Did the F-14 go too soon?

Did the F-14 go too soon?

Attached: f-14-cvn70-2.jpg (700x500, 39K)

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/search?q=year f-14 was retired&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab
theaviationist.com/2015/02/25/f-14s-that-never-were/
tacairnet.com/2016/05/23/boeings-new-2040c-eagle-commercial-is-incredibly-badass/
reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-bombers/russian-bombers-intercepted-near-u-s-navy-vessel-idUSN1115998520080212
youtu.be/U8xzLxFIjno
arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/dod-to-start-test-of-f-35-helmet-that-wont-kill-lighter-pilots-on-ejection/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Those things are half a century old, Op.
Fucking biplanes.

Variable geometry wings are a maintenance nightmare, so i've heard.

The missile they were built for was end of lifed.
The 14 was a Maintenance nightmare

It was retired in 2006 when the United States thought Russia and China would not have any air superiority fighters competitive enough to challenge U.S air dominance. Further more F-14 was supposed to be replaced by a cousin of the f-22 that had variable wing geometry. However the project was canned due to budget cuts and the Navy opted out for the F-35 instead.

They were held together with hot glue in some instances, servicing them was a nightmare, the wiring harness in no two planes were identical after 15 years and the swing wings broke often.

My favorite plane in the world, but it was end of life. The newer aircraft are air to ground and air to air and the 14 is only air to air. They did try to adapt it to air to ground but its really not designed for that. Plus it was a gas hog, the newer aircraft can fly over the speed of sound without afterburners.

I thought the F-14 was replaced by the hornet and super hornet?

yes
what happened was during Desert Storm a flight of F-18s on a bombing run popped some migs on the way there, then flew on to target and dropped their bombs
after that the navy decided that everything could be done with F-18s

Attached: make aircraft great again.jpg (2100x1500, 894K)

The F/A-18 Superhornet was originally meant to be a place holder until the new F-22/F-14 hybrid entered service however like I said previously the U.S government canned the project to build the future naval air superiority fighter jet.

No in the 90s they were garbage. Literally, the fuckers could hardly fly bc they required so much maintenance.

This is completely made up

F/A-18 did well against third world Arab nation fighter jets in Desert Storm and operation Iraqi freedom. However, the F/A-18 is not a suitable fighter against modern Russian and Chinese Aircraft. If updated to have modern radar, thrust vectoring, and ability to carry modern missles. The F-14 would be much more effective air superiority fighter jet. Mainly do it's ability to maneuver very quickly. Where as the F/A-18 is sluggish in comparison.

IT seems like the pentagon is less concerned with maneuverability, and more concerned with more precise missiles, radar, stealth, etc...

A reengineered F-14 (full fly-by-wire, new engines, new wiring, new hydraulics, new avionics and new sensor package instead of all the meme sensor pods) would fly like a bat out of hell, but those weren't the ones the Navy were fielding.
Those were held together with chewing gum and gaffer tape.

But you would have to redesign the f-14 airframe itself for stealth geometry.

google.com/search?q=year f-14 was retired&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab

theaviationist.com/2015/02/25/f-14s-that-never-were/

Several avionic companies already modify U.S fighter jets already to sell.

Here is an example for the F-15 Eagle

tacairnet.com/2016/05/23/boeings-new-2040c-eagle-commercial-is-incredibly-badass/

is that the silent eagle?

That thing is neat looking.

No. It was a massive hangar queen and it's entire reason for being evaporated overnight with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and any possibility of a large scale bomber and cruise missile raid.

Would be get for combating against modern Flankers if a war ever broke out. Also Stealth fighters are very expensive and not easily mass produced. I think updating our fourth gen air superiority fighters would be a great idea. At least until the cost of 5 gen fighter jets begins to go down quite a bit.

It seems like all we really need is fucktons of airborn missile boats.

The threat of the Soviet Union has come and gone. However with China rapidly updating its air force and Navy maybe it is time we begin to look into fighter jets such as these or possibly a 6th gen carrier based fighter for the U.S Navy. Which is in fact the Navy is already. doing.

Revvin' up your engine, listen to her howlin' roar
Metal under tension beggin' you to touch and go

Highway to the Danger Zone
Ride into the Danger Zone

Headin' into twilight, spreadin' out her wings tonight
She got you jumpin' off the deck and shovin' into overdrive

Highway to the Danger Zone
I'll take you right into the Danger Zone

You'll never say hello to you
Until you get it on the red line overload
You'll never know what you can do
Until you get it up as high as you can go

[Guitar Solo]

Out along the edges, always where I burn to be
The further on the edge, the hotter the intensity

Highway to the Danger Zone
Gonna take it right into the Danger Zone
Highway to the Danger Zone
Ride into the Danger Zone

Highway to the Danger Zone
Gonna take it right into the Danger Zone
Highway to the Danger Zone
Ride into the Danger Zone

Can't have too many. The Germans during WW2 created some of the most advanced tanks that the world ever seen. However, due to cost and maintenance their top end tanks were rare sight to be seen on the battlefield.

Ah, the old "Quality vs Quantity" logistics debate.

quantity has a quality of its own

>quantity has a quality of its own

I was going to post that too.

nice.

kek, I had to add something. kind of a cool topic, espically when you consider they stopped the F-22 production run short because they were going to save money by introducing more F35's. that has to be one of the biggest blunders of mordern day military procurement. almost two decades later and is the f35 really combat ready??

>Democrat meme flag

>almost two decades later and is the f35 really combat ready??

Well, it's basically just a stealth missile boat.

and I hear that both the stealth and missiles work fine.

>F-35
>save money
Something seems impossible here

They also cost way too fucking much to maintain. They were sexy, but no longer worth it. Sadly the navy did what the air force should have done to the A-10 years ago. Let the old girl ride off into the sunset with dignity.

Attached: Brrrrrttt.jpg (900x770, 289K)

A-10 is still incredibly effective though, it does it's job well.

>A-10 is still incredibly effective though, it does it's job well.

Especially in our current combat theaters.

Trump had actually mentioned scrappng the F35 and restarting the F22, but I think they have too much money sunk into it at this point to stop.

Anyone else ever, and I could be wrong, that some of the chips used in the 35's were sourced in China. Everything was supposted to be american but one of the subcontractors either cheaped out OR and heres the theory. The Chinese did it purposely, and sold chips that are defective or have a backdoor built in, and there are so many chips already installed they couldnt test all of them.
it should work better than fine for all the money sunk into it

let the a-10 die? get the fuck out of here, tard.

So are B-52s & C-130s

>doesn't even inflation
t. aerospace engineer

Seriously, flat desert terrain with no cover and they want to retire the most effective close air support aircraft ever created?
He should scrap it, a trillion dollars in and the thing is still less effective and reliable than the F-22.
>They already got a lot of money in it
Seems like a supporting reason to dump it, why pour money into a project that hasn't been productive?

>seems like the pentagon is less concerned with maneuverability
Which is very logical, modern missiles are pretty accurate, it's really hard to outmaneuver a thing coming at really high speed.

Also situations where super maneuverability is useful are very limited in modern combat.

>1.508 trillion dollar project
>Yeah it's all just inflation, obviously costs the same as the F-22 and F-18

Those planes are already the absolute best at their jobs. They cannot be replaced by better. There is nothing better to go to.
That's what happens when proper engineers design aircraft in the 1940s and 1950s.

It could have stayed on another 2-5 years, but with the Super Hornet, F-35 and other capabilities outside of air superiority fighters, it had it's time in the limelight and received a very proper sunset. There is a great history channel documentary on it. "Tomcat Sunset" if you're interested.

Now that the dune coons are getting a hold of MANPADs the A-10 will become a liability in the middle east. It's probably time for them to retire her.

I agree. Take what we have learned about the F22's weaknesses and upgrade it. F22.2 would be a fucking boss,

>1.508 trillion dollar project
You know that figure includes a lot of things right? And this plane is intended to replace pretty much everything with 3 versions of the same plane that shares almost all systems.

>intended to replace pretty much everything with 3 versions of the same plane that shares almost all systems.

The problem is that the variants have all been changed so much already that most of the cost saving that would have come from using interchangeable parts is quickly disappearing.

my understanding is that variable wing geometry airplanes are a nightmare to service. This is the reason the concord designers decided against it for the concord and instead gave it a "variable nose" to let it fly at slow speeds.

>The problem is that the variants have all been changed so much already that most of the cost saving that would have come from using interchangeable parts is quickly disappearing.
Give examples.

Are they using different engines?
Are they using different software?
Is fuselage significantly different?
What significant part of them is different?

Is it that fast?

Nah, they should keep her around. She's done great, and she'll be great for another theater.
This, would be much cheaper too.
>figure is high
Even if it does, it's still the most expensive military project in history that has produced nothing of its value invested.
>Having one plane that does three things poorly, instead of three different planes that each excel at their jobs
I think this is a terrible idea. It would make sense for a country with limited resources or industrial capacity, but the US has no problem of sorts.

the A-10 has already been though how many crash rehab programs now? it's a great plane but it's older than hell and you can only pull so many g's during so many flight hours before the thing literally starts to come apart at the seams.

I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet but the Tomcat's demise was purely political. It was the greatest 4th gen fighter at the time. We can thank the wonderful Dick Cheney for the F-14 dropping off. He had it out to get Grumman and had the last laugh. Yeah the Tomcat was expensive to maintain, buy there was nothing else that did the job better. The Super Tomcat (which was etched up to go against the Super Bug) never happened because of Cheney and Boeing ended up getting the big dollar contract. The Tomcat could have easily been upgraded with new avionics, wings, etc and it could still be flying off carriers today.

I think so...what could have been...

Attached: 1212786098105.jpg (2000x1120, 459K)

Man you were almost going to hit F-35 bingo in a single post.

Anyway, it's expensive to replace 2000+ planes. It's cost is very decent considering other alternatives from other countries which offer lower performance in things US is concerned about.

US federal budget has a significant portion allocated to military, people have been trying to cut that down, it's not ok to be wasteful.

And about not being good at things, it's pretty good. What other fifth-generation fighter is ready to be deployed?

>lewd

F-22 has been deployed several times now, even used offensively

I'll throw this on here too because it hasn't been said. But the Super Hornet is no maintenance dream either. Only half of the Super Bugs are in operation right now. Of that half, only 31% are mission capable. Very ominous statistics.

the tomcat's first job in life was to carry the phoenix missile. no more bear bomber formations threatening the carrier group = no more phoenix missile = no need to pay extra for the tomcat anymore.

They don't need to be cutting edge and have massive armaments, they just need to haul loads of shit and not die while doing it. Thus, an upgrade isn't too necessary.

they are however developing a B3 to replace the B-52

buy more f-35's goyim

Attached: f35 lockmart.jpg (935x718, 100K)

And F-35 costs almost half with similar capabilities.

Missing capabilities are
- Sustained supercruise
- Supermaneuverability
- Stealth configuration AIM-9X launch

It's a pretty good tradeoff for a multi role fighter. It supplements other air-superiority fighters like F-22 very nicely.

Also I was mostly asking him about fifth-generation fighters from other countries. I was trying to point out that being the first is kinda expensive.

reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-bombers/russian-bombers-intercepted-near-u-s-navy-vessel-idUSN1115998520080212

The F-14A was strict A2A, that's correct. The Super Hornet also is equipped for A2A and A2G. The F-14B with upgraded engines and A2G capability turned it into a multirole fighter and was no less capable than the Super Hornet.

Hey, Bob, why the FUCK are you asking Sup Forums instead of /k/? And don't tell me you're wasting that sweet ID on a one post by this ID thread.

I think we'll go to serious air to air drone warfare soon enough.

why dont the update it or build new ones? if it's so useful and literally everyone loves it so much why not?

>talking about being wasteful while supporting the most wasteful project in military history
I also don't think the argument that "yeah it's going to be expensive" justifies a 1.5 trillion dollar money dump. That is just stupendously insane.
>US federal budget spends a large portion on its military
Spends less than Social Security, and medical subsidies, which are both more wasteful than our military has been.

Attached: federal-spending-1.jpg (420x315, 25K)

oh ok.

All i can really add is that I used to be a maintainer on Naval aircraft, and the F-35C is going to have to undergo some serious trials before it can be operationally ready for the Navy. I know people who worked on the 35, its a very delicate aircraft. On carriers we have aircraft hitting things all the time when they get moved around, a hard crunch on the 35 would mean it was not able to fly with stealth capability since the only way to repair that damage would be a depot back in the states. if an accident happened a month into deployment you would have a hangar queen aircraft sitting in the carrier until they got home.

>F-35 costs almost half with similar capabilities.
they cost 20 million of each other now. The f35 may end up costing more. Also production of the f22 would have dropped with a larger production run. It was criminal that the production equipment was destroyed.

Attached: f35 (3).jpg (625x500, 177K)

NOTHING comes close to the capabilities of the F-22. Nobody at Lockheed or in the US government will ever admit how badass that aircraft actually is. Any numbers you know of it are blatant lies. Everything about it is classified. When they stack it up against other craft, any numbers that are found in the simulation are classified, and fake numbers are given out. The US government and Lockheed Martin are not going to tell you the truth about a plane designed specifically to lie about itself being in the air. We'll sell the F-35 to other nations. NO ONE gets the F-22 but us.

>it should work better than fine for all the money sunk into it

best I can tell, it's an entirely new way to wage air missions.

More stand off distance, reduction in enemies detection capabilities, etc, etc...

only 200ish built, and limited amount of parts

Attached: f35.jpg (638x479, 110K)

Majority of the kinks in the F-35 have been sorted out finally. The development cost of the fighter was still atrocious though. They could designed 3 specialized 5th gen aircraft instead of the F-35. Like I get the thought process of thinking that it would be good idea to try to combine the needs of several aircraft into one airframe. However, that idea should of never felt the drawing board. The F-35 should just been a replacement for the F-16 and nothing more.

did they fix the millions of lines of code to allow it to fire its gatling gun? what about the engine eating itself at anything over 2.5g?

>I also don't think the argument that "yeah it's going to be expensive" justifies a 1.5 trillion dollar money dump. That is just stupendously insane.
Dude it's 85M per plane + development. Let's find cheaper alternatives.

Dassault Rafale:
- Costs the same
- Is not stealthy™
- Pathetic internal fuel capacity
- Limited range without external fuel not stealthy™

Super hornet:
- Costs slightly less 70M
- No development costs
- But no improvements either

Eurofighter Typhoon
- Costs even more
- Literally only redeeming quality is agility

I don't know. If you idea is that military should not improve, yes than we should can F-35. But if we want to improve things, it's actually a very average military project. It's not very effective, but it's less wasteful than others.

>Majority of the kinks in the F-35 have been sorted out finally
really? do you know about ALIS and how much of a clusterfuck that is and continues to be?

I once wanted to get into Aerospace Engineering just so I could build real Valks.

Attached: 1208531802545.jpg (2000x1426, 377K)

And you believe that? Why in the world would you believe anything the government says about the F-22? They don't want anyone to know anything factual about that plane. That gives away the ghost.
Hell, the F-117 has long been mothballed and most of the facts about it are still classified. Hell there's shit on an Abrams tank you're not allowed to know.

>F-35 should just been a replacement for the F-16 and nothing more
the f35 cant turn worth a shit, video related
youtu.be/U8xzLxFIjno
notice how they tried to cheat and loaded the f-16'd down with a shitload of bombs and shit.

Attached: f35 (2).png (640x109, 7K)

>Which is very logical, modern missiles are pretty accurate, it's really hard to outmaneuver a thing coming at really high speed.

Yeah, with the advances in targetting and radar, missiles are quickly approaching a mission sucess rate and capability that makes most all airframe mounted autocannons about as useful as dead weight.

>Also situations where super maneuverability is useful are very limited in modern combat.

Only in certain theaters of combat.

Not every situation NEEDS the latest hardware to be decisive.... take the A-10 as an example.

Certain CAS missions, for example, can bennifit greatly from vehicle maneuverability... take the AH-64, for example.

The combat role of the craft determines it's performance, and operational requirements.... and vise versa.

The f-22 is basically an upgraded f-15... same role, "Air intercept" with light ATG capabilities.

The f-35 is a higher altitude CAS system, with expanded STG capabiltiies, as indicated by it's FLIR system. Basically a bomber/missile platform.

I think the Idea is, that the f-22's catch any airborn threats, achieving air superiority... and the f-35 rains precision destruction on foreward ground positions.

Now that covers a lot of ground... but there are other levels of air combat that the two above don't really cover. Extremely CAS, for example.

>They could designed 3 specialized 5th gen aircraft instead of the F-35.
They couldn't finish one, what makes you think doing 3 specialized version would be any different?

Also what are the main problems with having 3 versions? Literally the original specification in JSF program prepared Lockheed for this and after all it is pretty much working now.

F-18's are better in every way and I say that as a Tomcat lover.

