@1bearcatf8f I love both planes, and I agree with you. The F-18 is a lot cheaper to maintain and is much more versatile. The F-14 was a fantastic interceptor, but it was supposed to completely replace the F-4 and also be good at air to ground, which it was never really used for until the final years of its existance. The maintenance issues on the Tomcat were getting really bad from what I have read.
@336kgf Yeah i love both to.The F-14 was a gas guzzler,and difficult to land,But the F-18 is better in close quarters dogfights because its highly agile.Cant wait to see what the F-35C can do.
@1bearcatf8f well think about the fact that the hornet is not as agile in a dogfight as it is constantly hyped up to be, the tomcat constantly ripped it apart in ACM excercises, and is far more agile than the hornet can ever hope to be, and i dont hold out much hope for the f-35, any of the models, the whole program is a bad idea.
@TheScrumpty Well the F-18 is old,it needs a replacment,the Super Hornet is twice as deadly in a dogfight because of the helmet the pilot's wear,But it matter's on the pilot.Without the F-18 the navy wouldnt have a strike fighter.or possibley somthing less capable.I like the F-14 because its a great plane that never lost a dogfight,But the F-18 just offer's more capabilies to the fight.
@1bearcatf8f the helmet does not make the hornet or superhornet more deadly for that matter, neither one of them is as capable or as maneuravable in a dogfight as the tomcat was, the hornet is a lightweight strike/fighter, period, it is a more than adequate replacement for the last remaining phantoms, and all of the A-7's but it nowhere near capable of replacing the A-6 or the F-14, the F-14 was an air superiority fighter, and an interceptor, the hornet was forced upon the navy, it did not want.
@TheScrumpty Actually it does.you look side to side and lock onto a target while in the legacy Hornet's you have to aim your plane onto it.Soon all fighter's will have that system on them,starting with the F-22 and F-35
@1bearcatf8f nor is it anywhere near capable of replacing the A-6, it has a range problem that was not solved by the new airframe in the superhornet, in fact was only helped by the slimmest of margins, it has been marketed as the end all be all of tactical aircraft, but it just is not that way, it is a little more agile than the F-4 was, it can cover the mission of the A-7 well, it can not and never will be able to do the tomcats or the intruders missions, but it is being expected to do both.
@TheScrumpty Well the A-6 and A-7 were already out dated by the 80s and there subsonic wich more plane's now a day's are supersonic.The F-18 is a needed plane,if it sucked no country would use them but more countries use the F-18.It's like the the USAF's F-16 it's used by alot of countrie's.And you talked about the F-18 being slightly more agile than an F-4? it's ALOT more agile,it does thing's the F-4 cant.The F-18 is a great plane,The F-14 is great to is just got old.
@1bearcatf8f well i am not going to argue with you since it is obvious to me that you know almost nothing about the subject, i have experience with both of the aircraft you are talking about, as a pilot that spent most of my navy career flying the tomcat, and a couple of years flying the hornet, i also know a bit more of the political aspect then you do obviously, but from a tactical perspective, even you would have to admit, that it is impossible for any one single plane that can do it all.
@TheScrumpty It's nice that you served but my opinion's are my opinion's ok? And the F-14 is cool but its to old.The F-18 is all the navy has so deal with it.
@1bearcatf8f yes the f/a-18 is all the navy has, and that is unfortunate, and that fact caused me to end my career, i served 22 years but wanted more, i refuse to be part of the weakening of our navy's tactical air power, so i retired.
@TheScrumpty it's not that bad without the F-18 the Navy would have maybe somthing crappy.The F-35 Will be better.it will be as agile as the F-16 just as fast as the F-18 but just as versitile.I prefer to wait till the USN brings in the F/A-XX
@1bearcatf8f you don't really believe the f-18 is fast do you? if so i am sorry that you have bought into it's hype, and if the f-18 was not around the navy would have far more capable jets such as the f-14 still and the a-6 which does the jobs far more effectively and effietiently, and requires substantially less in air support than the hornet does, so yes it is that bad, i just hope we don't have to pay a terrible price for politicians mistakes and greed.
@TheScrumpty The F-18 is proven just like an other USN plane.it's killed enemies fighter's,And it isnt that fast man.1200mph max isnt good for a navy plane.A single engine plane would beat it.Rather join the USAF than the Navy
@1bearcatf8f 1,200 mph???????? it its wildest dreams, it can't achieve that even when it has no weapons or drop tanks on it in a max burner dive, yes it is easier to maintain, but it's performance leaves a lot to be desired, man don't believe the hype.
@TheScrumpty The F-18 can do thing's the F-14 cant do and the F-14 can do thing's the F-18 cant do.Let's see the F-18 can do the cobra while the F-14 cannot.It's better suited to air-to-ground and eat's up slightly less fuel than the F-14.
The F-14 is faster,can carry the phoenix missile,better range.
Even with weapon's loadout it can sill reach that speed,Put it in a dive etc.The F-18 is a great plane,Maybe you dont like it because you flew the F-14 but people still love the Hornet
@1bearcatf8f did you not understand me? i flew the hornet too, and the f-14 can do the cobra a lot better than the hornet can, but don't, guess why? because it is a useless maneuver is useless in combat, so why practice something that you can not use in combat? yes the hornet burns slightly less fuel than the tomcat did, but also holds a lot less than the tomcat did, which means extensive refueling support is needed for it on its missions.
@1bearcatf8f yes the f-14 is a lot faster than the hornet and can carry and deploy the phoenix missile very effectively, the f-18 is not nor will it ever be a GREAT plane, it is an adequate plane, that is now being expected to fill roles that it cant do, i do think the navy needs the hornet, but it needs the tomcat also. the hornet is better than the a-7. which is about the only plane it can replace effectively.
@TheScrumpty The Navy need's somthing BETTER than the F-14.Perhap's if the F-15N Sea Eagle went into Naval service the navy would have the best Fleet defence fighter.But either way the F-14 is what they ended up with.The navy at the time needed to replace the F-4,The only real good design was the YF-17 Cobra then they tweaked it alot and thus the F-18.
@1bearcatf8f wow you really dont have a clue as to what you are talking about do you, the F-15 is a LAND based plane, as in not able to do carrier duty, yes the YF-17 was an outstanding design for another LAND based plane, but it lost 85% of its abilities when modified to carrier ability, better than the F-14? it will be a very long time before the F-14 will be able to be matched, let alone surpassed, i am now done with you, you dont know what you are talking about and i have no more time for u.
@TheScrumpty Lol your mistaken pal.The F-14 would get it's assed kicked by the Sukhoi SU-33,its far more agile and is better suited for dogfighting,Maybe 2 on 1 would kill the SU-33 but 1 on 1 would be a different story.And the F-14 is matched by the USAF's F-15C.Its has a top speed of mach 2.85,its more agile and never lost in air-to-air combat.
The YF-17 and F/A-18 are still as capabile.You dont like the F-18 because you were a tomcat pilot,make's PERFECT sence.
@1bearcatf8f finally you said something that is correct, the F-14 is matched by the F-15c, you are absolutley right on this statement, and i dont like the F-18 because it makes our pilots more vulnerable in combat, it is not as capable as you make it out to be, not only have i flown against it in ACM excercises, i have flown it against the F-14 in ACM excercises as well, and as hard as i could fly it it was difficult to beat the tomcat, but in tomcat, hornet was easy to defeat.
@1bearcatf8f if the F-18 was better than the tomcat i would have embraced it, it is natural for the progression of technology to replace previous systems with more capable ones, but from first hand experience, it is not even close as capable, it makes no sense to replace one weapons system with one that is far less capable, so maybe you should talk to F-15 pilots, and those navy pilots that have flown both the tomcat and the hornet before you spew things that are not true.
@TheScrumpty You said the F-14 is unmatched.Im telling what PLANES! can kick its ass.The F-15,the SU-33,really any modern russian plane,the F-22 and the future USN plane.
@1bearcatf8f the F-14 and F-15 are virtually identical and equal in acm excercises, in other words, they are just as capable as each other, my record when flying against the F-15 is right at 50% now compare that with my record of flying against the hornet which was right at 87%, and of course the F-22 can beat the F-14, it also handily beats the F-15, but it is again LAND based and the program has been terminated, we only have 153 of them, and the SU-33 would have to be able to beat the F-15 too
@1bearcatf8f but my point is that it is a horrible idea to shove a single airframe, especially one that is not capable of defending the fleet down the navy's throats like was done by politicians, an aircraft carrier cost's almost 5 billion dollars, there is 6,500+ men and women on board and an airwing that is worth about another 2 billion dollars, defended by hornets now, that is one big target, and a lot easier to reach without tomcat.
@1bearcatf8f not to mention the other ships that deploy with an aircraft carrier that if it is damaged or god forbid sunk, would be defensless with it not being able to put planes up to defend them.
I was there. It was a great airshow due to the fact that the F-14 flew for the last time there. Check-out some of the highlights that I put together in a movie, "Blue Angels Oceana Naval Air Station 2006."
only F14 !
BloodThirsty1986 3 months ago
Damn. What I'd give to be one of them Pilots.
BullCrap4248 8 months ago
the elite of the sky... dang
nimox57 9 months ago
im sure you tomcat fans will kill me for saying this but i like the hornet more,it just has the look of a hornet
1bearcatf8f 1 year ago
@1bearcatf8f I love both planes, and I agree with you. The F-18 is a lot cheaper to maintain and is much more versatile. The F-14 was a fantastic interceptor, but it was supposed to completely replace the F-4 and also be good at air to ground, which it was never really used for until the final years of its existance. The maintenance issues on the Tomcat were getting really bad from what I have read.
336kgf 10 months ago
@336kgf Yeah i love both to.The F-14 was a gas guzzler,and difficult to land,But the F-18 is better in close quarters dogfights because its highly agile.Cant wait to see what the F-35C can do.
1bearcatf8f 10 months ago
@1bearcatf8f well think about the fact that the hornet is not as agile in a dogfight as it is constantly hyped up to be, the tomcat constantly ripped it apart in ACM excercises, and is far more agile than the hornet can ever hope to be, and i dont hold out much hope for the f-35, any of the models, the whole program is a bad idea.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty Well the F-18 is old,it needs a replacment,the Super Hornet is twice as deadly in a dogfight because of the helmet the pilot's wear,But it matter's on the pilot.Without the F-18 the navy wouldnt have a strike fighter.or possibley somthing less capable.I like the F-14 because its a great plane that never lost a dogfight,But the F-18 just offer's more capabilies to the fight.
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f the helmet does not make the hornet or superhornet more deadly for that matter, neither one of them is as capable or as maneuravable in a dogfight as the tomcat was, the hornet is a lightweight strike/fighter, period, it is a more than adequate replacement for the last remaining phantoms, and all of the A-7's but it nowhere near capable of replacing the A-6 or the F-14, the F-14 was an air superiority fighter, and an interceptor, the hornet was forced upon the navy, it did not want.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty Actually it does.you look side to side and lock onto a target while in the legacy Hornet's you have to aim your plane onto it.Soon all fighter's will have that system on them,starting with the F-22 and F-35
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f nor is it anywhere near capable of replacing the A-6, it has a range problem that was not solved by the new airframe in the superhornet, in fact was only helped by the slimmest of margins, it has been marketed as the end all be all of tactical aircraft, but it just is not that way, it is a little more agile than the F-4 was, it can cover the mission of the A-7 well, it can not and never will be able to do the tomcats or the intruders missions, but it is being expected to do both.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty Well the A-6 and A-7 were already out dated by the 80s and there subsonic wich more plane's now a day's are supersonic.The F-18 is a needed plane,if it sucked no country would use them but more countries use the F-18.It's like the the USAF's F-16 it's used by alot of countrie's.And you talked about the F-18 being slightly more agile than an F-4? it's ALOT more agile,it does thing's the F-4 cant.The F-18 is a great plane,The F-14 is great to is just got old.
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f well i am not going to argue with you since it is obvious to me that you know almost nothing about the subject, i have experience with both of the aircraft you are talking about, as a pilot that spent most of my navy career flying the tomcat, and a couple of years flying the hornet, i also know a bit more of the political aspect then you do obviously, but from a tactical perspective, even you would have to admit, that it is impossible for any one single plane that can do it all.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty It's nice that you served but my opinion's are my opinion's ok? And the F-14 is cool but its to old.The F-18 is all the navy has so deal with it.
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f yes the f/a-18 is all the navy has, and that is unfortunate, and that fact caused me to end my career, i served 22 years but wanted more, i refuse to be part of the weakening of our navy's tactical air power, so i retired.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty it's not that bad without the F-18 the Navy would have maybe somthing crappy.The F-35 Will be better.it will be as agile as the F-16 just as fast as the F-18 but just as versitile.I prefer to wait till the USN brings in the F/A-XX
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f you don't really believe the f-18 is fast do you? if so i am sorry that you have bought into it's hype, and if the f-18 was not around the navy would have far more capable jets such as the f-14 still and the a-6 which does the jobs far more effectively and effietiently, and requires substantially less in air support than the hornet does, so yes it is that bad, i just hope we don't have to pay a terrible price for politicians mistakes and greed.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty The F-18 is proven just like an other USN plane.it's killed enemies fighter's,And it isnt that fast man.1200mph max isnt good for a navy plane.A single engine plane would beat it.Rather join the USAF than the Navy
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f 1,200 mph???????? it its wildest dreams, it can't achieve that even when it has no weapons or drop tanks on it in a max burner dive, yes it is easier to maintain, but it's performance leaves a lot to be desired, man don't believe the hype.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty The F-18 can do thing's the F-14 cant do and the F-14 can do thing's the F-18 cant do.Let's see the F-18 can do the cobra while the F-14 cannot.It's better suited to air-to-ground and eat's up slightly less fuel than the F-14.
The F-14 is faster,can carry the phoenix missile,better range.
Even with weapon's loadout it can sill reach that speed,Put it in a dive etc.The F-18 is a great plane,Maybe you dont like it because you flew the F-14 but people still love the Hornet
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f did you not understand me? i flew the hornet too, and the f-14 can do the cobra a lot better than the hornet can, but don't, guess why? because it is a useless maneuver is useless in combat, so why practice something that you can not use in combat? yes the hornet burns slightly less fuel than the tomcat did, but also holds a lot less than the tomcat did, which means extensive refueling support is needed for it on its missions.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f yes the f-14 is a lot faster than the hornet and can carry and deploy the phoenix missile very effectively, the f-18 is not nor will it ever be a GREAT plane, it is an adequate plane, that is now being expected to fill roles that it cant do, i do think the navy needs the hornet, but it needs the tomcat also. the hornet is better than the a-7. which is about the only plane it can replace effectively.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty The Navy need's somthing BETTER than the F-14.Perhap's if the F-15N Sea Eagle went into Naval service the navy would have the best Fleet defence fighter.But either way the F-14 is what they ended up with.The navy at the time needed to replace the F-4,The only real good design was the YF-17 Cobra then they tweaked it alot and thus the F-18.
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f wow you really dont have a clue as to what you are talking about do you, the F-15 is a LAND based plane, as in not able to do carrier duty, yes the YF-17 was an outstanding design for another LAND based plane, but it lost 85% of its abilities when modified to carrier ability, better than the F-14? it will be a very long time before the F-14 will be able to be matched, let alone surpassed, i am now done with you, you dont know what you are talking about and i have no more time for u.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty Lol your mistaken pal.The F-14 would get it's assed kicked by the Sukhoi SU-33,its far more agile and is better suited for dogfighting,Maybe 2 on 1 would kill the SU-33 but 1 on 1 would be a different story.And the F-14 is matched by the USAF's F-15C.Its has a top speed of mach 2.85,its more agile and never lost in air-to-air combat.
The YF-17 and F/A-18 are still as capabile.You dont like the F-18 because you were a tomcat pilot,make's PERFECT sence.
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f finally you said something that is correct, the F-14 is matched by the F-15c, you are absolutley right on this statement, and i dont like the F-18 because it makes our pilots more vulnerable in combat, it is not as capable as you make it out to be, not only have i flown against it in ACM excercises, i have flown it against the F-14 in ACM excercises as well, and as hard as i could fly it it was difficult to beat the tomcat, but in tomcat, hornet was easy to defeat.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f if the F-18 was better than the tomcat i would have embraced it, it is natural for the progression of technology to replace previous systems with more capable ones, but from first hand experience, it is not even close as capable, it makes no sense to replace one weapons system with one that is far less capable, so maybe you should talk to F-15 pilots, and those navy pilots that have flown both the tomcat and the hornet before you spew things that are not true.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@TheScrumpty You said the F-14 is unmatched.Im telling what PLANES! can kick its ass.The F-15,the SU-33,really any modern russian plane,the F-22 and the future USN plane.
1bearcatf8f 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f the F-14 and F-15 are virtually identical and equal in acm excercises, in other words, they are just as capable as each other, my record when flying against the F-15 is right at 50% now compare that with my record of flying against the hornet which was right at 87%, and of course the F-22 can beat the F-14, it also handily beats the F-15, but it is again LAND based and the program has been terminated, we only have 153 of them, and the SU-33 would have to be able to beat the F-15 too
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f but my point is that it is a horrible idea to shove a single airframe, especially one that is not capable of defending the fleet down the navy's throats like was done by politicians, an aircraft carrier cost's almost 5 billion dollars, there is 6,500+ men and women on board and an airwing that is worth about another 2 billion dollars, defended by hornets now, that is one big target, and a lot easier to reach without tomcat.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
@1bearcatf8f not to mention the other ships that deploy with an aircraft carrier that if it is damaged or god forbid sunk, would be defensless with it not being able to put planes up to defend them.
TheScrumpty 6 months ago
I was there. It was a great airshow due to the fact that the F-14 flew for the last time there. Check-out some of the highlights that I put together in a movie, "Blue Angels Oceana Naval Air Station 2006."
rkilldog 1 year ago
Perfect
SHUREMOVIC 4 years ago
that was bad ass dooode..... perrrrfection
willisknowsbest 4 years ago 2
Oh my good!
observadordellutub 4 years ago 3
awesome
raybarnes1 4 years ago 3
i agree!
strosse 4 years ago 2