All things considered, it was never good, pretty bad even.

All things considered, it was never good, pretty bad even.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The old PW engine is especially bad

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, but it looked rad

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >mogs your slide thread

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No post how many times that loadout was carried in reality.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Checkmates can eat my entire ass

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will shove a rusty lead pipe up your ugly ass you eagle/russhit (even worse) fuckface

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Trying to do long range fleet defense with late 1960's electronics and having the radar onboard was hot shit.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    But it was in le epic boomer gay navy recruitment ad movie so I will downvote this post as demonstration of my politically correct and currently acceptable form of masculine expression

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >t. s*rb

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      All Plebbit users deserve public stoning and execution

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    yeah but she looks real good and she fucks like a dog

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Stop fucking your dog!

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How about you shut your whore mouth?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the black sheep of the teen fighters

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay. Explain why.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      High maintenance requirements, high accident rate

      https://i.imgur.com/KVxtHuq.jpg

      Can someone explain why there were the F-14/15/16/18 and not just a single fighter? Why so many plane types?

      >F-14
      late 60s carrier fighter
      >F-15
      early 70s land-based fighter
      >F-16
      mid 70s budget fighter
      >F-18
      80s carrier multirole fighter-bomber, replacement for the F-14

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They were big and kinda cumbersome and they were big time maintenance nightmares. They were also infamous among aircrews because performance varied wildly between different aircraft. Some could barely do Mach 1.5 while others could do Mach 2.3+ no problem.

        They also had this dumb thing where they could take off with way more payload than they could land with so if they went out fully loaded on a mission and had to come back early they'd have to jettison half their shit into the sea.

        >boohoo I have to turn a couple of more knobs to service this plane, I HATE it!

        Fucking millennial gays ruined the military

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It was never good, pretty bad even
      Why?

      >shit maneuverability
      >shit energy retention
      >shit avionic ergos
      >powerful radar, if it worked and could still be easily fooled
      >main weapon was a expensive boondoggle that never worked
      It was such a maintenance nightmare that even normies know it by now, plus it was a bitch to fly.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >shit maneuverability
        Wrong

        Pseuds compare the turn rate of a big fucking interceptor with a tiny little plane like an F-5 as if it matters when the climb rate and energy is so vastly superior, they literally used these in the real life top gun, they knew how to use them.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          so it couldnt turn with the F-5 and it was worse in the vertical than the F-4, amazing, the pilots that could make a turd work didnt make the turd not a turd

          >shit maneuverability
          Higher turn rate than an F-16, fuck are you on about?
          >shit energy retention
          lmao what, what do you think swing wings are for?
          >main weapon was a expensive boondoggle that never worked
          Tell that to the Iraqis

          >Higher turn rate than an F-16
          absolutely delusional
          >swing wings
          the very thing that made it a slow, fat bitch
          >iraqis
          too bad they, and not even the persians, couldprove it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it was worse in the vertical than the F-4
            Except that's not true at all. The contemporary training videos explicitly show taking the F-4 in the vertical as away to shoot down the F-4.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              With its fame of having anemic, unreliable engines, its TWR numbers in comparison to the F-4, and pilot memoirs saying how the Phantom not only contested but won against it in the vertical I will seriously doubt that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >shit maneuverability
        Higher turn rate than an F-16, fuck are you on about?
        >shit energy retention
        lmao what, what do you think swing wings are for?
        >main weapon was a expensive boondoggle that never worked
        Tell that to the Iraqis

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lol your first 2 points are simply wrong.

        Your next points are only kinda wrong. Name a fighter/interceptor with better ergonomics made before it, name a fighter/interceptor with a better/more difficult to fool radar made before it. You won’t because you can’t.

        It’s “main weapon” was never really used against the supersonic bombers it was designed to defeat. Might have worked, might not have, the Iranians like them well enough.

