Starlight Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 F14D frames are only 10-15yrs. old and I dont understant while is such potent AC retired in its midlife... Probably due to high maintenance cost and lack of spare parts (or high costs to get them). And for the political decision to get a new aircraft. I agree with you that F-14D were definitely good aircraft, one of their few shortcomings being the high rate of maintenance hours for each flight hour, specially if compared to brand-new Super Hornets. The F-14D shares many features with the F-15E - Old original design (60s-70s) adapted for new missions (like air-to-ground) - New airframes built in the early nineties - New powerful avionics and digital control systems Yet the F-15E will serve maybe for a long time in the future, while the Tomcat has already been retired. As I already said in another post, I believe the deeper reason lies in political decisions made in the 90s. The F-14D program funds were cut, Grumman lost a lot of jobs and was nearly shut down. While receiving expensive updates (like digital FCS), the Tomcats were never upgraded to get the latest equipment like Amraam or next generation avionics (Sniper pod, upgraded ECM). So today the Tomcat was not a really modern fighter. Some people say that upgrading and prolonging airframe lifetime was not cheap, but if you look at the current price tag for a new aircraft like the SuperHornet, you see that it was a much cheaper option. Instead USAF had full support for the F-15E, and Boeing today is one of the most active (and government-supported) military companies in the US. Boeing is also the company that builds the SuperHornet. Just a coincidence? With the SuperHornet the USN today will have a more modern fighter, with extreme multirole capabilities, which cope with the "single aircraft" concept adopted some time ago. However it's quite clear that in these years the USN has lost some of its potential capabilities, such as deep strike and long range interception, with the cancelled A-6F and the now retired F-14D.
Pilotasso Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Bear in mind if the US neavy wants a Phoenix equivalent missile it can easely do so with minor adjustmants on the Superhornet. Raytheon os co-developing the Meteor wich already matches the phoenix in range (if not overall capability) for a much smaller missile body and weight. .
Starlight Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 http://www.ussbiddle.org/history/fitter_engagement_audio.html nice find!
Starlight Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Bear in mind if the US neavy wants a Phoenix equivalent missile it can easely do so with minor adjustmants on the Superhornet. Raytheon os co-developing the Meteor wich already matches the phoenix in range (if not overall capability) for a much smaller missile body and weight. You must also consider that missile integration in a weapon system is not always that smooth and that cheap. It may take some time, a lot of money and a lot of bugs. The Amraam took more than 10 years to successfully deploy after its first launch (1983). The APG-71 / Phoenix system was ready and tested (and at $ 1,000,000 each, scrapping one thousand "buffalos" (phoenix) was quite an expensive thing). Anyway it wasn't just the phoenix that made the Tomcat an interceptor. Speed and overall performance made it possible. BARCAPs require speed and endurance, long range AAMs and a powerful radar. It's quite clear that SuperHornets can't do good BARCAPs, unless they fly cheek-to-cheek with tankers. And they still don't have the weapon system tailored for that mission.
phantom_fly85 Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 The Tomcat's sole purpose was to be the "Defender of the Fleet". Sure the Phoenix has a huge long cability, but it's not manueverable like the 120 slammer. One on One the Tomcat can't compete anymore and the USN needed the multirole fighter. The Tomcat is beautiful, cool, and fast. Those back sweep wings are bad ass! She'll be missed but not forgotten. Maybe LOCKON can make a single seat version of the F-14 for us to fly. Definitely is not well represented in the Sim market.
Pilotasso Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Actualy the tomcat was very agile, the problem was its engines. It was to be umpgraded but the engines were held back. There were a few modifyed and when tested in training it was able to hold agains the F-15 for example. .
Brit_Radar_Dude Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 ...nice find!... This was on the same site and gave me a good laugh..... http://www.ussbiddle.org/history/sov_refueling.html [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Sorry Death, you lose! It was Professor Plum....
D-Scythe Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Actualy the tomcat was very agile, the problem was its engines. It was to be umpgraded but the engines were held back. There were a few modifyed and when tested in training it was able to hold agains the F-15 for example. Even a MiG-21 would hold its own against an F-15 if flown properly. True, there are parts of the F-14's flight envelope that exceeded those of the Eagle (but then again, every aircraft has its strengths) but to call the F-14 "very agile" is wishful thinking. I don't know for sure, but it probably had pretty good low speed handling characteristics. But low speed dogfighting doesn't really happen anymore. I know USAF has a few F22 but a few Phoenix missiles would be better solution in teh case. Um, no. When it comes to air dominance, there is no better solution than the F-22A Raptor.
anivanov Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 http://www.ussbiddle.org/history/fitter_engagement_audio.html nice one :) but why you mentioned the MiG28 retirement?
nscode Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 Becouse that's one of the movies blupers... there never was, nor will be mig-28 ;) Russians usually give even numbers to choppers and odd to planes... there are some exceptions for subvariants, like Su-30 Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
DayGlow Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 In case of a world war current air frames would be used and Boeing would ramp up production on those air frames. I can't see how it would be possible to go backward due to pilot's training and familiarity with a certain air frame and avionics. we'll have no choice when aliens invade and blow up all the cities. "It takes a big man to admit he is wrong...I'm not a big man" Chevy Chase, Fletch Lives 5800X3D - 64gb ram - RTX3080 - Windows 11
DayGlow Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 Even a MiG-21 would hold its own against an F-15 if flown properly. True, there are parts of the F-14's flight envelope that exceeded those of the Eagle (but then again, every aircraft has its strengths) but to call the F-14 "very agile" is wishful thinking. I don't know for sure, but it probably had pretty good low speed handling characteristics. But low speed dogfighting doesn't really happen anymore. Um, no. When it comes to air dominance, there is no better solution than the F-22A Raptor. From what I've read the pilot really makes the F-14 in manouvering. If the pilot is good at manipulating the rudder he can make it dance, it's just that's always right on the edge of the envelope. My understanding it's a hard plane to fly good. "It takes a big man to admit he is wrong...I'm not a big man" Chevy Chase, Fletch Lives 5800X3D - 64gb ram - RTX3080 - Windows 11
tflash Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 Anyway, the Tomcat proved very capable of adapting to new warfare methods and did have up-to-date avionics, contrary to what has been claimed here. A latest example: the Tomcats where the first to field the "ROVER" system, or "Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receivers". This allows ground forces to see a video feed from the aircrafts' sensors in real time, in this case the Tomcat's LANTIRN. Incredibly interesting asset to watch roads, surroundings, and other threats to the ground troops from an eye in the sky. The Tomcats could loiter on station in Iraq and provide this very valuable ground assistance. This, together with record-breaking availability makes these last Tomcat cruises something very, very contributive. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts