the reason why navy retire the f14

[Joe1978]

I recommend this book: "The Pentagon Paradox: Development of the F-18 Hornet"  James Perry Stevenson 

[WarthogOsl]

9 hours ago, Joe1978 said:

I recommend this book: "The Pentagon Paradox: Development of the F-18 Hornet"  James Perry Stevenson 

JPS wrote a great F-14 book as well!

[Joe1978]

Yes, both are very good books.

[WarthogOsl]

On 2/25/2025 at 12:39 AM, JupiterJoe said:

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?

The U-2 can do other things aside from photo recon...for example signals intelligence stuff.  It can probably do that while loitering out of range of SAM's.  Satellites can't loiter.

[Dragon1-1]

SR-71 couldn't really loiter, either. Its advantage was that it could make a pass when it was needed and without advance warning, unlike satellites, which move in fixed, easy to track orbits.

That said, the real reason for its existence was actually something else: film development. Spy cameras of the time, including satellite ones, used photographic film. When the film ran out, they ejected a capsule, which had to be recovered, and only then could the film be developed. With SR-71, film could be retrieved as soon as the aircraft had landed, much faster than from a satellite. With digital cameras being introduced on the KH-11, this advantage was rendered moot.

Also, it's worth noting that both SR-71 and U-2 can still be very good at avoiding SAMs, simply because they fly so high. While they could be hit if they actually overfly a site (which tends to be a problem when trying to photograph something with a colocated SAM site), the WEZ at their altitude would be tiny, especially combined with SR-71's speed. It's no longer a sure thing, and you probably couldn't snap a photo of something next to a SA-10 site, but there are only so many SA-10s Russia can deploy, and not every important installation can have one smack in the middle of it.

[Nightdare]

IIRC the SR-71 'skimmed' the borders of Warsaw Pact nations to make pictures from distance and not actually fly over

This why you never heard about 'continious invasion of airspace' from the Soviet aligned nations 

[Jar72]

On 2/20/2025 at 5:13 PM, 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 disagree with the #6 versatile stuff. Bomcat in Afghanistan scored 90% hit rate during the first 3 months. Also, it actually lasered targets for hornets, as these did not have lantirn (EDIT : Hornet had Nighthawk pod, which had a lower resolution) ! And they can carry more payload and farther than hornet.

 

And also for the #4 good dogfighter. Good pilots in tomcats can rip F-15s. A nice unofficial picture shows it, with an F-14 piper right on a F-15 pilot.

Edited 20 hours ago by Jar72

[Jar72]

On 2/22/2025 at 2:49 PM, Nightdare said:

an F/A it was inferior to many of its contemporaries

Your statement depends about what you consider.

Bombcat is more superior than Hornet whithout a lantirn for instance, for precise bomb delivering. But it cannot deliver Harpoons, harms...

[Joe1978]

En 9/3/2025 a las 11:46, Jar72 dijo:

Your statement depends about what you consider.

Bombcat is more superior than Hornet whithout a lantirn for instance, for precise bomb delivering. But it cannot deliver Harpoons, harms...

Well, like you said... it depends. A Hornet can't carry those Harpoons, harms, etc... very far due to its limited range.

I don't want to start a sterile discussion with this. James Perry Stevenson's book gives a good perspective on things.

Edited March 11 by Joe1978

[Jar72]

On 3/11/2025 at 10:12 AM, Joe1978 said:

Well, like you said... it depends. A Hornet can't carry those Harpoons, harms, etc... very far due to its limited range.

I don't want to start a sterile discussion with this. James Perry Stevenson's book gives a good perspective on things.

Agreed about the "sterile discussion". Thanks for your reference, the perfect answer to this post.

Are you referring to "the pentagon paradox" ? I found several other books. 

Would you recommend to read it for a tomcat enthusiast? Or is it off subject?

Cheers.

