7 secs, = 46kts per second, for 10 seconds, 52 mph per second, and is ASTONISHING !!
I wonder if he meant to say 19.7, because 9.7 sec in level flight would require about 2.5G acceleration on average, meaning it would require a T/W over well over 2.5 when drag and non-linear acceleration are thrown into the mix. That would put the aircraft at about twice the (public) T/W of any other production fighter in existence, which I find a bit hard to believe. Its also at odds with the value he later quotes about the thrust of the F110 engines. To achieve at T/W of over 2.5, those engines would need to be more than twice as powerful as what he says they are. Not trying to discredit his experience or knowledge, but its possible he accidentally mis-spoke or mis-remembered those acceleration figures he gave
It’s also complete, utter bullshit. The G loading to achieve that is greater than that of a cat shot. Never happened. Work it out for yourself. I flew F14’s out of NAS Oceana.
@@Jamenator1 The FPP is full of errors caused by the poor memories and embellishment by guys who haven’t cracked a book in decades. There was an interview awhile back where some genius bloviated about how a 68º wingsweep landing was performed at 230 knots. It’s 184 knots at a typical landing weight for that emergency.
When I heard it, it make no sense, so like you, I ran the numbers. The acceleration described is obviously embellished, you are one of the few who caught it as well.
It’s similar to pilots who claim that cat shots run in the 6G range. It’s nonsense. The big deck carriers, Nimitz classe with 310 foot C13 catapults run in the 2.5 to 3.2 range, tops. It impresses the layperson, but distorts history.
I was gonna say how in the world a jet goes from 150kts to 610 under 10 seconds at 10k feet but somebody already did the maths and it's certainly not correct. I wonder if there's any performance chart showing B/D Tomcat acceleration? I know the aircraft itself was a beast (at least compared to A models) in terms of engine power but I also wonder how it translated into flight performance.
Sounds fishy. It would take a saturn rocket strapped to a plane to do that.
Day and night qualified in an F-14D and F-18. Can not get better then this. Awesome sirs.
Thank you, gentlemen. Trots' concise summary of the jets and scenarios is one of the best I've heard.
Both guys lived during the Discovery Channel D model flyby. I was the tanker for the next event and saw it. Both recovered by the helo, a bit banged up but ok. Biscuit and Slim.
I️ believe Biscuit got a new callsign after that.
I️ knew him as Comet ☄️
😅
so then why is the guest saying the guys died?
Love this stuff! Keep them coming!
Will do!
Just saw this in my feed. This is a question I always wondered from two of my favourite aircraft.
I'm subbed now. Keep the content coming.
Welcome! Glad to have you.
Was a LSO in CAG 2 when he was the CO of VFA-151. Great guy.
The full interview with Trots was a blast. I can't believe how much energy he has still, and what he must have been like as a young lieutenant - keep him away from the caffeine.
God the F-14 was my favorite when I was a kid. This guy is a legend to me. I got to watch the Grunman F-14 from Top Gun fly when I was a kid, at a Miramar airshow. But I was also a fan of the F-15, and we'd go to Edwards more often than we went to either Point Magu or any of the other California Naval bases. Got to sit in a YF-23, somewhere between 1989-1991. They were only allowing children up to the age of 11. The parents had to stand way back behind the lines lol. Part of the console was covered, as I recall. Back in those days they were allowed to break the sound barrier at an airshow. Flyby passes were well faster.
The F-15 is possibly my favorite fighter of all time. It's just not carrier launchable. Super powerful, and face melting fast. The F-16 was great too, but I think the 15 could go up against todays fighters. If it couldn't win - it sure AF could get away!
For carrier launched fighters, the F-14 and F-18 makes it a really hard choice for a favorite.
@@notsure7874 How does the Super Hornet rank up against the F-14? For awhile I was hearing that the F-18 was what took down the F-22 in a Operation Red Flag exercise.
@@kessilrun6754
I was a CAP Cadet in 1984 & worked Oshkosh. They used Cadets on the taxiways! No yellow vest! How did we survive?
XD
Anyway, I was marshaling and told an F-14 to stop- and it did. I was 15.
@@greggstrasser5791That sounds amazing
This is such a great conversation!
My dad worked for an old company named Singer-Link. He helped build flight stimulators for the F-14. Went all over helping set them up from an electrical standpoint. I remember getting Jolly Rodger stickers as a gift when he returned home one time. I wish he was still alive to see his work mattered and the next generation of fighters and advanced simulators of today.
Just so you know. Singer Link is now Raytheon
Great podcast with outstanding insights on the F-14 and F-18. Wonder how many other squadron commanders had the same requirement for 'auto throttles?'
🤷🏻♂
If I remember right I read somewhere that the F-110’s were burning through the lining for the AB which then burned through the flight controls. The fix was the liner had to be replaced every so often. Both great aircraft but I wonder how much better the Tomcat could have been if it had the dedicated funding like the Eagle had/has
always wondered that myself they werent commited to it both those jets had great head to head battles in training here best jet came down to the pilot old GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT were the heart of the NAVY
They actually discovered that one of the engine sub-contractors was manufacturing parts in his garage. Those parts were not to spec. Killed two friends of mine.
