SurClaro Flight Simulator Resources

[COA]

Hi,

I have a question. Why are aircraft that still have much potential and life in them being retired? The centerpiece of this question is the F-14. An article describing it said something like, "While the Tomcat is still an extremely deadly foe, the 50 hours of maintanence required for every flight hour pushed it over the edge." Now, won't building new F-14s solve that problem? With the brand new Tomcats, maintanence won't be nearly as high, and new technology can be incorporated as well.

COA

[groundsquirrel]

The design remains the same. You would not be able to do a revamp and remain faithful to the original airframe design AND reduce the maintenance hour requirements enough to be economically worthwhile. Slingshots are still lethal, but I've never seen a cop carry one on his belt, so somebody knows somethin'. Now, that is not necessarily so in all cases. Take the Herc' for example. Super Herc' is next. Keep your eyes on the future fighters, swing wings are dead...and that saves money.

[King OF air350]

groundsquirrel wrote: Slingshots are still lethal, but I've never seen a cop carry one on his belt.

wow GS that comparison was pretty much amazing

[COA]

Hi,

Just to make a point, the P-51 can still be lethal too, it's just a hell of a lot harder to be in this day and age, the same goes for the slingshot, but the F-14 is still highly capable of being lethal, look at the Iranians, they're still flying them. And if the F-14 was re-manufacured, some parts could be replaced with other materials, say, composites, but even if it was manufactured exactly the way it was 30 years ago, it would still take a fraction of the time for maintanenece because the metal is new, no fatigue, no wear and tear, nothing.

COA

[rd]

While the Iranians do have F-14's in their inventory, they are all grounded. They have a dead fleet because we were at least smart enough to stop sending supplies and parts for them to be air worthy.

As for new materials to make them cheaper, is preposterious. New materials cost more than the materials originally used. And maintenance would still be the same. I don't care what you make it out of. In due time, it will still need to be overhauled by a schedule. Plus the fact that they are inefficient compared to the newer warbirds, heavier, and have more parts that need that maintenance.

While the F/A-18 may not have the "cool factor" as the F-14, they are more adaptable to operational needs and scenarios. Something you just can't justify with the high cost of the F-14.

Don't get me wrong, I love the F-14. But being realistic, I would rather have 30 F-18's, in different variations, compared to 30 F-14's to fight a ""GLOBAL WAR"".

RD

[COA]

Hi,

You want to talk about expensive? The F-22 Raptor, your average 5th generation jet. The Raptor program cost $62 billion, and each fighter costs $361 million. I know this kind of strays from the F-14, but it's close, as the F-15 will be followed by this aircraft. You will probably say this money is worth it since it has advanced stealth, weapon, and avionics capabilities. What the F-14 lacks in stealth, it makes up in speed, durability, aggression, and reputation. While yes, the F-14 does not have the ability to carry or launch some of the newer weapons, the F-14E could certainly be capable of doing so with modified hardpoints and upgraded avionics. The new 5th generation jets, unlike the F-14, -15, and -16, are fragile airplanes. They are no more than flying, automated computer platforms that are, in my mind, money not well spent.

COA

[groundsquirrel]

Oh yeah? Just wait till you get the bill for the F-35 :lol:

[tomcatdriver2006]

lk

[COA]

Hi,

And....I'm just about all out of arguments, seeing how tomcatdriver kinda hit a hom run. Did you type all that out??

COA

[rd]

Yeah, he typed most of it, then copy/pasted some.

However my stand is solid, and backed up. The F-14s are not up to the operational tasks of the F/A-18. And never will be even if modified.

The "normal" F-14 strike load-out is far less than that described. It is rare to launch from a carTier with a load that you cannot recover with. Each aircraft has a maximum recoverable weight, and as you add weapons, tanks and pods, there is less gas available to make a safe recovery. There are a variety of reasons for not expending ordnance: weather, aircraft/system problem, target availability, etc. It is not desirable to jettison perfectly good (and expensive) ordnance, so a compromise is made to meet the desired target damage, provide for additional mission requirements (i.e., air to air) and allow for approach/landing reserves.
With the advent of inertial/GPS guided weapons-joint direct attack munitions (JDAM), joint standoff weapon (JSOW)-a Super Hornet can destroy multiple targets in one pass, and that would make a Phantom, Corsair, Intruder, or Tomcat pilot drool. Tomcat bubbas will experience this firsthand because they are undergoing transition training to the Super Hornet.


LCDR Alan D. Armstrong

USN Safety Officer/Flight Demonstration Team Leader VFA-122

NAS Lemoore, CA wrote: As far as classical fighter performance goes, our aviators (many of them ex-F-14 Tomcat aircrew) are always enthusiastic about fighting the F-14 because of the F/A-18's superior maneuverability and high AoA performance versus that of the Tomcat. Current tactical aviators understand that survivability and lethality are not simply a function of top-end speed, but also of many other performance and installed-system characteristics. Survivability and lethality are much more sophisticated concepts than they were decades ago. The truth, from those who are staking their lives on it and not simply casting stones from the outside looking in, is that while the Super Hornet does have some deficiencies, it is still one of the most lethal and survivable tactical aircraft in the world today.

You may beat me there and back, but the damage instilled, the support I give to our troops, and other missions I can do, that you cannot, makes for a cold supper and warm beer.

I can live with that.

@ COA: BTW.....Yeah he did hit a home run. I hit a grand slam.

RD

[tomcatdriver2006]

46

[rd]

LMAO...You always know how to c r a c k me up...ROFLMFAO.

[tomcatdriver2006]

l1

[Cat1]

tomcatdriver2006 wrote: Robin, Quickly prtitner! To the Bat CAGE,
WHY?
BObin one more friggin ?? and SLICE! OWE!

That sounds so dirty 8O


But the truth is that carrier landings haven't changed over the years no matter the airframe.
The F-14 did undergo significant changes when the Super Tomcat was introduced. It had been to that point a weapon system designed to deliver a certain weapon, that being the Phoenix. Then it was adapted with the Super to drop bombs. Not really ever a good role for a type designed air superiority platform.
I have always been impressed by the F-18, it is a newer platform and I have not seen the E's and F's up close, but I know one thing.
Having worked on the flight deck of a carrier, I have been burnt by a F-14, but not by a F-18 while on deck. This to me makes it a safer aircraft for all involved and that is a big plus when working on deck.

[groundsquirrel]

momma always says " a dirty mind thinks dirty thoughts"

EDIT BY RD: Please tell me we have different mommy's...PLEASE. LOL