F14 Tomcat....

[Daryl Hunt]

eventually the F14 would've needed replacing
..the sweep wings made it more ''complicated'' for maintenance/etc
...with today's bombing technology, you don't need as much ordnance

In close air combat, the Super Hornet is much maneuverable (with a good authority at slow speed and high AOA – angle of attack) and, even if it lacks the AIM-54 Phoenix for the long distances in BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements, it has got the JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder for the dogfights which the F-14 didn’t integrate.

. Furthermore, while the F-14 was an older aircraft in which some newer technologies were integrated, the F/A-18 Super Hornet is a more modern airplane with newer equipment, easier to maintain: a great advantage in times of budget constraints.

BVR was not used much, if at all, in PG1 because of restrictions
F-14 vs F-18: which one would you fly in combat?

The F-14 had the huge advantage when you are at BVR but closer than that, the nod goes to the nimble F-18C. But it all depends on which pilot drives the fight. If the F-18 suckers the F-14 into a turning fight, the F-18 will win most of the time. But the F-14, with a smart pilot will keep the fight in the virtical where his massive engines and power to weight will win. In war games, that's the way the F-15s force the F-18s to fight if they are smart. Or the AF just sends in the F-16 and the tables are turned or at least equal in a turn and burn fight.

Equal...omg.....F-16 would be all over an 18. Thank god we never had to use it in a real war.

In order to get the F-16 into that area, it's going to take at least 2 drop tanks. He's going to have to keep his centerline drop tank to get home. All of a sudden, the advantage that the F-16 has close to home is gone. Plus, he's going to be carrying a full load of missiles. His 1.24 to 1 thrust to weight ration just dropped to below .8 just about where the F-18 in battle trim is. The F-18 is going to drop his tanks and get his thrust to weight ration up to about .96 to 1. The F-16 will do the same and keep his centerline tank. The difference is, the F-18 has fuel at his disposal for refueling while the F-16 has to worry about exiting the area with enough fuel to meet with his own takers. There are going to be F-18s in the area to refuel the F-18 after the fight.

This brings up another weakness with the F-14. it could not buddy refuel. The ability of the F-18 to buddy refuel is priceless over long stretches of water.

LLMMAOOOOO deperately dreaming of scenarios to prove his BS

Just stating reality, monobreath.

 

[Manonthestreet]

We threw this away for the far less capable F-18.

Retired at the end of its worn out life. Not thrown away. Old technology.

F-18 is highly capable. Superb weapons.

Now if you want to start a thread about a modern rebuild of the F-14, you will be on to something--Pure fantasy but more interesting.

The USAF can park a tanker near an aircraft battle group pretty much anytime and anywhere it wants. Dispels the range argument.

Now watch the vid....tech is upgraded in aircraft all the time....no rebuild needed.

 

[Manonthestreet]

eventually the F14 would've needed replacing
..the sweep wings made it more ''complicated'' for maintenance/etc
...with today's bombing technology, you don't need as much ordnance
BVR was not used much, if at all, in PG1 because of restrictions
F-14 vs F-18: which one would you fly in combat?

The F-14 had the huge advantage when you are at BVR but closer than that, the nod goes to the nimble F-18C. But it all depends on which pilot drives the fight. If the F-18 suckers the F-14 into a turning fight, the F-18 will win most of the time. But the F-14, with a smart pilot will keep the fight in the virtical where his massive engines and power to weight will win. In war games, that's the way the F-15s force the F-18s to fight if they are smart. Or the AF just sends in the F-16 and the tables are turned or at least equal in a turn and burn fight.

Equal...omg.....F-16 would be all over an 18. Thank god we never had to use it in a real war.

