Battle of the Super Fighters: F-14D Tomcat vs. F/A8 E/F Super Hornet

Flight Journal, Feb 2002 by Kress, Bob, Gillcrist, Paul

Editor's note: every airplane that goes into service is accompanied by controversy. This is especially true of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Our two experts argue that the Super Hornet is not necessarily the airplane the Navy needs for the future, and their backgrounds lend weight to their arguments. Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist U.S. Navy (Ret.) spent 33 years as a fighter pilot and wing commander and was operations commander of all Pacific Fleet fighters. Bob Kress is an aeronautical engineer and, during his long career at Grumman, he was directly involved in design and development of the F-14 Tomcat. Their analysis makes an interesting statement when placed against the background of the war terrorism.

The requirements for a practical deep interdiction fighter/bomber have long been the subject of controversy within the naval aviation community, especially when it comes to the F-14D Tomcat versus the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Often, however, the definition of "deep interdiction" is changed to fit the aircraft under discussion, rather than taking into account the real-world theater of operations for which it is destined.

Events over Afghanistan, however, have forced us to formalize what is really needed if an aircraft is to strike an enemy deep within its country. Today, we know that the politics of surrounding countries can dictate mission distances that stretch the ability of current aircraft to their limits. The U.S. relies on Navy aircraft carriers as bases. So, when putting fighter/ bombers over Afghan targets, which aircraft led the charge?-the tried-and-true F-14D Tomcat with the F/A-18 Hornet well behind.

This particular conflict motivated us to address what we see as a serious problem concerning Naval aviation assets and the realities of the fields over which we will fight.

As shown over Afghanistan, there are four basic requirements of any carrier strike force:

* Reach the target.

* Don't get shot down by SAMs, AAA, or enemy fighters.

* Strike the target.

* Return to the carrier before running out of gas.

Within these four seemingly simple rules are the needs for an airplane to have a long range while carrying sufficient munitions to hammer a target and still be able to fight its way through enemy aircraft and AAA threats.

An Afghanistan Scenario

Because our government isn't telling us all of its secrets, we'll have to make some assumptions when using Afghanistan as an example. It is, however, obvious that reaching the target presents a great challenge. To avoid Silkworm-class missiles, the carrier battle group probably would not want to venture north of a line joining Masqat, Oman and Ahmadabad, Pakistan. Along this line, the group would be somewhat west of Karachi. Reaching Kabul would require a one-way flight of roughly 825 statute miles. Assuming the use of S-3 tankers, an F-14D strike, refueling somewhere between Quetta and Sukkur, Pakistan, wouldn't have any trouble attacking targets in the northernmost parts of Afghanistan. If, however, an F/A-18E/F refuels in the same spot, it will barely make it to Kabul. The un-- refueled radius of an F-14D carrying the normal strike load (four 2,000-pound LGBs, two Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two, 280-gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles. Accompanying E/F Super Hornets have only a 350-statute-mile radius carrying about half the bomb load. To complete the picture of mission distances, the S-3s would have to dash back to the CVs, hot-refuel and meet the raid coming out of Afghanistan, which would be much in need of JP-4 cocktails.

Why are we nit picking over mission details? Easy! At the beginning of the studies that led to this article, we were convinced that the Afghan campaign would be an all-USAF show, and that would lead to questions of carrier-- fleet effectiveness. But map studies combined with knowledge of geopolitical restrictions showed that carrier assets, primarily the F14D, were just about the U.S.'s only option. This has clearly been substantiated by events.

Of course, the F-14Ds were not the first to hit targets in Afghanistan; B-2 stealth bombers each carried 16, 2,000-pound GPS-- guided bombs. They flew from Whiteman AFB in Missouri-a 33-- hour round trip. Further, big-time USAF strategic air assets-- B-52s and B-ls-arrived shortly afterward.

It was soon apparent that USAF tactical aircraft were not being used in Afghanistan. We found that, even given unlimited in-- flight tanker refueling, the USAF F-15 and F-16 could not be used without a Middle Eastern ground base. Turkish bases were simply too far away and would require refueling over hostile areas. Only the use of tactical air bases in Turkmenistan and/or Uzbekistan would work, and this would allow only partial coverage of Afghanistan.

The big question becomes: does the Navy have the assets to be able to carry this kind of war into the future, and what kind of planning is in place? To cut to the chase, the discussion once again reverts to whether or not the new Super Hornet will really cut the mustard or the Navy has taken yet another wrong turn that will cost us dearly on the battlefield.