| Author | Message | ||
     Jaimec |
http://tinyurl.com/2o3me9 Probably the best damned carrier-based fighter plane ever built, killed by politics... Okay, I'm a Long Islander so maybe I'm a LITTLE bit prejudiced on this subject. | ||
| Swordsman |
Yup, sad indeed. However, the F-14 is a freakin' LEGEND... I think it'll easily be remembered from now on as one of the most truly awesome fighters planes ever. Top Gun, Transformers, Robotech, G.I. Joe... yeah, the F-14 was THE jet of the 80's.  ~SM | ||
| Djkaplan |
The end of the line for Grumman. They sure made some legendary carrier based fighters... The Wildcat. Totally outclassed by the Zero, but Navy pilots used every advantage they could to fight the Japanese with them. Those pilots deserve to be legends, all of them. The Hellcat. Similar in appearance from a distance to the Wildcat, but a totally different cat altogether as the Japanese found out... usually too late. This was the first carrier based plane that actually let Navy pilots tangle with Zeros and not be at a total disadvantage. The Bearcat. Too late to see action, but the plane was so good, it's still in service in the 21st century as a civillian racing platform. The Tomcat had quite the legacy to live up to... it is kind of a sad day. | ||
| Mm128 |
The NEW F22 Raptor should do just fine once they are ALL out and running. Matt. | ||
| Djkaplan |
The F-22 is a land based fighter used by the US Airforce. I don't believe it was ever intended for (or will be developed for) carrier service. | ||
| Hootowl |
Nope. Never designed for carrier based operations. Its airframe can't take the pounding. The joint strike fighter however, will. The F/A-18E/F that is currently replacing the F14A-D in its intercept role is an interim solution. The JSF will replace the 18 in that role. The smaller F/A-18 C/D will still (I believe) retain its ground attack/medium bomber/close air support role. | ||
| Mm128 |
Would it be possible to HOVER land the F22 like the Harriers on a carrier??? Matt | ||
| Hootowl |
I don't think politics killed it. It's an old airframe. The Navy wants newer, steathier, easier to maintain, and more survivable aircraft. | ||
| Hootowl |
The F22 does not hover. You must be thinking of the Marine variant of the JSF. | ||
| Hootowl |
 | ||
| Mm128 |
Thats the one... I REALLY like that jet. I think thats the same one that makes a showing in the NEW DIE HARD movie. Very neat jet. Matt. | ||
| Stealthxb |
Although the F-14 will always have a place in my heart. The JSF should fit the bill nicely. "Any of you boys seen an aircraft-carrier around here?" Hover mode:    | ||
| Jaimec |
Nope. It was definitely politics. The Tomcat was built ENTIRELY on Long Island (in New York). The Hornet is built in multiple states. Congress found it upsetting that New York kept getting all the lucrative Navy contracts and lobbied to get equal money for their States. THAT is what killed the F-14 (and eventually Grumman in the process). This "Anti-New York" bias is also apparent for those who know the history of the Space Shuttle. NASA approved the Grumman design, but Washington awarded the contract to Rockwell (I think... I'm not clear on this; it was either Rockwell or Lockheed). When NASA protested that the Rockwell design wouldn't work, Washington decreed that Rockwell would build the Grumman design. As a "bone," Grumman was contracted to build the wings. Wasn't long before Grumman was replaced by McDonald's as the largest employer on Long Island... | ||
| Ducxl |
THe F-14 was awesome,but has lived it's life.Better to destroy than take the risk of parts falling into the wrong hands.F-18 Superhornet yeah baby! And the Short Take Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) airframes are the next generation.They can even go supersonic W/O afterburners! In years past we could at least get close to an F-117 at the airshow.This year,the F-22 didn't ever land.They sent up a tanker to refuel it. | ||
| Djkaplan |
You are certainly entitled to your opinion... but the F-14 was designed in the 60's. There are military airframes that have long service lives (the B-52 will probably be in frontline service for 100 years!) but the F-14 was getting pretty long in the tooth for the air superiority role. If it was economically viable for the Navy reserves, I'm sure it would have been pressed into service for that role. I'd hate for our pilots to in a situation like they were with the Wildcat vs Zero at the beginning of WWII. It's a sad day, but that day has come. | ||
| Ratyson |
Nope. It was definitely politics.... The Tomcat is an old airframe that has become too costly to maintain/upgrade. New technologies have made for a smaller, more capable, less costly fighter. Hmmm... doesn't look anything like politics. Looks a lot like sound judgement.} | ||
| M1combat |