        I’ll give you maintenance though.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >tries to disprove garbage energy retention by showing a pic that proves it has garbage energy retention
          Yeah bud, just pop the flaps out and swing the wings to landing configuration. Totally going to work out. All the pilots talking about how speed is life since 1942 are just full of shit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Filtered by the simplest chart I could find. It even has little pictures. Up at the top do you see where it says max sustained turn rate? That word, sustained, means that we aren’t talking about using the landing flaps and dumping all the speed for one sharp turn. Honestly posting that image with your words is hilarious, so good job.

            https://i.imgur.com/yPPQ2rs.png

            >this fucking image again
            Look at the turn rate and the speeds each fighter is taking here, and also their respective altitudes, also take a note that maneuverability is not only how tight a fighter can take a turn, but also their ability to change directions. And guess what, the F-14 couldnt roll to save its flat, pathetic ass.

            Another esl filtered by the chart with 3 lines and nice bright colors.
            The altitude is the same for all of them, the other number is the size of the circle.

            The speed is given in Mach number and degrees per second. You can’t just ignore one of them because you don’t understand it. The F14 completes a turn a little faster than the F15 and a little slower than the F16, despite being at a lower speed, because it is making a sharper turn. So in a turn between any of them at that altitude at their preferred speed they will all finish at about the same time but the f14 will be inside the turn of the others.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The F-14 needs to fly at slower speeds to achieve the same sustained turn rate the others do, therefore showing worse energy retention. It can pull tighter radius turns as much as it wants, but as soon as the adversary goes nose up it wont be able to follow.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >this fucking image again
          Look at the turn rate and the speeds each fighter is taking here, and also their respective altitudes, also take a note that maneuverability is not only how tight a fighter can take a turn, but also their ability to change directions. And guess what, the F-14 couldnt roll to save its flat, pathetic ass.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The graph seems to be showing their turn rates at the exact same altitude. The final length is the turn radius.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Completely and utterly BTFO

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >F-15/F16/F-18 get lit on radar, immediately has full access to the plane's capabilities and can defend
          >F-14 gets lit on radar, wings are wrong, get's fucking smoked
          BBUUHHBUH YOU DIDN"T LET ME SET UP. ITS NOT FAIR YOU DIDN"T LET ME MOVE MY WINGS. I GOTTA LOCK MUH S-FOILS.

          Swings wings are retarded garbage for office chair flyers to min-max their plane for nonsense scenarios. It was a fat, low capability turkey that used up too much hangar space while having stupid maintenance cycles. Nothing of value was lost.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >shit maneuverability
        No
        >shit energy retention
        No
        >shit avionic ergos
        Who cares
        >powerful radar, if it worked and could still be easily fooled
        No
        >main weapon was a expensive boondoggle that never worked
        Tell that to Iran

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >>shit avionic ergos
          >Who cares
          The Phantom pilots which in Vietnam very often were killed by this.
          Nice super duper amazing aircraft with infinite performance you got there, bad thing you can't use it for this because the cockpit is downright unusable

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the cockpit is downright unusable

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah but it was a big sexy girl and it was fast as shit so...

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone explain why there were the F-14/15/16/18 and not just a single fighter? Why so many plane types?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe they should have replaced them all with a multiple fighter that can have 3 variants and utilise economics of scale with thier maintenance programs.
      But then everyone would have bitched about the naval variant comprising the others.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      because specialization is good and f-35s are fucking gay and retarded

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      F-14 was a fleet interceptor/fighter
      F-15/16 were the airforce duo that used regular airfields, with 15 being the high end plane while 16 was the most numerous one that also replaced many tactical bombers
      F-18 was the navy plane that replaced their tactical bombers as well, and its related bigger variant super hornet also replaced both old hornets and F-14

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sir this is a blue board

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I knew you'd make some comment like that.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      US had like twice as many types of planes in service before those 4 became active, compared to that it was an improvement

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They needed two seaters for long range aa missiles and radar operation. Both operations were initially very taxing, so they could not be done by pilot alone. F16 was initially cheap interceptor, f18 was last in line and already made with single pilot in mind. rime unintentional

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      F-111 was supposed to be the One. I wasn't.
      F-14 and -15 were the replacements.
      F-18 is the loser F-17 the USAF didn't want (neither did the USN).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you build a plane
      gay homoERECTus in a uniform signs off on a new plane
      now you have two planes
      gay homoERECTus in a uniform signs off on a new plane
      now you have three planes

      all in working order
      its like you have a garage full of ferraris made 2015-2022
      does that mean that a 458 is not fast still? no.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Same reason there's a new year every year and we don't all live in "Today".

