2006 was the last tour for the F14Ds. Iran somehow still keeps a small number flying. They really wrecked the Iraqi AF with their F14s, shot down Mig25s with the Aim54etc.
Agree, we should invest in drones, but we still need a man in the loop fighter IMO, and a long range interceptor is what is best for our NORAD commitment, and if it has a secondary ability to support Canadian forces anywhere they get deployed, huge x2 bonus. The F22/35 hybrid is perfect for that mission. Otherwise I think the Gripen is a cheaper alternative in the interim, 2-1 rate on the F35 in terms of buying power, but it's not THAT huge of an upgrade over our current Hornets tech/capability wise, they would just have a lot more time left on their airframes/etc.
In the end, like many airplanes of its generation, the F-14 excelled at a role that was no longer of particular use: high speed, high altitude bomber intercept. The fact that they shoe-horned other capabilities into it later, and it got improvements was just extending the lifespan of an obsolete, expensive, and inefficient weapons platform. I'm surprised the Navy kept it around as long as they did.
Buster, I'm going to PM you a long doc of posts I've collected from a friend I've flown Aces high with since 2001, he was a TG instructor and 2500 hour Tomcat pilot, and flew both Hornets, the F5N and the F16N as a Red Air instructor pilot. Flew the F15C on exchange. No better pilot to listen to in terms of F14 opinions, and he really opened my eyes up to the Tomcat's capabilities - and faults - over the years. It was far from garbage, in fact, at mid to low altitude it was more than a match for the F15A/C which was built to turn/fight at higher alts, and with the F14's wings out, it gained a significant turn rate and radius advantage on the F15s, and even the F16 at certain alts/speeds/profiles/etc. An extra set of eyes makes a big difference too, big time, in any kind of fight. With the newer engines, the F14D had such a wide scope of capability, could get energy back faster than any fighter until the F22 came out, could dive better than any other fighter, and again, at lower altitudes gained a big advantage in turn rate/radius over most other fighters. Even at high alt in BVR, it then had it's ridiculously powerful radar and weapons system to rely on to stay out of WVR high altitude fights. Plus it had effectively 2x the useful combat range radius than the Superhornet, arguably even more, much more, all on internal fuel and 2 tanks.
The F14B and D models with their modern avionics and systems were fantastic, and had they gotten the Aim120D, Aim9x and some Phoenix analogue, the USN wouldn't have a gap in capability right now as it has vs the SU series fighters weapons. Yes the F14A with the TF30 were a difficult fighter to fight properly and maintain, but expert pilots still did very well with those even - you aren't wrong it took a long time to get it up to spec, but when the B and D came online, it was probably the best figheter in the inventory until the F22 and F35 came along. Cost and politics is what killed it, not capability.
If anyone cares about reading first hand excellent info about this,
www.hitechcreations.com, create a forum account and just search posts from user "Mace2004". Or, again, I can post logs I've saved over the years for my own research and writing. "Eagl" on the same board is a long time high hours F15E pilot and instructor, and Puma44 flew the A10, F102, F4 Phantom, etc. Great, great aviation posts from all of them there, all free.
Sorry to drag this thread O/T, but it sort of applies - 2 sample posts just to give an idea, again, from a pilot that flew all of the USN/USAF fighters at that time (no F22), as well as probably the SU27 the USN/USAF have in their possession: