F-14A VS clean F-16

[Buzzles]

We also do not have a flyable F-14.

 

If you're going to be that pedantic, I'll edit my post to say "currently or offically announced planned flyable F-16".

 

Apart from that, glad you're on board with how pointless these "vs" threads are when comparing the paper stats of the RL airframes :)

[mvsgas]

Uh, pendantic, big words I must wash out. Pedantic, in this forums, noo!

[BlackLion213]

Blacklion213:

So you mean to tell me there where no maintenance nor reliability problem with the F-14 prior to that?

Thats why the Navy asked for 200 new build F-14Ds. :)

 

 

Not arguing any of that, but if you look at some of the missions flown during the last years of the F-14, it was doing same as the F-16 carrying similar loads but at many time the cost.

 

But the F-16s weren't as good at it, which is why this happened:

 

VF-154 deployed with 12 F-14A’s and detached five F-14As and five air crews to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar where these F-14’s and its crews would work closely with Royal Air Force Panavia Tornado’s, USAF F-15E’s, F-16CGs and F-16CJ’s and Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18As. CENTCOM had contacted CVW-5 and specifically asked for the air wing to deploy Forward Air Controller capable Tomcats and crews to support coalition land-based aircraft as well as Special Forces squads operating inside Iraq.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFA-154

 

CENTCOM could have saved money by having those Tomcat sorties carried out by F-16s, but instead they forward deployed F-14As to a land base occupied by the USAF. Not to say that the F-16s weren't doing a good job, but the addition of the Tomcats improved what could be accomplished. Team work is a great thing - either within one aircraft or between many. :)

 

Don't get me wrong, the F-16 is a wonderfully flexible platform - able to perform effectively as a fighter, striker, SEAD, and...well...as a target too. :)

 

Best,

 

Nick

Edited September 24, 2017 by BlackLion213
grammar

[punk]

I do not think any amount of information will ever change someone's mind when the basis for their position is a logical fallacy. Usually you will only notice an increase in abusive or belittling language.

 

<Salute>

Punk

[Basher54321]

 

Churning....do you mean all the F-16s that are being converted to drones?

 

--

 

This didn't happen with the Tomcat, every airworthy airframe was precious to the end and even retired airframes were considered high-risk (and therefore cut-up to prevent spares harvesting).

 

-Nick

 

 

With over 6 times as many built the F-16 makes a great drone, not just on numbers, low RCS and operating cost but relative airframe condition over its lifetime which we can almost guarantee had far less significant over G events than others - of course sadly it could not pull off manoeuvres like the attached but we can't have everything now.

[turkeydriver]

Thats why the Navy asked for 200 new build F-14Ds. :)

 

 

 

 

But the F-16s weren't as good at it, which is why this happened:

 

 

 

CENTCOM could have saved money by having those Tomcat sorties carried out by F-16s, but instead they forward deployed F-14As to a land base occupied by the USAF. Not to say that the F-16s weren't doing a good job, but the addition of the Tomcats improved what could be accomplished. Team work is a great thing - either within one aircraft or between many. :)

 

Don't get me wrong, the F-16 is a wonderfully flexible platform - able to perform effectively as a fighter, striker, SEAD, and...well...as a target too. :)

 

Best,

 

Nick

 

Yes the Turkey was very expensive, and when converted to a bomber, the F-16 could carry the same load that the tomcats carried MOST of the time. The F-14 however, even the A version, flew faster and farther with that bomb load. While the F-16 is more nimble and I think overall better for a CAS mission, the F-14 was better for pinpoint strike, and during the time of OIF, regarded as the same or better than the F-15E. The F-15E having more weapons options and range, and the F-14 having a better targeting screen. This post isn't about who is better overall- F-14 or F-16, its about their capabilities in a clean training ACM scenario....., so let's get back on topic.

The F-16N was superior to the F-14A in ACM as designed, but there are F-14A drivers in the mid-eighties who scored kills. Bottom line, The F-14 is a capable ACM performer who will offer no forgiveness if you make a mistake in your MiG-29.

[captain_dalan]

.... Think about it, twice the crew, more people to train, to feed and they need the place to sleep. Twice the engine and more complicated so you need more parts. More fuel for the same range. More maintenance hour per flying hour. Harder and harder to find parts. How can you fight me is your can't afford to or you do not have the people or your aircraft is broken or on this case retired?

 

I can already see this conversation somewhere in the middle of the ocean during the Cold War:

CAG: What do we have up there at the CAP station right now Lt?

Lt: Nothing sir!

CAG: NOTHING?!

Lt: Well...you see sir, think about it, twice the crew, more people to train, to feed and they need the place to sleep. Twice the engine and more complicated so you need more parts. More fuel for the same range. More maintenance hour per flying hour. Harder and harder to find parts. How can you fight me is your can't afford to or you do not have the people or your aircraft is broken or on this case retired? So apparently they just decided not to build any..... the AF can do it! :thumbup:

CAG (Feeling like Brad in Pulp Fiction) : WHAT?! :doh:

 

:P