the reason why navy retire the f14

[Ddg1500]

Hello, after quite some while flying tomcat, i sort of understand why navy ultimately retire all the tomcat, here are several possible reason.

1 dominant majority of f14s were A variant that is designed in late 60's, saw extensive service from 70's to early 2000's, with technology that is not only complicated but also very hard to maintain, main parts like hydraulic system etc require frequent servicing, which demand f14 to be at least 3 days of servicing per 1 hr of flight, whereas f18 would only require less that 1 days.

2Carrier deck and hanger is a crowed place with limited room and equipment, naturally it would be best to have aircraft that is as much reliable as possible, whereas f14 is not that much.

3 navy need to make a choice between sortie rate and individual performance, however, the budget cut causing the navy unable to satisfy both of then.

4 variable sweep wing is not only complex but also heavy and fragile, which makes it not a very good dog fighter, f14 is a rare 4th gen fighter that can tear its wing when pulled too hard whereas f15 or f16 doesn't not have any such issue.

5 although grumman have proposed a upgrade, the cost would be exorbitant and it is basically a complete redesign of everything, dod does not consider it reasonable.

6   f14 is not so versatile as hornet, and not as economically acceptable as hornet, while being a heck a lot more expensive and harder to maintain than hornet,

ultimately, dod retired all of the f14, they prefer economy over performance,

variable sweep is like the pop up light of 80's car, looks kinda cool but difficult to maintain and is a complex moving parts, which is a haven for mechanical failure, so, after so many reason, dod decide to retire all of f14.

[scommander2]

Thanks for the summary.

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, they would have been glad to keep them around, despite all those reasons. The real problem was that the airframes were so worn out they were simply unsafe to fly from a carrier. Witness the progressive reduction of the G limit with each revision. Carrier traps are very stressful on the aircraft, and the metal can only take so much. They had to retire them before they started coming apart mid-flight, or worse, during trap or a cat shot. Land based Iranian Tomcats lasted for longer because dry hangars and long runways don't but as much stress on the metal, particularly the wing box, than flying from the boat.

[Ivandrov]

2 hours ago, Ddg1500 said:

Hello, after quite some while flying tomcat, i sort of understand why navy ultimately retire all the tomcat, here are several possible reason.

1 dominant majority of f14s were A variant that is designed in late 60's, saw extensive service from 70's to early 2000's, with technology that is not only complicated but also very hard to maintain, main parts like hydraulic system etc require frequent servicing, which demand f14 to be at least 3 days of servicing per 1 hr of flight, whereas f18 would only require less that 1 days.

2Carrier deck and hanger is a crowed place with limited room and equipment, naturally it would be best to have aircraft that is as much reliable as possible, whereas f14 is not that much.

3 navy need to make a choice between sortie rate and individual performance, however, the budget cut causing the navy unable to satisfy both of then.

4 variable sweep wing is not only complex but also heavy and fragile, which makes it not a very good dog fighter, f14 is a rare 4th gen fighter that can tear its wing when pulled too hard whereas f15 or f16 doesn't not have any such issue.

5 although grumman have proposed a upgrade, the cost would be exorbitant and it is basically a complete redesign of everything, dod does not consider it reasonable.

6   f14 is not so versatile as hornet, and not as economically acceptable as hornet, while being a heck a lot more expensive and harder to maintain than hornet,

ultimately, dod retired all of the f14, they prefer economy over performance,

variable sweep is like the pop up light of 80's car, looks kinda cool but difficult to maintain and is a complex moving parts, which is a haven for mechanical failure, so, after so many reason, dod decide to retire all of f14.

I don't know about the variable wing sweep system being "fragile" and definitely not the case that the F-15 can't rip its wings off. The F-16 has an imposed G-limit up to its specification which limits its ability to rip its own wings off. All aircraft can be susceptible to it if you allow the pilot to over-G the plane.

[draconus]

Not a word about Dick, politics and Hornet Mafia?!

[plott1964]

 

 

[Nightdare]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They had to retire them before they started coming apart mid-flight, or worse,

Well, at least 1 -A did in 1995

 

[Dragon1-1]

55 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

Well, at least 1 -A did in 1995

They kept them around for nine more years after that, though. The Tomcat was retired in 2004, at which time the airframes were really showing their age.

[draconus]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The Tomcat was retired in 2004

2006

[Jayhawk1971]

 

[Dragon1-1]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

2006

Right, 11 years, then. In any case, mid-2000s.

[wwWolfcom]

18 hours ago, Nightdare said:

Well, at least 1 -A did in 1995

 

That's not the case of airframe wear out.

More of compressor stall issue.

[Rhrich]

23 hours ago, draconus said:

Not a word about Dick, politics and Hornet Mafia?!

Don’t forget the stupid Grumman politics. 

