I don't think the Tomcat vs. Hornet debate will ever end. Anyway...technically the Hornet, and it's apparent shortcomings that are often pointed out, doesn't need to apologize for anything. It was originally aquired by the Navy (after losing to the F-16 for the AF, and then gaining 5 tons to make fight weight) who thought it would be a nifty replacement for...anyone...anyone...the A-7, whose mission was light, daytime bombing. It was never intended to be a replacement for everything as it's now turned out. The Hornet was a great idea. Besides, at the time in the 80's SuperTomcat production was in full swing to replace all A & B models, as were developments of Tomcat 21 (sick...just sick!), Navy ATF (YF-22 vs. YF-23, winner gets a tailhook), A-12 Avenger, a stealth, flying wing bomber to replace the A-6 right around the time the SuperIntruder (which also never happened) was seeing the end of service. That was the Reagan Administrations whole idea: a Navy no one in their right mind dares to f*&k with, or hopes to compare to. Then the Dem's came along and all of it went out the window, leaving us with the Hornet and JSF somewhere in the future...hopefully. RADM Gillchrist, who worked in the Pentagon as well as in development for BOTH Tomcat and Hornet says the F-14 is hands down the most lethal object to ever depart from a US carrier. Is he biased? With over thirty years of Navy flying...he just might be.