[Horns]

2 hours ago, Jar72 said:

Agreed about the "sterile discussion". Thanks for your reference, the perfect answer to this post.

Are you referring to "the pentagon paradox" ? I found several other books. 

Would you recommend to read it for a tomcat enthusiast? Or is it off subject?

Cheers.

? =

On 2/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, Joe1978 said:

I recommend this book: "The Pentagon Paradox: Development of the F-18 Hornet"  James Perry Stevenson 

+

On 2/26/2025 at 5:40 AM, WarthogOsl said:

JPS wrote a great F-14 book as well!

I'll leave it to Joe to tell you if it's any good

[Joe1978]

I don't want to give away any spoilers, but "The Pentagon Paradox..." is about how the end of the Tomcat comes and how the Navy and the Pentagon offices and lobbies rescue the McDonnell Douglas YF17. 

There are many good books about the F-14 (maybe not as many as on the F4). I personally like to the history, and specifically the First Gulf War (Iran/Iraq), since all my favorite aircraft were involved (F-14, F-4, F-5, Mirage F1, Mig-25, Mig-23, etc.), so I would recommend "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat," but there are other books like "Tomcat! The Grumman F-14 Story" or "Grumman F-14 Tomcat."

This is part of my library:

Tomcat Alley Brown, David F.

Tomcat! The Grumman F14 story  Gillcrist, Paul T.

Grumman F14 TomcatHolmes, Tony

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat: No. 49 (Combat Aircraft)Tom Cooper, Farzad Bishop

In the Claws of the Tomcat: Us Navy F-14 Tomcat in Combat, 1987-2000Tom Cooper

F-14 Tomcat Units in Operation: Iraqi Freedom No. 52 (Combat Aircraft)Charlotte & Peter Fiell

F-14 Tomcat Units of Operation Enduring Freedom: No. 70 (Combat Aircraft)Tony Holmes

F-14 Tomcat: Grumman's “Top Gun” from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf: 11David F. Brown

F-14 Tomcat Pilot's Flight Operating Manual Vol. 1 United States Navy

F-14 Tomcat Pilot's Flight Operating Manual Vol. 2 United States Navy

Grumman F-14 Tomcat James Perry Stevenson

 

[Jar72]

10 hours ago, Horns said:

? =

+

I'll leave it to Joe to tell you if it's any good

Well, sometimes, one does not read every post of a thread in detail...

Sorry, I don t understand math symbols the way your are using them. Writing a sentence usually is better for understanding, or a simple sketch. Yeah, I m old school.

Anywhooo, thanks Joe, much appreciated sharing your library. I did not know a lot of them.

[Horns]

15 minutes ago, Jar72 said:

Well, sometimes, one does not read every post of a thread in detail...

Sorry, I don t understand math symbols the way your are using them. Writing a sentence usually is better for understanding, or a simple sketch. Yeah, I m old school.

Anywhooo, thanks Joe, much appreciated sharing your library. I did not know a lot of them.

My post wasn't meant as a criticism and I wouldn't necessarily read every post either, I just happened to remember those comments being in the thread and was about to post more or less the same thing as WarthogOSL so this seemed to follow forum convention better. Apologies for any offence, was not the intent but perhaps I could have thought longer before posting. 

Question mark was to show I was treating it your post as a single composite question. You'd asked if "The Pentagon Paradox" was the book Joe1978 was referring to, mentioned finding other books in your search and asked if it was worth reading for a Tomcat fan. I was trying to convey that each quote that followed answered part of your set of questions. I see now how that isn't terribly clear, I wanted to post an answer to your question but had limited time to do it, so this was quicker than double quoting your post and cutting down to the part answered by each question.

[Jar72]

Hi Horns. 

Don t worry, no offence taken ! Thanks a lot for apology and taking the time to write back.

Thank you also for wanting to answer my question on the first hand.

My apologies on my side also, as sometimes we can be quick to react on forums. We are all aviation enthusiasts after all.

See you!