was getting rid of the F-14 a mistake?

Question

I think that the capabilities of the F-14 greatly out-weighed the capabilities of the F-18D super hornet.
First off the super hornet is a multi-role fighter that is mainly intended for low level fighting.
The F-14 was a multi-role fighter that was intended for Air superiority.
In my opinion (and i am an aircraft maintainer in the air force) If the enemy were to bring in air superiority fighters they could fly right over the top of the Super Hornets.
the engines are not big enough to suck enough air, and the wings are too small to duke it out at 60,000 feet, and the Super Hornets do not have the range needed to take on a fight at that altitude.
that is exactally why we dumped off the F-4 to start with and went with the F-14 and the F-15. because the Foxbats could just walk away from our F-4's.
what do you think?

FYI:
i am an avionics technician on the F-15 Eagle in the Air Force.

Answer 1

The f-14, for what it was intended, was and is an excellent aircraft. While changes and upgrades have made the F-14 more versatile for today's war environment, it is still too specialized, add to the fact that it is 30 years old, and it is time to replace it. Don't get me wrong, my aircraft (EA-6B Prowler) is slated to be replaced by the EF-18G Growler in the next couple of years, but the cost of maintaining these aircraft is getting expensive, and transferring these units to F-18 aircraft is an ease on logistics. But in all reality, the days of expecting wave after wave of Soviet bombers (what the F-14 was designed to intercept), is less likely every day, although still possible. The new F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets are designed to fill the gap created by the loss of the F-14, and can provide stand-off air intercept with two AIM-54 Pheonix missles (the F-14 could carry 6, but it was purpose built to carry that particular weapon).

The F/A-18 is also more fuel efficient that the Tomcat, utilizing two turbofan (airliner) type engines, as opposed to turbo jets, used by the prowler and the tomcat.

While Northrup Grumman has a long and brilliant history with rugged aircraft for the Navy, I am afraid to say that those days are behind us. It is time for the new era in aviation combat.

By the way, it won't be long before the F-15 and the F-16 are mothballed as well. And while they are excellent aircraft by any definition, they are getting old, and there isn't much you can do about that.

Answer 2

The F14 is getting old. Moving it to the multi role status is not the end of the world. However, I feel we should have an aircraft that can carry the AIM54. It has much greater range than the AIM7, AIM9 and AIM120.

Answer 3

Ehh..its the NAVY...you know us USAF got control of the skies. XD

The NAVY has the F-18, and the MARINES have the AV-8 Harrier, they don't need too many aircraft..and plus the F-14 is larger and less of them to put on an aircraft carrier than the F-18,

Personal Opinion though.

Answer 4

In my opinion~Yes it is.

It is true that F-18 is a multi-purpose air craft
but when it comes to SU-27.30 and their upgraded version
who knows if the U.S is gonna loss its place in dog fight
russia might not be an enemy
however, mainland china is now getting bigger and bigger, more and more powerful
U.S might not going to be hit hard
but therre could be some unnecessary loss

Answer 5

From what I understand it was a maintenance nightmare. Cost too much per maintenance hour vs. flight hours.

More cost effective I suppose. The F-18 has a 50K plus ceiling, and with missile technology these days whats another 10K-15K feet.

Answer 6

The Tomcat was a fat, ugly aircraft anyways. The F-18 is much sexier.

The answer to your question is probably that is was a mistake, but the military just loves to buy new stuff.

Answer 7

No it wasnt. They were getting old.