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >It was never good, pretty bad even
    Why?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They were big and kinda cumbersome and they were big time maintenance nightmares. They were also infamous among aircrews because performance varied wildly between different aircraft. Some could barely do Mach 1.5 while others could do Mach 2.3+ no problem.

      They also had this dumb thing where they could take off with way more payload than they could land with so if they went out fully loaded on a mission and had to come back early they'd have to jettison half their shit into the sea.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They also had this dumb thing where they could take off with way more payload than they could land with so if they went out fully loaded on a mission and had to come back early they'd have to jettison half their shit into the sea
        it's not the only aircraft to have that "capability". with the F-14, they could only recover with four of the Phoenix missiles; if they went out with six they had to jettison two on landing if unused IIRC

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The mach 1.5 thing was because later tomcats had their inlets movement range limited to cut down maintenance times

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Whatever the reason, it's retarded that it was deemed acceptable since the whole point of the F-14 was to be a huge gigachad missile truck that was fast as shit with a great big fuckoff radar. If you make it slow then it's just a big lumbering high value target.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't mistake a peacetime economy measure as "hurr durr it can't fight like that in a war".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fighters rarely, if ever, reach their top speeds during combat, when they are doing their bvr thing they are mostly above sound barrier at high altitudes

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The mach 1.5 thing was because later tomcats had their inlets movement range limited to cut down maintenance times
          so literally worse than the f4
          i get that transformer wings are sexy but the f4 was such a good jet, even if they refit them today, the sheer ordnance capacity of those things was insane

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Their performance vs MiG-21s in the vietnam war implies otherwise.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Ah yes, Vietnam, where the F4 was required to visually confirm targets before attacking, thus negating any real advantage from radar.

              That Vietnam which totally proves that the F4 did terribly vs MiG-21s...

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It took until the D model for it to truly come into its own... right about when the Americans finally got sick of trying to maintain a fussy, complicated swing-wing aircraft on a carrier.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is superior to all other teen fighters. It can swat them down at ranges not even conceivable by them with the glorious Phoenix missile. It's carrier capable unlike the F15/16, which increases its utility tenfold. You are a garden gnome and should have a nice day

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Phoenix was intended to target heavy bombers. A fighter aircraft could easily evade it at range.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >mom I am on the highway

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All things considered, you should eat shit, blow it out your ass even

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    stfu slow
    the Flankers are infinitely more SHIT

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Was it a MiG-29 rival?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Totally different design purposes and eras, they also never encountered each other, if you really want a vatnik counterpart the MiG-25 is the closest you can get.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        they have encountered each other, at least according to the iranians.
        https://medium.com/angry-planet/in-1988-an-iranian-f-14-battled-four-iraqi-mig-29s-27b0ae4901d8

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          even if the story might not be true, its interesting the mention of the hawk there

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Looked good doing everything. That's really the most important thing. Decisive propaganda victory.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    if it's so bad then why did the US shred most of the inventory, tear apart the tooling and render spares unusable to prevent Iran (somehow) getting them?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Iran was an excuse. This is mostly Darth Cheney not wanting any chance of his Boeing or Lockheed pet projects budgets being lowered or cancelled to upgrade Tomcats. What pisses me off is that they didn't keep like 20 D-type airframes (the ones with the less hours) for the airshow circuit. Now we'll have to wait for Iran to go back to the West.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I appreciate the genuine answer, as I was asking sincerely.
        The fact they never maintained even just a vanity squadron for showing off is just a next-level kind of incomprehensible to me.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The titanium frames (needed to support the swing wings) were also developing stress fractures and the Pentagon didn't want to spend the money to replace them

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I doubt Iran still have flying F-14s, it has been half a decade since we have last seen them and even if they do, their readiness rates must be at unacceptable levels after decades of use without its logistics base.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Perfectly capable of intercepting USAF Phantoms doing mock bombing runs on your carrier, putting Phantom pilot to wheelchair for rest of his life and giving radar guy new call sign, squid bait.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >bad
    >rekt raqi jets from so far away they thought it was sabotage and grounded their planes