LET THE CATS REST

Attached: 6346.jpg (3008x1960, 371K)

All I know is that the F-35 is performing a lot better than it was originally was during testing. Of course not all the issues have been sorted out with the aircraft. However, this is what happens when you try to fit three types of aicraft into one airframe.

>But the Super Hornet is no maintenance dream either.

Sooo... we need more super hornets then?

Or, more maintenance?

Or are they just going to leapfrog onto the f-35?

All sound points to keep it

from taking to man vets of the middle eastern wars, the morale boost these aircraft provide is worth it alone.

Everyone agrees extremely effective and the A-10 turns our guys into spartans

>I think we'll go to serious air to air drone warfare soon enough.

One problem with that though..... Powerful wide spectrum jamming.

It may not mission kill the more advanced drones, but it will certainly curtail their capabilities, and "Mission dynamics"

Holy fuck the Reddit spacing here is abysmal. Go back.

The aerodynamics of the F-35 would of been vastly superior. If they didn't have to force feed it a bunch of crap that was meant to be used on other types of aircraft.

The primary specialty of the A10 isn't as viable, because of improved tank armor.

Guns like the GAU 8 aren't for anti armor anymore. That's more missiles.

And we'll still have the AC130 for a good while. And helicopter gunships aren't going away soon.

>Also what are the main problems with having 3 versions?
master of nothing, pic related:

Attached: f-4.jpg (430x250, 34K)

>Let's find cheaper alternatives.

>Dassault Rafale:
>- Costs the same
>- Is not stealthy™

Okay, let's break this one down for you, okay?

Stealth is the new theater of war.... it's the new paradigm.

If your plane doesn't have stealth, it can be locked down by a missile.

If your plane HAS stealth, it is MUCH more difficult to target/hit it with a missile... and it's primary attack is Beyond visual range... no gun runs for you.

Only reason I brought that up is people are justifying of the Tomcat retirement was because of maintenance costs which is objectively false. Navy is stretched very thin right now. More maintenance would probably help. I seriously doubt the F-35 is going to overtake the role of the Super Hornet. I'm pretty sure it's intension was to replace the Hornet. Either way, as someone mentioned above, the 35 still has a LOT of work to become carrier-capable.

Attached: Screenshot_20180318-234244.jpg (1431x1808, 2M)

F-18 is just an updated F-14, even looks about the same (though not as bulky and more maneuverable)

Attached: f18.jpg (2000x1600, 191K)

Because you don't have to play Tetris on insanity mode within the airframe when deciding what goes where. The F-22 is the best air superiority fighter on this planet. Because the F-22 as on job and that is to destroy any hostile aircraft that comes anywhere near it. The development of the aircraft was straight forward and too the point. Unlike the F-35 where they had to design it around being somewhat good at everything.

>F-35 is performing a lot better than it was originally was during testing.
you could burn litteral piles of cash and get a better result. what about the 400k helmet that snaps the pilots neck when he ejects?
arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/dod-to-start-test-of-f-35-helmet-that-wont-kill-lighter-pilots-on-ejection/

Attached: f35 (4).jpg (680x385, 22K)

This is actually an interesting. That the F-22 was so good, that they created a "new" fighter to sell to our puppets. The world would then think the F-35 is our best fighter because it is our most modern, then the Chinese and Russians would compare their air superiority fighters' capabilities to the F-35, rather than the F-22.
>85M per plane + development
Actually it's a 122M for the ones they're building, also this doesn't incorporate in development.
>Do you want the military to improve?
Of course I do, but the assumption that the only way the Air Force is going to improve, is by stuffing more money into this project is idiotic. The military can still develop without the F-35.
The project is 133+ billion over budget and 7 fucking years behind schedule. It is time to drop this and find a new alternative, instead of sinking more money into an already fruitless and dead plane.
Exactly, it is to us what the Stuka was to the Germans.

No, it wasn't multirole so it was worthless.

Also, there is no such a thing as a jet fighter that isn't a maintenance nightmare. That's the price that is paid for supersonic performance. The energy the plane exerts to go fast has a recoil. The air pressure against the airframe tears at the very molecules that compound it. The heat of the friction causes massive amounts of structural fatigue. Without inventing something better than aluminum and polymers, these problems are never going away. Well, they might with space craft. Taking away air pressure and the effects of gravity would lessen stress.