Vinman:
"It makes sense from a maintenance standpoint, but there remains the issue of pilot training.
I know Wing Commander isn't a good example of this, but even though the E/A-18 Growler is a variant of the F/A-18 Hornet, you can't expect a Growler crew to do the job of a Hornet pilot, or vice versa.
If you train your interceptor pilots to push a Wasp to its limits, they probably won't be expert bomber pilots."
(Sorry, I'm not sure how to respond to more than one post, thus the quotes from a separate one)
On not expecting a Growler pilot to do a Hornet's job: Actually, sure you can...this is called cross-training, and the Navy encourages this. That's pretty much the advantage and purpose of having a single airframe to do all the jobs...you're already familiar with the cockpit and how the aircraft handles and what its limits are, all that's different is that you have a guy in the back handling the electronics suite instead of the pilot flying solo. Pilots can qualify in different missions during deployment...cross-training is actually expected of just about everyone in every job during that six month deployment. It may not be 100% realistic 100% of the time, but the expectations are there. Now, if the Prowler were still around and you'd said that you can't expect a Hornet pilot to do a Prowler's job, I'd agree with you 110%...but since the airframe and avionics are the same, I'd have to disagree.
And actually, from a Wing Commander standpoint, you're "trained" to take on all roles as a pilot...patrol, interdiction, escort, attack, CAP, antiship. So unless I'm understanding you incorrectly, you actually give a pretty
good example on what you'd posted when you apply it to such a craft as the Hornet.
It's important to note that things are somewhat reversed in the F/A-18 example we have been using here. The F-14 was retired for two primary reasons; the first is that the mission of the US Navy has changed since the end of the cold war. We simply don't need an interceptor with the capabilities that the F-14 offered.
Secondly, the F-14 was incredibally expensive to operate in comparison to the F-18. If I'm understanding people correctly here, the Dragon is the more expensive fighter than the Prophecy fighters. In the real world example here, the more expensive aircraft was the specialized one.
Now, I see the point about having a wing of fighters that are all the same to cut down on maintenance. The Navy is certainly headed in that direction, but only because air superiority is much easier to attain now than it was in years past. The F-18 will never come close to being the kind of air to air interceptor the F-14 was; but it can sure splash a few bogeys when hard pressed!
True on both counts. There's no threat that will fire an antiship missile at a carrier battle group in force anymore, and that's what the F-14 carrying the Phoenix missile was primarily designed for as well as being the replacement for an air superiority fighter to replace the F-4. However, the F/A-18 is a breed apart from the F-14 as far as ACM goes...the Hornet is a lot more nimble than the F-14 is, and is comparable to maneuverability in the F-16. This is why the Navy used the F-16N variant for aggressor squadrons at Top Gun to simulate MiG-29s. Both the -16 and the -18 comes down to the better pilot winning because the ACM "rating" is so similar, and it REALLY came down to being a DamnGood pilot in a -14 by the time those two others became commonplace because they both could end up running circles around the Tomcat.
That being said, on a personal level, the Tomcat is still my favorite design of fighter from the Cold War era.