Fascinating. I could listen to them talk about this all day
Well then be sure to check out the whole episode:
czcams.com/video/dB3-Ws52XMs/video.html&ab_channel=FighterPilotPodcast
Terrific interview ! Trots is a great guest.
Thanks, Bert!
What a conversation. I’d love to have a ride in one of these amazing machines.
This guy was a CAG so, loads of respect! The "A" model had TF-30 PW (same as the F=111) and the "D" (the best of the breed) had General Electric F110s, a serious upgrade! I personally can testify about the reliability of the TF-30 as I was a (AFSC) 431 in the Air Force! In training I don't believe the 111s ever came back "Code1"! As an Air Force GUY, I still love the Aesthetic beauty of the Tom Cat! It "LOOKS" like it's hauling a$% just sitting on the ground!!!!!! I guess I'm just "old school" cause I would pick the Tom Cat over the F-18 every time!
The F/A-18E and F is better than a F-14D. Its the weapon systems that are superior.
Nothing will ever match the sheer runway presence of an F-14. A tomcat next to a hornet looks like an S-Class next to a Jetta. Sure it's kind of the same shape, but damn one is waaaaay cooler
@@LeonAust A couple things. 1) This is the product of what, 2 decades (actually maybe more based on when both planes were on the drawing board vs. final flight trials and deployment on carriers), of technological advancement vs. the F-14. 2) Their prime directives. The F-14 was designed as an A2A interdiction/fleet defense and threat deterrence using it's AWG-9 radar (which was a technological feat in it's day), as it's primary directive. The F/A-18 came about as the threat environment changed from A2A to A2G, and A2A wasn't as critical. So it was designed as A2G as it's prime directive. 3) Late in it's life (so early '00's and up until retirement), they morphed the F-14 in to an A2G platform (affectionately dubbing it the the "bombcat") by strapping a LANTIRN pod on a hardpoint, and the F-14's were sent in to do critical precise bombing with it's laser guidance that it was able to do more effectively than the F/A-18.
You don't say anything about how hard it was to install different bombs and missiles on the F-14D as it could not use as many types of weapons than the digital 18.
The super can almost drop any bomb the US forces use, whilst the F-14D had to be specially fitted out manually for each weapon, it was a long process to get a little AG on F-14D.@@CMNTMXR57
I am so glad that I stumbled across this video. Thoroughly enjoyable.
Thank you.
I even remember watching that Discovery channel show. @ 6:50 I was in the army because my vision wasn't good enough to fly, but I always wished I could. Ya'll lived the dream. Thanks for keep the seas safe and the skies clear.
Hell of a conversation!
🙏
I believe Scooter was flying a missile profile for the radars. He was with VF-2 just before. Hell of a guy.
Hey Razgriz, I was an OS (radarman) on the USS Fox CG 33 being air picket for the Ranger task group on our tiger cruise after WESTPAC 82. We got the same air show. Super sonic low level passes. Live ord drops from A6s...man, almost made that 7months worth it 😊
Good interviewer. Leads the conversation without constantly stepping on the other man.
Thanks.
The Discovery show he referred to was Carrier: Fortress at Sea and both crew bailed out and survived during that incident thankfully.
That's right!
@@FighterPilotPodcast Comet was the pilot of the mishap jet.
…I’m pretty sure his callsign wasn’t Comet before the fiery POP!
…followed by the pop pop of the seats
The more I learn about the Tomcat, the more I understand why it was retired early and why the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are still flying a half century later. It was an awesome plane. Yet it was unreliable and dangerous. Everything from it's control system to its avionics to it's radar was not only antiquated but didn't age with any grace at all. He put it best when he said, analog vs digital. The other platforms were amenable to digital upgrades as to where the Tomcat was made in such a way it simply wasn't possible. And the older it got the more exponentially expensive it became to keep it flying.
The more you know, the more the F-14 seems more like the last of the old-school analog warplanes from the 60s, than the first of the new breed. Flying one against an F/A-18 in, say, the 90s, must've been like comparing a restored '72 Mustang with a Honda Accord. Objectively, the Honda can do way more things than the 'Stang, and it's probably actually faster stock...but no one would confuse it for the sexier machine.
@N. W. The F-18 was actually developed in the 1970's FX program along with F-15 and F-16. All of the platforms competed against each other for Airforce contracts. The Airforce chose the F-15 and the F-16 as both planes met airforce requirements and it was more affordable for the Airforce to fill squadrons with a high low mix as the F-16 was vastly cheaper yet still plenty capable. The Hornet was picked up by the Navy as it was the best multi role platform of the competition. The Super Hornet is just an upgraded and larger derivative of the original Hornet. It has a larger payload and greater farry range than the original Hornet. And there are to this very day Marine Corps Squadrons still fielding the original F-18's that have been through several modernization programs.
@@imonit1177 Well, not quite. The F-X program was the Air Force's search for the Phantom's successor in the 1960s, leading to the F-15. There were rival proposals, but only McDonnell's was built. It was influenced by the perceived need to counter the MiG-25, and by the Vietnam experience which gave the 'Fighter Mafia' traction to develop the future fighter into a maneuvering air combat champion. Also, the F-111 (TFX program) was failing to become anything but a low level penetration bomber. Likewise, the Navy needed to replace the Phantom as an interceptor, and the F-14 was quite hastily designed after the naval F-111B became a nonstarter.
Later, the Air Force sponsored the lightweight fighter (LWF) competition, which did field rival prototypes, after realizing that there would never be enough F-15s produced to replace the Phantoms. And the Navy followed suit, adopting the YF-17 prototype into the F/A-18. In addition to insufficient numbers of Tomcats, the Navy needed a replacement for remaining F-4s in the attack role, as well as the A-7, and a fighter that could operate from the older carriers, Midway and Coral Sea as well as the remaining '27C' Essex-class ships, which were too small for the Tomcat (or the Phantom, for that matter).
As an aside, there was apparently quite a bit of back-stabbery between McDonnell Douglas and Northrop, the YF-17's designer, in producing the Hornet. McDD, leveraging carrier aircraft expertise, culminating in the Phantom, secured rights to produce the F/A-18A for the Navy as a carrier aircraft. As part of the deal, though, Northrop had rights to develop a parallel version, called F-18L (for land-based), as a significantly lighter and more capable fighter for export. Through means not entirely above board, McDD pushed the existing F/A-18 to some modest foreign sales success, cutting the market out from Northrop's own fighter design, and cutting Northrop out from the fighter business entirely. Probably, this failure is what led Northrop to throw all-in on their home grown F-20 program, using much of what went into the LWF, the displays and control interface, multimode radar (APG-67, simplified from the Hornet's APG-65), and the GE F404 motor (from the YF-17's YJ101). But naturally, faced with competition from the F-16, Mirage 2000, and their own design, this failed to market as well..
@@imonit1177 I think the dual engines of the F-18 were also key, when flying over water the Navy wanted two engines back in those days. They'd probably still prefer it everything else being equal.
> there are to this very day Marine Corps Squadrons still fielding the original F-18's that have been through several modernization programs
I didn't realize that. I was sure they had long ago reached maximum airframe life and were chopped up.
The tomcat was extreme more than anything. It's what made it great, it's also why it could never last.
Subscribed & liked. You guys are amazing
Thank You for your Service,Sir.
You're welcome--thank you for your support. 🤩
From the maintenance side I was at VF213 in the mid eighties and VFA-105 at Cecil in the nineties. The only reason we didn’t fly all twelve hornets everyday was the ship couldn’t find a spot on the roof for all of them. We were lucky during a Westpac if we started the day with two or three F14s. With the lot 13 hornets there was few if any missed sorties ever!
How'd you like being at Cecil ? Was it a good place to be stationed ? I live in Jax and every once in a while you hear about trying to bring it back but I think they're too many subdivisions around it now. It seemed like quite the place back in the day though. Back when Mayport had two carriers n all.
How many MMHPFH did you spend roughly on Hornets?
@@mattg5978 has nothing to do with subdivisions it was always about how many Admirals lived in Norfolk and Jax.
@@LRRPFco52 I didn’t care about man hours ,most ordnance shops are like that
@@LRRPFco52 USMC Hornets roughly averaged 18.
Trots cracks me up, he talk and acts exactly like i would expect a veteran fighter pilot to be. the guy is an archetype 🤣🤣🤣
Very interesting conversation! Would love to hear more.
The video description contains a link to the entire interview
OMG! More of this please just awesome 😎
I went to engineering school with a person who went to Top Gun in F-18s. He said (in reference to mixing it up in the telephone booth, or close in) that if you didn’t splash a F-14 within a minute, they would tell you to go home. He was always good for a great story but not a BSer. His callsign was “Fangs”. Had the top flight and academic record in the history of the Naval flight school. Entered flight school with an engineering degree and a private aerobatic license. During college he would party with the real "Pappy" Boyington, so of course he had go into the Marines which he said would get the Navy flight school students mad when he out scored them. His father flew P-51s and in later years flew crop dusters. As he grew up, he and his dad built high performance model planes so from a very young age he was all over everything to do about flying. After the Marines he flew F-16s.
What's Fangs' actual name though?.
At least me, you left me wondering!!!.
@@victormanuelpolanco922
And why would I say his real name when I mentioned his callsign. I do realize that callsigns can change but when you get the top record in the history of the school you will get a good callsign. The Naval flight school (I believe it was in Texas) kept him on as an instructor for a period of time which does happen and it was my understanding that this was the callsign he used there. I could be wrong in some details but I am pretty sure the majority of it correct.
The college part and Boyington I know is correct. He could have been just making the rest up but what he said was very consistent with what I knew first hand so there is that. It is always possible that some exaggeration was sprinkled in but as I said, he was not a BSer, a good story teller but things usually rang true.
@@chrismadison305
So why would I go to the effort to generate a fake story, especially where the main point of the F-18 being a better aircraft in a knife fight in a phone booth which is consistent with the video. As far as other details, about half are DIRECTLY known to me. So it is your opinion but sometimes a few people are that good. I personally place a high level of belief that what he said is true. As far as his callsign there are lists that verify “Fangs” is valid and there is a whole story about why he got it. But whatever…
I like to hear callsign stories, I mean everyone does, right? So was he bucktooth? Did he have relations with the new guys? Did he bite someone in a fight? Was he missing teeth?
@@MisterFoxton
He said that the explanation that was given to him was “because his FANGS WERE ALWAYS OUT”! Besides, you can google for call sign list and and interestingly there are real people with that call sign. It was further noted that the good call signs are kept in reserve for particularly notable pilots. Also I think that call signs can get changed due to various reasons, so maybe this was the one that he was particularly proud of. And if he had buck teeth, which he didn’t, it wouldn’t be Fangs. With all the stories of how people get call signs I just hope he wasn’t BSing, but he really wasn’t a BSer.
I do remember the time that he got into his first “flat invented spin” in his acrobatic plane while he was trying things out for practice for a local air show. I wonder how many people in flight school have this type of background? I remember a time in engineering school when Jim was giving an explanation about advanced fluid flow dynamics and later the engineering professor said he was correct (the professor had worked on rocket engines at Aerojet). So that means that Jim had a four year mechanical engineering degree (at a university that had a PhD program at Edwards) and read everything about areodynamics that he could get his hands on. So he probably had a bit better understanding of technical things than the average navy flight school student. The navy kept him on for a period of time as an instructor at the flight school (which I understand is something that is done when they have an outstanding student).
I believe it was "Nasty" Manazir who jumped out of his Tomcat after a "zero airspeed" maneuver, got him into a flat spin. Great short discussion gents! BZ "Jello" and "Trots"!
Incredibly interesting, thanks for this.
It’s funny he mentioned “The Final Countdown”! I literally just watched that two nights ago!!!
Such a great TOMCAT movie too!
It warms my heart hearing about GE powered vipers routinely chasing down hornets when they try to run.
The Tomcat has range, endurance, maneuverability at high altitude, powerful radar and the Pheonix. It is expensive, hard to maintain, 60s concept, and can't carry all the weapons.
The Hornet can dogfight, can carry all the weapons in the navy arsenal, is modernized and reliable. However it is sluggish and slow, it can't CAP.
Both planes compliment eachother really well
It's the 21st century. Dogfight doesn't matter anymore
To say that the Hornet isn't maneuverable would be a lie. It still offers nearly unparalleled AOA capabilities, especially for a non thrust vectoring fighter. Not to mention that it is fully capable of pulling 7.5+ Gs while the Tomcat is stuck to 6.5 normally. It might not have the best unrefueled loiter time compared to a Tomcat but the speed isn't exactly a huge issue nowadays. In a modern dogfight or BVR matchup, I'm picking the F/A-18. Carrying AIM-120s and high off boresight Fox-2s already puts it ahead before maneuverability or speed is even questioned.
@@F22Lover Hornet is slow and less responsive at high altitude, which makes it vulnerable to missiles going active on it in thin air. With Pylons Hornet is limited to 5.5G, and even more drag. Being slow also means the AMRAAM is fired with less energy and range. That's why he said the Hornet can not match against an F-16. Tomcat is still great at denying altitude and messing up BVR timelines until its retirement
@@F22Lover Having Phoenixes on board due to BVR, I would certainly opt for F 14;)
@@Billy-sm3uu With what we know about the Phoenix and it's tracking system compared to today's AMRAAMs, I would pick a Hornet purely for the modernization of weapons and situational awareness. Given the choice between a Hornet and Viper, though, I would always pick the viper.
I’ve never flown any aircraft. Im always in awe at air shows when fighters are flying, the sound of the air “ripping” apart is awesome! f-14 or f-18. Both are beautiful but I couldn’t tell you which is better !
I'm just glad I have seen F-14 Tomcat at Cecil Field airshow in 1987. It was loud and proud! There was an F-15 Eagle as this airshow that during its demonstration clearly outclimbed the F-14 Tomcat going straight up. The Legacy F-18 Hornets looks super maneuverable in their demonstrations but simply didnt have the raw power of the other 2 jets.
I bet it turned inside both.
@@LeonAust The Tomcat with its wings extended could turn on a dime!
Loaded all variants of the F-14 while serving in VF-102 and VF-101. It was a maintenance nightmare. I remember Mr. Aiello while serving in VFA-94 from 03-07. Hobo 403 if I recall.
SHWFOTS!
Hello Chris--long time!
@@FighterPilotPodcast Seems like yesterday. Those Dets to Elmendorf and Iwakuni... Best time I had in the Navy.
@chrism9976 the Shrikes! they and the Redcocks were featured in the SeaWings episode Killer Bee. still my favorite episode!
Oh man hes done it!!!
Awesome video Jell-O, really digging the video setup!
Great interview bud. It is Marlar or Bunky from our NROTC days.
The Tomcat was like a big 1960 supercharge muscle car. It was heavy, somewhat primitive and not easy to handle but boy did it have power. The Superhornet is like a modern crossover SUV. It could carry plenty and it had a ton of high tech options but it will never be as fast and sexy as that old sportcar.
The carriers lost something with the retirement of the Tomcat that they have never gotten back. The Tomcat was able to intercept threat faster and farther away from the carrier than any of the newer birds. Plus, it had an absolutely mammoth radar.
That F14 radar it's a beauty on it's own
Good analogy,think what is most missed about F-14 is the fleet def. aspect,w/the range the Phoenix missile had,the cat could engage hostile threats from a distance unmatched since. Against a peer/near peer threat those reliability issues would be potentially deadly though.
Maintenance nightmare was the F-14 and F-111
@@shadowopsairman1583 Only because they never upgraded them, if we got the ST-21 Tomcat's maintenance hours would have dropped off significantly.
Wow! Never would have guessed that type of acceleration in a jet!!
I suspect he was misremembering on those acceleration numbers; I’m not sure 150-610 in under 10 seconds is possible. Data I found seemed to suggest the host’s guess of 30 seconds was closer to the truth. If anyone can validate this amazing man’s claim, I’d love to hear it; because that would be amazing if true!
@@ramseycattn5941 I agree
@@ramseycattn5941 the B/D was eye watering but the guest is mistaken.
I️ would take slick B’s from the RAG and do level accels at 200-500ft off the coast of NC. Decelerating through 200knots at idle, then jamming the throttles to MAX-something I️ wouldn’t even try in an A with TF-30s (where I️ always paused the Throttles in MIL and waited patiently till the motors spooled up to MIL, then carefully to Zone 5, paying attention the (10 little kicks as the A/B zones lit).
Not in the B/D-just smash the throttles through the gate to MAX, wait a few moments for the big motors to accel through about 80%N2. And then hang on for dear life. At half fuel, your are accelerating longitudinally at >1.0g, you feel like you’re in a muscle car off the line but the accel just keeps going and going. I’m guessing more like 23-28 seconds to 600kcas.
It was uncomfortable because you’re accelerating faster than you can trim so you’re continuously trimming with your thumb nose down and to not climb, I️ tended to push hard with both hands toward the water (just 200ft below) by the time we’re screaming through 500knots.
I’d typically pull 4gs to vertical nose up (starting the pull at 550knots, at 10Kft I️ was still at 550knots indicated but now supersonic for a few seconds. I’d lay on my back initially with 1:1 thrust: weight but start decelerating as the air got thinner. At 240knots/31Kft still pure vertical, I’d start a careful pull to the horizon and end up at ~37Kft and 200KIAS. Throttles to idle, descend back down at 0.9M, careful LAT recovery at 200ft/idle and wait for 200KIAS. AND DO IT AGAIN!!!
(I️ remember the trip up & back took 1,500lbs of fuel).
Fun stuff!
(The most amazing things for me as an old A guy we’re the F110s going to full AB before the engines were fully spooled up-and the jet outrunning it’s trim system during the acceleration between 350-550knots
@@ericmitchell5350 Thanks so much for all that great first hand info. It never worked out for me to go down this road, but I do enjoy hearing from others who did. I did get my license, but that was years ago, and haven't stayed current. The F-14 was such an iconic, unique, and impressive aircraft. I'm sure you've got fantastic stories. Maybe you'll be a guest on his show sometime :)
@@ericmitchell5350 I suggest you wipe the poo accumulated around your mouth
Even back in the 80's as a kid the F/A 18 was my favourite fighter jet.
My favourite is the F-35 now,but i still love the F/A 18.
10:10 you had me at F-14.
Tomcat was a beautiful aircraft!
Indeed.
@@FighterPilotPodcast it still is
The Tomcat will always be the king of cool for the US Navy. Everything now is so angular and straight edged. Just looking at the Tomcat from the nose at it sits on the carrier, wings tucked back the curves, she just looked mean!!
Having worked on both as an "I" level aviation electronics technician, and being on the last west coast cruise for the F-14 I was so glad to see them go away. They were a maintenance nightmare.
Once we did the motive flow line mods it was an animal
Some comments from other pilots
Israel Baharav (12 kills):
`When we evaluated the F-14, the US Navy pilots at NAS Miramar told us that the Tomcat could perform equally as well in a dogfight with an A-4. This did not prove to be the case, however, for when I flew the TA-4 against the F-14, the end result of the engagement was embarrassment for the Tomcat. Not only could the TA-4 out-turn the F-14, but during the turn itself, the Tomcat’s energy state dropped so low that I was able to fly the TA-4 in the vertical as though the Skyhawk was the superior fighter and the F-14 the inferior!’
Assaf Ben-Nun (5 kills):
‘The F-14 lacked thrust, was complex and not user-friendly and was not aerodynamically clean - indeed, the jet shuddered every time I pulled high-G or high angle-of-attack. During my sortie, I flew DACT against Amnon Arad in a Skyhawk, and although we finished with honours even at the end of the session, I found it hard to believe that the F-14 had no edge whatsoever over the A-4 in WVR air combat.’
Francesco "Paco" Chierici (F-14 pilot)
"Though the Tomcat was technically a fighter plane, it wasn’t really designed for the visual BFM arena. It had a number of elements working against it when it came to dogfighting.
First was its size, it was fondly referred to as the ‘Big Fighter,’ and it was huge. One of the basic tenants of aerial combat is, ‘lose sight, lose the fight.’ Against a Tomcat that was almost impossible.
The A-model was also underpowered for maneuvering fights with an approximately 0.67:1 thrust to weight ratio. Furthermore, we had a 6.5 G limit, though there was no black box that would tell on you, so we often went well beyond 7 G. While it had massive elevators that would develop an incredible instantaneous pitch rate, the lack of ailerons and the sheer width of the plane made the roll rate sluggish.
Finally, the ergonomics of the cockpit were designed in the late ‘60s. There was no HOTAS (Hands On Throttles and Stick). The BVR intercept was run by the RIO in the back manipulating the radar and working with the pilot. Once the merge was imminent, inside 10 nautical miles, the pilot took over. But he would still have to call for the RIO to engage the dogfight mode of the radar.
In a two-circle fight, where degrees of turn per second are a premium, the Tomcat was quite adept. But if you got the A-model slow, into the ‘black hole’ around 250 knots, you were stuck in a region the plane did not excel in. The TF-30 engines just didn’t have enough grunt to allow the plane to fly extremely slowly, nor to power back up to proper maneuvering speed.
The GE engines, on the other hand, enabled a skilled pilot to work the slow speed environment successfully. A very good pilot could even pirouette the plane using the GE engines by bringing one out of afterburner. The Tomcat would swap ends gracefully and reverse course instantly.
The auto function of the wing sweep could work against a pilot in the BFM arena as well. The angle of the sweep was a function of a variety of factors, including speed, angle of attack, and altitude.
F-15s liked to drag the Tomcat high and use their superior thrust to gain an advantage. An off-the-books tactic we used to counter this was to manually extend the wings to the fullest, then incrementally lower the flaps beyond the normal maneuver setting. It was hugely successful, but the danger was that the flap torque tubes were not designed for this and could become stuck."
Scott R Wilson (USAF)
"Way back in the mid-80s I asked one of our F-4E pilots at Ramstein about the media hype versus reality of ACM with other airplanes. He told me the F-14 was actually rather easy to beat. He said one of the keys to dogfighting was being able to judge your opponent's energy state and adjust your tactics accordingly. With most other fighters it's fairly difficult to do, but when the Tomcat's wings started swinging out, you knew he was low on energy and was therefore more predictable and easier to kill."
Mike Glenn (Hughes maintenance supervisor)
“By the last F-111B built, Grumman and GD had worked out the bugs. I will tell you that [prototype] number 7 could fly circles around our early F-14s-longer, faster, and very maintenance-friendly compared to earlier F-111Bs and F-14s.”
I can’t help but think of what the Tomcat 21 might have been .
probably ALSO undependable
@@lqr824 NOPE, The ST-21 would have corrected all the legacy Tomcat's issues caused by the criminal decades long lack of upgrades thanks to DOD BS and we would have ended up with a fighter FAR superior to any other Gen 4 ever built.
@@josephkugel5099 Any fighter with enough upgrade budget would be better than any other fighter. Take a Wright Flyer and simply upgrade everything enough and you can beat anything in the sky. You're arguing a tautology there. Stop being such a silly fanboy. Grumman's never going to return your calls.
@@lqr824 NO, you missed my point, im not saying give the Tomcat enough upgrades to surpass all the other Gen 4s, what i am saying is that given EQUAL treatment regarding upgrades the Tomcat would emerge as king of the Gen 4 mountain. FYI: The Hornet is a perfect example of what you just complained about and yet i don't see you taking a giant shit on that plane, Must be another Hornet fanboy.
I think I've heard every tomcat story so far...and i never get bored of hearing them again 😁
Chasing clouds has to be the coolest expression I've heard in a while.
You usually catch them!
@@FighterPilotPodcast I would hope so.
@@raspycellist 😝
You could see Jello loves the Hornet's high alpha maneuvres in air show setting. ❤🇫🇮
and the cobra with full combat loadout, amazing to see.
what a guy...
Thanks. My guest isn't bad either, huh?
😉
Cool as hell. I just finished my cplse and am working on my CFI. I want to try this at some point.
I was in the Navy during the transition, and I worked on equipment from both aircraft as an AT. I distinctly remember the F-14 pilot patch that said, "Anytime baby", and the F/A-18 pilot patch that said, "Now, baby".
?
I was an AT myself. Was in VF-143, VF-101, VF-211 (not long) and then AIMD in Oceana.
Those ferry tanks cost approx. $50,000 each in mid 90's dollars. as per the Hultgreen loss report. They seriously affected aero. The Phoenix launch rails were heavy as well. They were retained for bombing as well.
They were dropped when empty, right?
@@siler7 In an air-to-air engagement, in a time of war where max maneuverability was required, the tanks would be jettisoned regardless of fuel level within. The 2 F-14 External Fuel Tanks(EFT) reduced the Tomcats top speed by 300 kts at altitude and over 100 knots at Sea Level. I would have stated that EFTs would be punched whenever in combat, buty the last 1/3rd of the F-14s service life had it being the Navy's go to precision strike aircraft doing what the retired A-6 Intruder could do. The F-14 couldnt match the superior A-6 bomb capacity, but could put a Laser Guided Bomb in a pickle barrel just the same. During strike missions the EFT's would stay in place, unless there was some sort of urgency to extend range, increase on station time or if an air-ground strike mission quickly became a close in air-to-air engagement. It should be noted that the Tomcats EFTs were jettisoned at the same time to retain symmetry of the aircraft. I don't think the approx. 1500 pounds of Phoenix/bomb rails could be jettisoned while underway. The under fuselage Phoenix bomb racks could hold up to 4, 2000 pound class gravity bombs. that's over 10,000 pounds in the tunnel between the engines. On each wing glove you can still load a Phoenix on one side and another phoenix on the other, or a Phoenix on one side and a LANTIRN pod on the other, as well as multiple variations of Sidewinder, Sparrow, LANTIRN pods, extra chaff dispensers etc etc.
I gotta wonder. Given the superior slow speed performance of the hornet, and the fact most jets could run you down if you tried to disengage, do you think hornet pilots are trained to be naturally more aggressive?
I believe aggressiveness is rewarded in fighter pilots of any aircraft.
@@FighterPilotPodcast true enough.
The Navy stupidly focused on Air Superiority aircraft .. when they should have been focusing on a singe combat aircraft ... to be a fighter and do ground attack.
The Su-27 ... is what the F-14 should have been ... with a fixed wing, simpler design, more internal fuel, more maneuverable, ... and with a radar that use the Phoenix missile at long range ... & ... do high/low level ground attacks.
The F-14 was the navy's version of the F111 ... when they should have simply been the F4 replacement with a fixed wing .... but as an FA-14.
The Navy did with the F18 ... what they should have done with the F-14 ... with a single combat aircraft.
Might be a bit off, but in one of DCS sim game I watched on CZcams match quite expert DCS player against real life French fighter pilot (he also has CZcams channel about this game, and general aviation) and that French pilot is highly aggressive. So it basically training
GOODNESS!!!!
Stories!
Very entertaining.
100K subs. congratulations
Thanks
The F14 needed an E variant like that of the F15. High payload, multi mission strike capable platform to stay relevant
That variant was the F-14D, they just needed more than the 55 D models the Navy got, 37 new, 18 rebuilt from A's.
@@hoghogwild Yes the F14D is a more powerful variant. Although what I meant was that it should have the payload of the F15E which the F14D does not have, some 10,000kg of ordnance carrying.
@@ConstantineJoseph I meant moreso that the D Tomcat was the upgraded digital systems, was the Navy's premier precision strike capability and while the Mudhen had an upgraded MTOW of 81,000 pounds vs. the Tomcats 74,312 pounds MTOW, the Tomcat had to do it off the bow of a ship and can still carry at least 18,000 pounds off its hardpoints. With naval aircraft the max weight is limited by the catapult. Then there's the bring back issues if you dont drop the bombs. Cant bring back more than 54,0000 pounds to the carrier. But yes, the -15E is an amazing asset and can lay down a lot of hurt.
They did, the D, and it was very undependable
@@lqr824 incorrect....the D, with its F110GE400 engines was the most reliable of all the variants.
The crazy part is the F16 and F18 were the only 2 fighter jets that could do loops on the Dallas Cowboy Stadium. No they never went down in the Stadium. It was measured how big the inside of the stadium was and how sharp the F16 and F18 could cut. The F16 could turn a bit tighter than the F18 but they could both do it. The F14 needed the whole parking lot. So in a dog fight. I’d hate to be in a Tomcat.
You'd hate to be in an F-14 in a low speed, low altitude dogfight, anyway. High speed, high altitude might be a different story.
The F-14 was never really designed to be a 'dogfighter' per se. It was designed as a fleet defense fighter or combat air patrol to keep enemy aircraft from reaching the fleet and sinking ships. It could be configured to carry AIM-9 Sidewinders,AIM-7(later AIM-120 AMRAAMS) Sparrows, and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at the same time along with its 20mm built in cannon. The fact that it could maneuver well was because of the variable wing and excess energy. Dogfighter no. Too big and heavy.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 The F-14 was designed to dogfight because of the lessons the Navy learned over Vietnam. It was meant to get out to the incoming enemy aircraft and shoot them down at long range, before they could shoot their anti-ship missiles at our fleet. The Navy learned things don't always go as planned (or maybe they almost never go as planned), so dogfighting ability became an important part of the design. Dogfighting was why they gave it swing wings.
Shooting them down at long range isn't dogfighting. But,yes things don't always go as planned you are correct. Simply stating primary purpose of F-14 was not dog fighting but they gave it a secondary capability to be somewhat capable in that arena. If I had to choose a Navy acct just to dogfight I'd go with the F-8Crusader.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 Yeah the Crusader was pretty sweet during the Vietnam War, but compared to a F-16 or F-18 there would be no chance for the Crusader.
Hi! Any chance of seeing a higher resolution version of the image of the planes in the thumbnail? Excelent video btw! Thanks!
Not sure if this works but give it a try:
i9.ytimg.com/vi/mJY68JLl9FU/maxresdefault.jpg?v=643f8c9c&sqp=COyMnKIG&rs=AOn4CLBGecraWUS99y4Sj68HXswDSkeTdQ
Great video
It's always fun to discuss the differences but the planes are supposed to complement each other not compete with each other.
A better comparison is the F14 vs the super hornet.
The F14 having speed, endurance, radar and longer range weapons and arguable better looks is a beast.
But I will always favor reliability.
Better to have 6 planes in the air when you really need it than 2.
That is actually a very poor comparison, the Super Hornet was a completely new airplane pretty much from the ground up and it has falsely been compared against the 1974 vintage F-14A time and time again in an effort to smear the Tomcat's reputation, for a true and accurate comparison chart between the two i give you the chart below:
F-14A, F-14A+, F-14B -------------------------------- VS --------------------------------- F-18A/B
F-14C (never built)
F-14D ------------------------------------------------------------ VS --------------------------------- F-18C/D
F-14 (ST-21) (never built) ----------------------------- VS -------------------------------- F-18E/F Super Hornet
F-14 (ASF-14) (never built) ----------------------------VS -------------------------------- F-18E/F/G Block III Super Hornet
As you can see the true peer match up would have been the ST-21 vs F-18 Super but that never happened and lucky for the Hornet that it didn't because that Tomcat would have absolutely obliterated the Super Bug so badly the engineers at Grumman would have been arrested for murder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Super hornet block 3 is No 2 behind F-35C
Well the Super Hornet will be getting the new AIM-260 JATM which is said to have a range of at least 120 miles and does the F-14's radar really beat the AESA radar of a Super Hornet?
JATM will be a killer of a missile but there are reports of a new longer range air to air missile the Long-Range Engagement Weapon (LREW) that cannot fit into the F-35A bomb bays and are for external fitment must be very long ranged missile with 2 stages..
I recently with disappointment found out that the RAAF has 72 F-35A are not getting another 25 x F-35A to make it 100 all up and are going to upgrade their F/A-18F Super hornets to block 3 and EA-18G Growlers to block 3 with new jammer pods until maybe until NGAD comes along. Hope they get the Long-Range Engagement Weapon (LREW) or JTAM@@Murph_gaming
The F-14 has no range, standoff or BVR capability over the Superhornet.
This comparison is like pitting a 1920's boxer against a modern day MMA champion its such a washout.
Comparing the AWG-9 to any AESA is just, yeah. lmao
US Navy pilots are the best in the world. I could listen to this guy talk all day. His knowledge, clarity, confidence, and command of language is just something else.
Be sure to catch the rest of the interview!
they are aviators - better than pilots - any idiot can land on a 10,000 foot runway
I remember that footage from Discovery when I was a kid!
Watched 2 F14’s on the Stennis go in the drink. One off the cat went vertical with no control. The other on landing when the tail hook broke. Tail hook incident was the craziest thing ever. After ejection a/c recovered and flew by itself for a few seconds. VF-211 if I remember right it was triple sticks. Somewhere around 2002 in the Indian Ocean.
I witnessed one go in the drink on the Stennis and one that had a RIO (not pilot) go through the canopy while landing..... VF143
Tomcat looks better, and that's what matters most. Who cares what you can do, if you don't look cool doing it?
The enemy cares.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Indeed, generally the 'enemy' shat themselves and "turned and burned" when they got pinged by an F14.
In terms of overall operational performance, especially in the phone booth, the edge goes to the F/A-18. But for aesthetics and just "cool" factor, the Tomcat is still ahead.
I was at Elcentro the first time VF-124 took the tomcats there. I have been looking for the film that was taken that first day with no luck. I was in VF-124 & got transferred to VFP-63 just before the tomcats arrived. F8's were OK but the tomcats were a different world at that time. Thanks for the video.Tomcats forever.
I always enjoy conversations like this. I was in the US Navy for 8 years, 3 of those years I worked on the flight deck as a grape. I always enjoy seeing the F14 launch. Nothing but raw power. It just came to mind.....why doesn't the F14 or F18 have their own APU? Helicopters do.
Hornet's do
Growling Sidewinder uploaded today a video about that 💀
#serendipity.