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Incorrect opinion discarded*

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    shut your filthy gay mouth and apologize

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it was bad, terrible even

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >a couple of articles I've read saying that variable-geometry wings as implemented in things like the Tomcat or the Lancer no longer being necessary with the advent of more advanced flight controls and computers
    >sexy swing wings going extinct because of the relentless advance of technology
    I hate this.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I love aviation but I gave up on sexy plane shit and instead I only really care about results when BVR and stealth became 95% of what matters during desert storm. Take solace in the fact that America's relentless advance of technology is the reason for its near omnipotence, and other nations like Russia and China who can't even field a fully fledged stealth fighter are going to get demolished in an actual war.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But why even care if everything's BVR and drones? It's like watching paint dry. The combat itself isn't actually interesting, it's watching someone explode in FLIR.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >All things considered, it was never good, pretty bad even.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The biggest issue was that it brought with it world beater costs without actually being anything remarkably special. An F-22 for example justifies it's obscene purchase and operating costs because it has no equal, the same cannot be said for the F-14.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What other contemporary fleet defence fighter is there that can compete with the F-14, pray tell?

      I doubt Iran still have flying F-14s, it has been half a decade since we have last seen them and even if they do, their readiness rates must be at unacceptable levels after decades of use without its logistics base.

      not now, no

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >we are at the phase of contrarians hating the F-14 becoming more common
    Which plane will it be next? The F-15?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I predict the F-22

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just as the F-35 is the cool, new experimental super fighter for zoomer children, the F-22 was the cool, new experimental super fighter of my childhood. I shall defend it until my last breath.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >talk shit about a-10
    >mhmm yes good good here is my 10 page essay. ive never flown a plane btw
    >talk shit about f-14
    >autistic reddit screeching

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >A-10 used exclusively by burgers and kept out of important missions because it keeps killing friendlies and getting shot down for 40+ years
      >F-14 used by burgers and also Iranians as a mainstay fighter and having roaring success against migs in Libya and Iraq for 40+ years
      >hurrr you need to fly a kite to read numbers right

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    keeping in mind that it was developed 1974 and fought mostly shit-23 I'd say it was pretty amazing.
    also
    >135:4 ratio

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Iranian combat records are very dodgy, with bullshit stories like the multikill phoenix, there is no verifiable evidence to most of these kills and Iran's government is predictably very unwilling to share information about the war. A way better documented service record of the F-14 was the Gulf War and there it did pretty much nothing.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        We're supposed to disregard all accounts from the Iran-Iraq war because the records are dodgy? Even the Iraqi records show them getting absolutely fucked by tomcats.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, just the overly sensationalized ones like 135:4 ratios and phoenix kills that were never verified, the F-14 was certainly a issue for the Iraqis but the air war was carried by Iran's more numerous fighter types like the F-4 and F-5.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    playboy had an airforce?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And quite well equipped it would seem.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >shit all over the Iraqi Air Force
    >was one of the best naval bombers in its final years of service
    >shit jet
    Damn, quit trying so hard to be a contrarian

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >shit all over the Iraqi Air Force
      so much so that neither side wants to talk about it, not even the one that would benefit from bragging about it
      >was one of the best naval bombers in its final years of service
      shows how irrelevant it original role was, a signal of desperation
      >shit jet
      worse than its predecessor, which makes it beyond shit

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Go fuck yourself, cocksucker.

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ah yes, the mighty F-14, the most cucked plane ever designed, literally designed to carry one specific missile to shoot down Russian bombers at sufficient distance in defense of it own runway. How fucking pathetic.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Too expensive to maintain for what it was but it makes my peepee hard.

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    worse than the f4
    still a qt3.14

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >yeah man the phoenix was made to only shoot down bombers if you are in a fighter just do some turns and you are good t-ACK

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is this seething coming from third worlders whose air forces are still operating F-4s or something?
    Yeah, I'm sure the jet that could be ambushed and shot down by Mig 21s was a superior platform.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The F-14 got ambushed and shot down by MiG-23s and Mirages, so not much of a improvement, debatably worse.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *