"John Carrier" wrote:

:SNIP
:
:(3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working
:sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which
:is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning
:a
:super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we
:have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric
:Tomcat.
:
: The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that
: being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed
: with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat,
: there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement.
:
:Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet
:defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep
emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Had the Navy invested in the airframe's growth
:capability (as the USAF did with the F-15), it would have had a most capable
if not THE most capable) carrier strike aircraft on the planet.

The Strike Eagle was started on MDAC internal money as a technology
demonstration. No such thing was ever done with the F-14. Regardless
of that, the D and B Upgrade aircraft were converted into quite
capable deep strike platforms (4x2000lb JDAM) with better
range/payload combinations than the Super Bug.

:The F-18 is maintainable in spades and this certainly is the most important
:driver in the shipboard environment. I don't know whether the F-14 could
:have ever been developed sufficiently in this regard, my educated guess is
:not even close.

It would have been a new airplane. All the avionics would have to be
replaced and it would probably have had to be re-engined.

It sure was a pretty airplane, though...

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney