Military

[SuperMonkey]

which aircraft u think is better =D i pick the F14

[BFMF]

Better?  As far as what? Which is newer, has the better and most advanced technology, performance, functionality, mission capabilities, maintainance, or are you asking for simply personal preference/favourite?

I think both fighters are beautifull and great, and even though it was sad to see the Tomcat retired, the US military had a few valid reasons

[SuperMonkey]

OVerall for both aircraft =D missions,performance,etc

[unknown]

Well,F-18 is less powerfull-it has powerplant of about 160kN(if i remember correctly ),when Tomcat has 250kN powerplant,but it's bigger and heavier.Of course F-18 has newer avionics,armament and better maneuverability.So i would say that F-18 has more potential...
Btw,this topic should be moved to "real aviation"

[Felix/FFDS]

Even if the F-14 is still in active service, the F-18 is better all around, more versatile.  

[The Ruptured Duck]

F-14 Just because it looks badass 8-)

[Tom...]

Westland Seaking FTW  ;D

[gtirob01]

Tomcat. No question!

The bug isnt bad, but the big cat owns!

[beefhole]

The F-14 was referred to by its own pilots as the "Tomturkey".  Woefully underpowered and ill-equipped to fight anyone but Soviet Bears and Backfires.  The F/A-18, while short-legged (read: VERY short-legged) is still a much better aircraft, not to mention it practically maintains itself.  A guy I talked to at Pax River NAS said they were doing 100 hours of maintenance for every 1 flying hour on the F-14.  Make that 8 hours for every 1 flying hour for the F/A-18.  Oo-rah.  Obviously, the F-14 looks much more badass and has the aura, but operationally, the F/A-18 (though a reject of a USAF fly-off) is a much better aircraft.

[C]

Aren't too many matches for the Super Hornet IMO. Class aeroplane.

[gtirob01]

[quote]The F-14 was referred to by its own pilots as the "Tomturkey".

[Ivan]

Really? Underpowered? Maybe the first few versions, but starting with the "super tomcat" they got better, more powerful engines resulting with the D model having nearly 60,000 lbs of thrust, and could get to 2.5 mach. Thrust to weight may not have been as good as the F-15, but it was still pretty good. Sure, the tomcat required more maintenance... Im sure the Hornet will be the same when its gets as old. Had the F-14 been built using todays technology... Im sure it would be the same as the hornet reliability wise.

Structurally its probably the strongest fighter of the NATO side...

Ill-equipped to fight anything other than Bears and Backfires? The Tomcat had 4 air-air kills against Mig-23's and SU-22's. It was also quite capable when converted for bombing during the gulf war. Not to mention it set the standard for engaging multiple targets at once.

US navy never got more than a few skirmishes. Iranians got the real deal, and fired more Phoenix missiles in anger than the americans ever did, sometimes hitting multiple enemies in one shot.

Anyways, I sure hope someone comes up and restores a Tomcat and get it back in the air... like the brits did with the Vulcan!

Dream on, or book a plane to Tehran at a parade day. There wont be any Tomcat left in the USA soon. Not even on the boneyard.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

(though a reject of a USAF fly-off) is a much better aircraft.

The YF-17 that the USAF rejected was slightly different then what the F-18 the USN operates today.

Although I like the F-14, because it looks bad-ass, I'm gonna go with the F-18 on this one, makes less noise taking off, E's &F's are stealthy from the front, can do both air and ground in the same mission, and are extremely maneuverable.

[Boss_BlueAngels]

The only way to really solve this debate is to watch a Hornet demo (either legacy or Rhino) side-by-side with a Tomcat demo.  

I love the Tomcat, but I believe the Rhino would kick butt and take names.