Having been involved in these sorts of procedure, I’m highly sceptic of armchair office rat officers (not talking about you draconus) who second or third guess the reasons, and the first poster makes it all too complicated. 
However, I wouldn’t be too surprised if his/hers summary is correct:

The tomcat offered better performance and capabilities than the hornet, for a steeper price. But, that wasn’t needed in the 2000s. The USN was racing against dung beetles, so they didn’t need a thoroughbred. Any horse would do - and the hornet is more than decent.

Now they’re a bit late with the F/A-xx, but by the sound of it, it will - at least in all but name - be a Super Tomcat.

Edited February 21 by Rhrich

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, Rhrich said:

Don’t forget the stupid Grumman politics. 

All those reasons tell us why there wasn't a "Tomcat 2.0" made, but rather they went all in for the Hornet. It doesn't change the fact the Tomcat had to be replaced with something, because the wing boxes couldn't take a whole lot more carrier traps. It already had parts failing that were never expected to break within the airframe's useful life. They'd have to start building new airframes anyway, and they probably would have wanted a newer one, with all the latest advances in aerodynamics. There was a proposal to order additional, newly built F-14Ds with further upgrades, but it was absurdly expensive.

We'll see if the F/A-XX survives the chainsaw, but it could provide a modern equivalent to the Tomcat. Doubt it'll look quite as cool, though.

Edited February 22 by Dragon1-1

[Nightdare]

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

We'll see if the F/A-XX survives the chainsaw, but it could provide a modern equivalent to the Tomcat. Doubt it'll look quite as cool, though.

If it's F/A, it technically is not an equivalent to the Tomcat

It's why the whole VFX program was set up, to get the ultimate in fighter fleet defense in which the F-111 (which technically was an F/A plane) didn't suffice

It's attacker role 20 years after the fact was merely an attempt to keep the plane in service longer, but as an F/A it was inferior to many of its contemporaries

[Jayhawk1971]

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/more-than-an-air-superiority-fighter-the-f-14-tomcat-was-meant-to-drop-bombs-from-the-beginning-of-her-development/

 

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, Nightdare said:

If it's F/A, it technically is not an equivalent to the Tomcat

Tomcat was an "F/A" from the start, it was marketed to the USMC, there was an ad with a drawing of an F-14A loaded up with bombs. As far as its contemporaries went (as opposed to much later designs), it was definitely not inferior in that role. In fact, with CCIP it had a big advantage over the Phantom, the bombload was plenty, and being the Tomcat, it could go in fast, even with bombs in the tunnel. The Marines didn't end up buying it, and it took the USN a while to rediscover the idea, but it was already fitted for the job.

[PhantomHans]

Meh, if anything, although I regret the loss of the F-14, about all I can say is that I understand why it happened.
The jets were old, worn out, and beaten up.  Even the latest production F-14D models had lots of old tech in them, and some of those were updates of old F-14A airframes!

 

My regret isn't that the F-14 was retired, it's that the ST21 proposal (or something similar) wasn't built.

[Nightdare]

58 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Tomcat was an "F/A" from the start, it was marketed to the USMC

 

The USMC became interested, but pulled out when they learned ground attack wouldn't be forthcoming

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, Nightdare said:

The USMC became interested, but pulled out when they learned ground attack wouldn't be forthcoming

I heard it was about the cost, the F-14 being a rather expensive aircraft. Seeing as even the early Tomcat did have ground attack capability, or at least the fittings for strapping bombs to them, it'd be a strange reason for USMC to pull out.

More than that, it was projected as the platform that would carry the AGM-53 Condor. The missile ended up being too expensive and got canceled, but it was tested (from an A-6).

[Panny]

Odd that after the Cold War the F-14's raison d'etre evaporated. I think I agree with Grumman's advert - since cruise missiles, backfires, foxbats and fencers stopped being the primary threat of the 90s.

[JupiterJoe]

I guess camera tech is so good now reconnaissance can be done from space, via the USAF's X-37, or whatever.  Negating the need for the SR-71 etc?  It is a shame to see these masterpieces of engineering become obsolete.   

[WarthogOsl]

10 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

I guess camera tech is so good now reconnaissance can be done from space, via the USAF's X-37, or whatever.  Negating the need for the SR-71 etc?  It is a shame to see these masterpieces of engineering become obsolete.   

Keep in mind the U-2 is still in service.  Among other things the SR-71, by definition, could not stay on station or loiter for very long, could not do real time data transfer (the U-2 can), and was of course, very expensive to operate.

[JupiterJoe]

Surely the U-2 is even easier to shoot down than it was in the early 60's?  I guess they can still use it to fly over countries other than Russia.  Even the mighty SR-71 would be under threat from SAM's today.  Hence the need to go even higher and a great deal faster, in orbit. Not as sexy though, is it?

Edited February 25 by JupiterJoe

[Dragon1-1]

Being able to provide recon data on demand is useful, but SAMs had gotten too good for a plane to be able to do that. There was an idea to make it a drone instead, but nothing came of it.