Not politics IMO... That plane became too maintenance intensive. As I recall it takes something like 20-30 times as many hours of maintenance per hour of flight compared to the Hornet. | ||
| Hootowl |
I'll certainly agree that politics have a lot to do with military contracts, as everyone wants a piece of the pie for their state, but with respect to the 14, I don't think it played a part. Not a significant one anyway. I've worked "I" level for multiple aircraft, and I can tell you that the older they are the more time and money it takes to shoot them off the pointy end. The ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours goes WAY up on older aircraft, not just because they're old, but because of the way they were designed. The newer aircraft are designed to be less expensive to support, both in dollars and maintenance hours. | ||
| M1combat |
I always preferred this one myself...  As far as I remember it was superior to the F22 but more expensive. | ||
| Hootowl |
I liked that one too. It's freaking huge though. I was a bit disappointed when the 22 was chosen over it. Now THAT was a political decision. The choice for the manufacturer of the JSF was political too. Boeing was not about to go bankrupt, so they didn't get the contract. | ||
| Samiam |
And then Boeing got the contract for the MMA even though Lockheed's prototype was much better. Sam | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Dont talk to me about the Tomcat, I am still miffed at the loss of the Intruder. I miss the big ugly loud ass plane. And just where is the replacement for her? The F-18 aint it, no where near the payload. | ||
| Slaughter |
A6 Re-wing coulda been a good thing. Friend of mine in Fleet Engineering said the only practical use for the Harrier would be if TWO were carried by an A6 and dropped on the bad guys. You are indeed right - there's been nothing really replacing the A6 since the failed A12 | ||
| Samiam |
well, the E/A-6B Prowler is being replaced by the E/A-18G Growler. Granted it isn't the A6 getting replaced but it's the same basic airframe. Personally I think the E/A-18 isn't big enough. Sam | ||
| Unibear12r |
Don the YF23 was superior to YF22 in stealth only, and not by much I heard. Otherwise the 22 was a better plane and beat the 23 handedly in the trials. Interesting that these planes (22,35JSF) have a lower TOP speed than the old 14,15 and 18 they will be replacing. The material of their stealth skins can't handle speeds over 1400mph so they have speed governor software. However normal operational speeds will be MUCH higher. The old planes could go supersonic for only short periods while the F22 would need to go subsonic only while refueling. In a recent test a pair of F22s was able to "shoot down" a much larger force of F15s without the F15s getting off a shot. In real life not one F15 has been shot down in air to air combat while it has hundreds of kills. The F14 was a great plane but it's as close to a Korean war jet's performance as it is to these new planes. | ||
| Stang37 |
I work with the 22 and I'll tell you, it may not be the end all be all...but it is a supremely deadly aircraft...nothing compares...absolutely nothing. The 18 E/F is actually slightly larger and not quite interchangeable with the 18 A-D...and is actually quite comparable to most newer fighters...much more capable than the 14 was. It is sad to see the 14 go...I saw the last few just as they arrived to the boneyard just a few months ago. For the record 104 to 0 in favor of the F-15...Much of which is Israeli. | ||
| Unibear12r |
"hundreds of kills" usually means multiple hundreds to most doesn't it? Misspoke myself again! I knew the number of kills was over 100 but thought it was in the 140 to 180 range.  | ||
| Ducxl |
have blue | ||
| Stang37 |
Happiness is vectored thrust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0 There's a reason it's called Air DOMINANCE Fighter now...not even the Su-27 can do this. Sorry, I get a warm feelin down below when I see this thing operate. | ||
| Buellshyter |
not even the Su-27 can do this No, but the SU-30 can | ||
| Unibear12r |
But the SU-30 also stands out like a billboard on radar, ladar and infrared. Unlike the F22 the SU-30s heads up display helmet has a great chance of breaking it's pilots neck on ejection. Super maneuverability at low speeds is great for air show stunts like the Russian Cobra but the Su-30 supports the pilot in dogfight maneuvers only up to 9G. The F15 supported 9G from day one back in the mid 70s and the F22 supports to 12G. Sensors, ergonomics and countermeasures all greatly favor the F22. The SU-30 does not supercruise like the F22. The SU-30 is cheaper to maintain and produce but will likely not serve in any great number due to the Russian economy and poor export market for their high tech weapons. This is due to the showing western high tech weapons have made in the last 20 years. With the exception of nukes what everybody wants from them now are AKs, grenades and RPGs. |
