Makes sense.
Something else I’ve wondered about for a while now - with the retirement of the S-3, the elimination of the CSA program, and the recent - ish decision to replace the COD with the V-22, are Super Hornets just going to be the Navy’s long - term solution for tanking? That can’t be a very cost - effective solution, from the point of view of available gas aloft, per - hour cost, or flight hours on the airframes.
Nah, they went with the most maximalist fighter jock solution: make robots do the boring stuff
Yup, we gotta keep in mind the Bug, and especially the Super Bug, came about in times when budget austerity measures were getting put in place. There were also a lot of nagging questions being asked in the 80s regarding the DOD’s budget wastefulness and the massive cost of defense programs. That gets catch-all solutions that don’t do any one thing really good, but can at least do several things well enough.
And the relevant portion:
It makes me wonder what things would have been like had the Navy retired the F-14 in the 90s and kept the A-6, bringing it up to the F standard. I suspect they would have done that had they known how much bomb-trucking they were going to do in the '00s.
Retirement around 2006, if not earlier, and the Hornet singularity rolls onward. A-6s were older than the Tomcat, and were developing structural cracks in the early 90s. A new run manufacture could have kept them in the air longer, but, again: Nineties, Good Ideas. You only get to pick one.
The A-6s were definitely showing their age. Solid, dependable aircraft, but slow and hardly maneuverable. Would be eaten alive in a gunfight.
The Hornet was trying to replace three aircraft: the F-4, the A-6, and the A-7. We were bound to be disappointed in it to some extent. It has always had speed/range issues. However, I like what the Navy is doing here in the sense that at least someone is trying something new. It may not work and the Navy might simply keep the D-model AMRAAM on the Super Hornet and add the new tech and CFTs. Still a mean fighter.
But @near_blind had it right, the Hornet was never going to be the Tomcat, but to be fair, at the end of its life, the Tomcat wasn’t even the Tomcat anymore.
You’re forgetting the A-12 Dorito that was supposed to replace the A-6, and why the Navy didn’t pursue the A-6F proposal Grumman had introduced.
I’ve actually seen the original mockup of the Dorito. I was pulling CAT5 cable for a contractor for extra money after college at the Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth (ex-Carswell AFB) and they had dumped it in a grassy area next to one of the more remote parts of the base. It was just sitting out there collecting bird crap.
Haven’t been a lot of those in the past 20 years. Also: EA-6B was only just recently retired from the Navy, with the Marines hanging onto them til next year. And we’ve been using the hell out of that thing for the past 2 decades.
Sorry F-14 guys, but a pointy nosed interceptor doesn’t make a great bomb truck, no matter how hard they tried to make it one. Just the same as the A-6 wouldn’t make a good interceptor or multirole aircraft.
Face it gents: slow flying, long legs, and dropping bombs isn’t as sexy as being Maverick in Top Gun, but it’s what we’ve been doing the most of for damn near 20 years and probably the near future. Cheap UAVs are gonna be where it’s at and the Navy is quite aware of this.
*Apologies for thread drift.
Hmmm, I recognize that skyline. My condo building was just across the street from that little bit poking out from above the NSC building there.
What about the strike eagle? It has legs. Is a great interceptor and has proven itself in ground ops time after time.
Arguments could also be made for the phantom.
A 1992-2006 CVW with a VF swapped for a VA would most likely have between 36 and 48 Hornets on it. If your tadpole’s in a turn fight, you’ve got much bigger problems.
Unless ты говоришь по-русски, what do you need a bomb truck for in this day and age? With few exceptions, conflict of the last 17 years has been defined by small numbers of PGMS being dropped in an engagement. 30 Mk-82s isn’t really helpful.
I think a six hard pointed Intruder with improved sensors could definitely be valuable on the battlefields of the present, but not simply because it brings mo dakka.
It could carry bombs further, faster, loiter longer, and deliver them with greater precision than the Hornet and that’s all that really matters. 
Until, you know, it’s time to start working on maintaining the things. Especially at the O-level and I- level.
If by “interceptor” you mean “dropped a bomb on the runway the other side used,” then yeah, great interceptor!
You’ve just defined the reason why they keep the B-52, B-1, and B-2 around! Large bomb load, long loiter time, and exceptional range! Remember that the A-6 got PGM capabilities in the '70s and they enhanced that in the '90s – something they had to shoehorn onto the F-14 when they thought they were going all air-combat and ended up in a “■■■■, we need bombs!” scenario.
Point being, the A-6 could carry more bombs further, loiter longer, and with greater precision than the F-14. Though I suspect none of the candidates can do it as precisely as the F-35 can… But that one is a huge compromise to begin with.
And never forget: You always need moar dakka. No exceptions.
Wait, wait, the Strike Eagle actually deserves a lot more discussion than a witty retort. The entire point of the design was to add all weather strike capabilities without sacrificing much in the way of air-to-air. You’ve got massive gas tanks, an impressive payload, all the gizmos for precision strike and bad weather, and you’re still in the world’s most successful air to air platform to date.
Come to think of it, Israel did the same thing with the F-16I Sulfa, and Russia is working on the same project with the Su-34. How do any of those not meet your criteria of bomb trucks with the added bonus of not dying 20 seconds after they enter a complex threat environment?
Primary reason? Because while the F-15E can do it, it doesn’t do it as well as a purpose built aircraft. An F-14 was purpose built for interception and would more than likely eat an F-15E’s lunch in such a scenario.
It’s pretty well known that modern F-16s are not nearly as purebred fighters as the original prototypes; that happens when you tack on additional requirements and capabilities not in the original design considerations. It certainly makes things cheaper from a fleet standpoint to be able to do a variety of missions good enough with a single airframe rather than one mission exceptionally well.
FYI the A-6 did quite well in complex threat environments. Most losses were due to low tech stuff like the classic ZPU-4.
I am comfortable in claiming my right as the biggest, most devoted Tomcat Fanboy on these forums, but even I’m like
Firstly the F-14 was not purpose built for interception, that’d be @Bogusheadbox’s F-111B. The F-14 was a maritime air superiority fighter intended to replace the F-4 before it was modified to accept the AWG-9/AIM-54 system as a way to sweeten the pot.
Secondly I’d be leary saying an aircraft that aerodynamically is an F-15D isn’t a fighter. The difference between the two are largely internal: electronics, sensors, some structural stuff. You take off the CFTs and you’ve got an F-15D with better electronics. With them you’ve got an F-15D that bleeds speed a bit more under 350 IAS. It can and does thrash.
Lastly I’m not sure what, exactly, the F-14 does overwhelmingly better in an interception scenario. It had the Phoenix, which is nice, but AIM-120D is knocking on that door. The F-15E’s APG-70 is hands down superior to the AWG-9 in 90% of the average use cases, and the F-14D’s APG-71 is a direct derivative of the APG-70. They carry the same amount of missiles. They go about the same speed (the Eagle is faster). The F-15E can carry more gas.
In a straight up BFM engagement, I’d full stop not want to fight an F-15E in the F-14A. I’d imagine the F-14B/D have slightly better energy retention, but I’d still be sure to bring the A game.
I’ll just end this by saying @klarsnow a bunch, and hope to goad him into an impassioned defense of The Dude.
@klarsnow @klarsnow @klarsnow @klarsnow @klarsnow @klarsnow
OK, so I’ll call the F-14 what it really was: a dog. 
Replace it with the preferred purpose-designed fighter of your choice, such as the MiG-29, Su-27, F-16, or what have you. Point remains that the F-15E had to compromise to get the strike capability and is nowhere near the same level as the F-15A/C when it comes to the air combat game.
When I invent my time machine, I’ll be sure to inform the 51st FIS they’re nowhere near the same level in the air combat game
But seriously, I think you’re drastically overstating the performance impact of the CFTs. Do you have anything that demonstrates F-15 + some CFTs = INSTANT A-6 PERFORMANCE ?
You can correct me here but I believe that between engine and airframe upgrades to the original D the E does not lose much at all In terms of Air to Air performance. When not loaded down with bombs it can reliably go toe to toe with just about anything out there.