In order to get the F-16 into that area, it's going to take at least 2 drop tanks. He's going to have to keep his centerline drop tank to get home. All of a sudden, the advantage that the F-16 has close to home is gone. Plus, he's going to be carrying a full load of missiles. His 1.24 to 1 thrust to weight ration just dropped to below .8 just about where the F-18 in battle trim is. The F-18 is going to drop his tanks and get his thrust to weight ration up to about .96 to 1. The F-16 will do the same and keep his centerline tank. The difference is, the F-18 has fuel at his disposal for refueling while the F-16 has to worry about exiting the area with enough fuel to meet with his own takers. There are going to be F-18s in the area to refuel the F-18 after the fight.

This brings up another weakness with the F-14. it could not buddy refuel. The ability of the F-18 to buddy refuel is priceless over long stretches of water.

LLMMAOOOOO deperately dreaming of scenarios to prove his BS

Just stating reality, monobreath.

rriiighhhhht just accidentally almost tripled the price of F-14 to suit your talking point

 

[williepete]

no rebuild needed.

Stress cracks, metal fatigue and salt water corrosion.

We're talking about an aircraft from the 70's. This is 2019.
What happens when you bend a coat hanger over and over again?

 

[Manonthestreet]

no rebuild needed.

Stress cracks, metal fatigue and salt water corrosion.

F-14D was new...try to keep up

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We threw this away for the far less capable F-18.

Retired at the end of its worn out life. Not thrown away. Old technology.

F-18 is highly capable. Superb weapons.

Now if you want to start a thread about a modern rebuild of the F-14, you will be on to something--Pure fantasy but more interesting.

The USAF can park a tanker near an aircraft battle group pretty much anytime and anywhere it wants. Dispels the range argument.

If you look at the F-18 closely, you will see he carries the rails for lots of extra tanks. He's a tanker himself. If it were anything other than an exercise, he would be topping off all his tanks and going off to meet up and refuel other F-18s. The bird is a Canadian F-18.

 

[williepete]

F-14D was new...try to keep up

New? Retired 13 years ago worn out and over-G'd ain't new.


F-14D
First Flight: 21 December 1970
Introduction 22 September 1974
Retired 22 September 2006
Grumman F-14 Tomcat - Wikipedia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We threw this away for the far less capable F-18.

Retired at the end of its worn out life. Not thrown away. Old technology.

F-18 is highly capable. Superb weapons.

Now if you want to start a thread about a modern rebuild of the F-14, you will be on to something--Pure fantasy but more interesting.

The USAF can park a tanker near an aircraft battle group pretty much anytime and anywhere it wants. Dispels the range argument.

Now watch the vid....tech is upgraded in aircraft all the time....no rebuild needed.

When it stopped being upgraded, the idea of modular upgrading was just starting. The B-2 was the first to start getting it in a limited way. The F-22 didn't get capability and it's days were numbered the first day it rolled off the assembly line. The F-35 got all the benefits from modular upgrading. Unlike the others, the F-35 even left empty racks to accept future upgrades. Had the Navy been able to get the A-12 like they wanted, it would have had the modular upgrade capability. And the new way of building (started planning in the late 90s) was for everything to be behind an easy to open panel. Much of the F-35 is serviced just by opening a panel by a Tech standing on the ground without much of a stand. He pops open the panel, removes the black box, pops in another black box, runs the background, closes the panel and the bird is ready to go. In my day, there was a lot more effort to do that simple job even if all you were doing is removing a black box. And there were no empty racks for future mods.

That means that upgrades on the F-14 were serious rebuilds.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

F-14D was new...try to keep up

New? Retired 13 years ago worn out and over-G'd ain't new.


F-14D
First Flight: 21 December 1970
Introduction 22 September 1974
Retired 22 September 2006
Grumman F-14 Tomcat - Wikipedia

That's 32 years in service. The F-18A didn't make it that long. The only two birds that equal that in the US fighter enventory are the F-15C and the F-16C both are very, very tired and should have been retired about the same time but shit happens.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Wow! All of these fighter jet experts on this forum and if you add their total number of hours in any fighter jet you got 0.0hrs.

Have fun you bunch of wombats. None of you know WTF you're talking about LOL

 

[Manonthestreet]

F-14D was new...try to keep up

New? Retired 13 years ago worn out and over-G'd ain't new.


F-14D
First Flight: 21 December 1970
Introduction 22 September 1974
Retired 22 September 2006
Grumman F-14 Tomcat - Wikipedia

OMG....D comes after A.....check it out

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We threw this away for the far less capable F-18.

Retired at the end of its worn out life. Not thrown away. Old technology.

F-18 is highly capable. Superb weapons.

Now if you want to start a thread about a modern rebuild of the F-14, you will be on to something--Pure fantasy but more interesting.

The USAF can park a tanker near an aircraft battle group pretty much anytime and anywhere it wants. Dispels the range argument.

Side note: USAF only has X number of Tankers. During any kind of Dustup, the missions have to be planned around Gas. And even the lowly A-10 is going to be begging for tanker support. I have an experience where a Tanker was 10 minutes out of reach to save one hell of a pilot in a stricken F-4. The Pilot couldn't punch out and was on only one engine not at full power, dumping fuel like a sieve. There were a lot of heroes that day. And they tried to get that tanker over to the F-4. The tanker could have latched on, kept the gas flowing for that one engine, kept him flying all the way to the end of the runway. He made it without the tanker within 2 miles of the runway. Not a good day for anyone.

 

[williepete]

OMG....D comes after A.....check it out

I know. And 2019 comes after 1974.....check it out.

I think your idea of revamping the F-14 concept is interesting. Ship borne aircraft in this century will be different. Mostly unmanned. Cheaper. Smaller. Less risk.

I like the idea of manned fighters. I like your idea of a revamped F-14. I like the idea of "Grumman Iron Works" making a modern F-14'ish fighter. But, that's not the way the Navy is trending.

But a cool idea.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

OMG....D comes after A.....check it out

I know. And 2019 comes after 1974.....check it out.

I think your idea of revamping the F-14 concept is interesting. Ship borne aircraft in this century will be different. Mostly unmanned. Cheaper. Smaller. Less risk.

I like the idea of manned fighters. I like your idea of a revamped F-14. I like the idea of "Grumman Iron Works" making a modern F-14'ish fighter. But, that's not the way the Navy is trending.

But a cool idea.

All I have to say on this is, the F-14 was the first of a long line of 4th gen fighters. Much of what it was was incorporated into even the F-15 which, to this day, is a formidable modern fighter. It says loads that even today, that the designs from the middle and late 60s stand up so well in the F-14, F-15, F-16 and a few others. But those days are quickly coming to an end. But what a damned fun era.

 

[Manonthestreet]

OMG....D comes after A.....check it out

I know. And 2019 comes after 1974.....check it out.

I think your idea of revamping the F-14 concept is interesting. Ship borne aircraft in this century will be different. Mostly unmanned. Cheaper. Smaller. Less risk.

I like the idea of manned fighters. I like your idea of a revamped F-14. I like the idea of "Grumman Iron Works" making a modern F-14'ish fighter. But, that's not the way the Navy is trending.

But a cool idea.

In the late 1980s Grumman started a promotion for the new F-14D when the Navy was to select their future carrier-based fighter. Since Grumman saw still a growing potential for the F-14, they upgraded their 20 years old kitty with quite a range of up-to-date technology. But it was no easy way for the F-14D to find its place in the Navy, a lot of setbacks on the political scene made it hard and often endangered the F-14D production and remanufactoring. Finally, on 23 March 1990 the first production aircraft rolled off the assembly line. But sadly, the last one followed only little more than two years later on 20 July 1992. HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

OMG....D comes after A.....check it out

I know. And 2019 comes after 1974.....check it out.

I think your idea of revamping the F-14 concept is interesting. Ship borne aircraft in this century will be different. Mostly unmanned. Cheaper. Smaller. Less risk.

I like the idea of manned fighters. I like your idea of a revamped F-14. I like the idea of "Grumman Iron Works" making a modern F-14'ish fighter. But, that's not the way the Navy is trending.

But a cool idea.

In the late 1980s Grumman started a promotion for the new F-14D when the Navy was to select their future carrier-based fighter. Since Grumman saw still a growing potential for the F-14, they upgraded their 20 years old kitty with quite a range of up-to-date technology. But it was no easy way for the F-14D to find its place in the Navy, a lot of setbacks on the political scene made it hard and often endangered the F-14D production and remanufactoring. Finally, on 23 March 1990 the first production aircraft rolled off the assembly line. But sadly, the last one followed only little more than two years later on 20 July 1992. HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!

At about that same time, the TFL way of thinking was introduced. You will notice that there were no new F-15s and F-16s purchased during that same time period either.The last F-15E built was in 2001. USAF put all their eggs into the ATF program. The Navy ended up losing the A-12 due to it being a disaster from the beginning in the ATA Program. The good news out of the LWF program is, the YF-17 lost but took that bird, modified it into a carrier bird and the F-18 was born.

If you look at the original YF-17 you will see that it's actually an upgraded F-5E.

So the F-5 still lives on.

 

[Manonthestreet]

OMG....D comes after A.....check it out

I know. And 2019 comes after 1974.....check it out.

I think your idea of revamping the F-14 concept is interesting. Ship borne aircraft in this century will be different. Mostly unmanned. Cheaper. Smaller. Less risk.

I like the idea of manned fighters. I like your idea of a revamped F-14. I like the idea of "Grumman Iron Works" making a modern F-14'ish fighter. But, that's not the way the Navy is trending.

But a cool idea.

In the late 1980s Grumman started a promotion for the new F-14D when the Navy was to select their future carrier-based fighter. Since Grumman saw still a growing potential for the F-14, they upgraded their 20 years old kitty with quite a range of up-to-date technology. But it was no easy way for the F-14D to find its place in the Navy, a lot of setbacks on the political scene made it hard and often endangered the F-14D production and remanufactoring. Finally, on 23 March 1990 the first production aircraft rolled off the assembly line. But sadly, the last one followed only little more than two years later on 20 July 1992. HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!

At about that same time, the TFL way of thinking was introduced. You will notice that there were no new F-15s and F-16s purchased during that same time period either.The last F-15E built was in 2001. USAF put all their eggs into the ATF program. The Navy ended up losing the A-12 due to it being a disaster from the beginning in the ATA Program. The good news out of the LWF program is, the YF-17 lost but took that bird, modified it into a carrier bird and the F-18 was born.

If you look at the original YF-17 you will see that it's actually an upgraded F-5E.

So the F-5 still lives on.

And now we fly the worst F-15s in the world and our AF atrophies. Navy could have had a long range penetrating stealth drone but that was headed off at the pass by the JSF morons because it endangered their pot of gold.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We threw this away for the far less capable F-18.

Retired at the end of its worn out life. Not thrown away. Old technology.

F-18 is highly capable. Superb weapons.

Now if you want to start a thread about a modern rebuild of the F-14, you will be on to something--Pure fantasy but more interesting.

The USAF can park a tanker near an aircraft battle group pretty much anytime and anywhere it wants. Dispels the range argument.

Side note: USAF only has X number of Tankers. During any kind of Dustup, the missions have to be planned around Gas. And even the lowly A-10 is going to be begging for tanker support. I have an experience where a Tanker was 10 minutes out of reach to save one hell of a pilot in a stricken F-4. The Pilot couldn't punch out and was on only one engine not at full power, dumping fuel like a sieve. There were a lot of heroes that day. And they tried to get that tanker over to the F-4. The tanker could have latched on, kept the gas flowing for that one engine, kept him flying all the way to the end of the runway. He made it without the tanker within 2 miles of the runway. Not a good day for anyone.

F-4? OMG, you are talking 1970s here?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

OMG....D comes after A.....check it out

I know. And 2019 comes after 1974.....check it out.

I think your idea of revamping the F-14 concept is interesting. Ship borne aircraft in this century will be different. Mostly unmanned. Cheaper. Smaller. Less risk.

I like the idea of manned fighters. I like your idea of a revamped F-14. I like the idea of "Grumman Iron Works" making a modern F-14'ish fighter. But, that's not the way the Navy is trending.

But a cool idea.

In the late 1980s Grumman started a promotion for the new F-14D when the Navy was to select their future carrier-based fighter. Since Grumman saw still a growing potential for the F-14, they upgraded their 20 years old kitty with quite a range of up-to-date technology. But it was no easy way for the F-14D to find its place in the Navy, a lot of setbacks on the political scene made it hard and often endangered the F-14D production and remanufactoring. Finally, on 23 March 1990 the first production aircraft rolled off the assembly line. But sadly, the last one followed only little more than two years later on 20 July 1992. HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!

At about that same time, the TFL way of thinking was introduced. You will notice that there were no new F-15s and F-16s purchased during that same time period either.The last F-15E built was in 2001. USAF put all their eggs into the ATF program. The Navy ended up losing the A-12 due to it being a disaster from the beginning in the ATA Program. The good news out of the LWF program is, the YF-17 lost but took that bird, modified it into a carrier bird and the F-18 was born.

If you look at the original YF-17 you will see that it's actually an upgraded F-5E.

So the F-5 still lives on.

And now we fly the worst F-15s in the world and our AF atrophies. Navy could have had a long range penetrating stealth drone but that was headed off at the pass by the JSF morons because it endangered their pot of gold.

And we have the premiere two fighters in the world. As good as the Israelis F-35A is, you honestly think we sold them theirs with all the best bells and whistles? When they got it, they had to install some of their own stuff. And we still have the F-22. As it stands, the only way that anyone can defeat a F-22 is if a very stupid fighter pilot is flying it. And they only let the best fly the F-22. When the F-22 decides you don't belong, he just flies up to you and you discover him when he pops up on your wingtip. Now, that's scary.

They are already working on a replacement for the F-22. They are hinting that it's a 6th gen. But it looks like it's a mix of the best qualities of the F-22 and the F-35. I will give them 10 years and that replacement will be in the air. Decades ahead of anything else by any other country. And it will cost about what the new F-15SA does. Just a prediction.

So, overall, the AF is doing very nicely. And when you compare USAF to other countries Air Forces, Russia still flies original model Mig-29s that are proven to be just targets for quite a few western fighters. There are thousands of Mig-21 Variants around the globe even today. And they are still dangerous as a point defense fighter. The F-5 is still around and even works as the new Navy Agressor Squadron at Top Gun over the F-16 that it beat out in the bid. The Phillipines still fly the F-5. There are old Mirages that are used by countries as their front line fighter. Meanwhile, the US already has the F-22 in sufficient numbers to make a difference and is well on the way to the thousands of F-35s. I think I'd take the USAF as the winner in any Air Superiority contest.

 

[harmonica]

I knew a Navy guy that was stationed on a aircraft carrier when F-14 Tomcat's were replaced with the F-18 Hornet.

Everyone on the ship hated having their beloved Tomcats replaced. ..

What killed the F-14 was the cost of operation. The cost of replacement of the F-14A with the new F-14D was something like 135mil a copy against the F-18 (at the time) for 25mil a copy. And then there was space on the carrier. Granted the F-14 is superior to the F-18 but you can't have nearly as many and then you would need to keep some of the older Attack Birds on hand. The F-18 replaced them all. Okay, it wasn't as good as some of them on some of the missions but it could do an adequate job for the money.

The F-14's day passed. It goes down as the first 4th gen fighter ever mass produced.

You never carry full complement of Hornets anyway and your carriers dont have the reach THEY SHOULD BECAUSE of short legged Hornet, Your AI vid is worthless.

...you think the US Navy can't get the job done??
don't have the reach for what?