This is a shit plane

Rather then progressing the fantastic F-14D into the Super Tomcat 21 the DoD takes the Air forces reject from F-16 trials spends half as much as a new plane souping it up in order to save money then goes and orders 2 trillion worth of fat amy F-35s...

Not only is the super hornet slower and can carry less ordinance then the F-14, its flight range was on par with the older models. Dont even get me started on the F-35. Dick Cheney had the gall to call the F-14 a jobs program

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ok moron

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cant wait for all J-20 aces in a day when these up sized f-16 rejects get found out

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >j20
        Back again wumao? I can't wait for the wings to fall off your potemkin plane.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Back again
          Never left goyim

          heres a 20 year navy vet agreeing with me, he a chinese shill too?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >china numba wan!!!
            Post RCS.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >goyim
            Not using mutt? Shameful.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Tomcat radar operator upset Tomcat got phased out
            Shocker.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he a chinese shill too?
            Worse, he's a neocon warhawk.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            tomcat was always absolutely overrated. It was a perfectly fine plane but nothing to cling to and its moving wings, were a complex weight drain that everyone had moved away from.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            give me a single other successful variable geometry fighter.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              F-111
              Mig-23

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is it with these trollfarm rats these days? What happened with being subversive? One negative comment and they're already showing their hand and screeching incoherently.
        We used to have good trolls, god damnit. I want the good paid trolls back, not this garbage.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        O hai

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    F-18F has performance equal to the F-15E

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And how much better performance would F-14 modernized have? The F-18 started gimped and took 30 years to get there

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Significantly fricking worse.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        None, it'd be all-around shittier while also being several times the hangar queen. The F-14 was always gimped by being one, and never got away from it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >near equivalent payload (you can argue about different weapons loads and drop tanks and targeting pods and whatever else if you want, I won't)
          >better combat radius
          >significantly faster
          >much bigger radar
          >IRST and TCS built in, no cope fuel tank required
          >at the time of retirement it carried all the same weapons and a better targeting pod than a contemporary Rhino
          >but uhhhhh it's worse!!!!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Only about 50 F-14s has IRST and TCS, and the TCS was extremely limited. And yes, the radar is worse because the electronics of the plane are worse, the F/A-18E's radar is more efficient to the point where you don't need a second crew member in most cases where a second one is absolutely mandatory for the F-14 in all cases.

            You're also wrong about combat radius. The reason the F/A-18E/F's range is good is because they can refuel each other, and that's a major role the plane routinely fulfills.

            Really you're just explaining why people like you are wrong. You're trying to list out factoids about capability instead of what the planes will actually do in operations. People like you would rather we only have three carriers worth of fighters so that you can look at the numbers on wikipedia.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Only about 50 F-14s has IRST and TCS, and the TCS was extremely limited. And yes, the radar is worse because the electronics of the plane are worse, the F/A-18E's radar is more efficient to the point where you don't need a second crew member in most cases where a second one is absolutely mandatory for the F-14 in all cases.
              When talking here, I'm specifically referring to the limited run of F-14Ds that came about at the end of the program's life. While most of the fleet from the 80s onward carried TCS, every D model was equipped with an IRST. Another thing the D model came equipped with was the APG-71 radar. This radar was a modified APG-70 developed for the F-15E, and featured electronics every bit as good if not better than a contemporary Hornet's set combined with a much larger antenna.
              >You're also wrong about combat radius. The reason the F/A-18E/F's range is good is because they can refuel each other, and that's a major role the plane routinely fulfills.
              What are you talking about? Buddy tanking involves sacrificing a fighter to tanker duties. The idea of using tactical aircraft for air to air refueling isn't new and the reason the Rhino is shoehorned into the role is because the Navy retired all their old cold war jets that could carry more fuel.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >When talking here, I'm specifically referring to the limited run of F-14Ds
                I know, I JUST said that. You're talking about 50 planes. Again, you have no idea how this stuff works operationally, you're attributing something like 500 operational F-14s to the capability that only 50 of them have.
                >What are you talking about?
                I'm talking about the F/A-18's realworld capability universally applied to the entire fleet, something you're trying to skate over again. Not only do you want the fighter numbers reduced for wikipedia numbers, you're trying to maintain that it's "easy" to maintain a tanker fleet for your supposed modernized F-14 fleet, which would logically reduce the F-14 numbers more because the budget isn't increasing. And your solution isn't malleable, the entire F/A-18 fleet can be assigned to strike roles with no consideration to refueling if the situation warrants. Your idea can't.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I know, I JUST said that. You're talking about 50 planes. Again, you have no idea how this stuff works operationally, you're attributing something like 500 operational F-14s to the capability that only 50 of them have.
                I don't see the relevance of production numbers considering I'm talking about the capabilities of an individual jet. I'm not conflating an early model F-14A from 1979 carrying an AWG-9 with an F-14D from 2004.
                >I'm talking about the F/A-18's realworld capability universally applied to the entire fleet, something you're trying to skate over again.
                While buddy tanking is a helpful capability, it's not something magical and it's absolutely not ideal. Boeing and the Navy both realize this and are developing the MQ-25 to alleviate the fact that the only tanker capable of launching from a carrier today is a fighter.
                >Not only do you want the fighter numbers reduced for wikipedia numbers, you're trying to maintain that it's "easy" to maintain a tanker fleet
                Genuinely what the frick are you talking about? I never said it's easy to maintain a tanker fleet, but it is absolutely necessary regardless of the decade.
                >And your solution isn't malleable, the entire F/A-18 fleet can be assigned to strike roles with no consideration to refueling if the situation warrants.
                Black person what? A tanker F-18 is not going to be striking targets. All its pylons will be full of drop tanks and it's giving all its fuel away to the actual strikers like tankers have always done. If you don't make any consideration for refueling, you are completely gimped whether or not you can hypothetically hang a boom from your fighter.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't see the relevance of production numbers considering I'm talking about the capabilities of an individual jet.
                I don't really care what you're talking about, I'm talking about realworld warmaking. Where numbers matter. You're trying to unironically hype up 50 airplanes that don't actually have the advantages you think they do, but wikipedia agrees with you.

                I'm not gonna reply to the rest of your post. I've made my point really well and everyone can see that you're wrong on the merits that actually matter. Everything else you're talking about is similarly wrong.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but muh PRODUCTION NUMBERS!!!!!
                Now I'm not the OP, but my takeaway is suggesting a hypothetical where the F-14D was produced in greater numbers. How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast today?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then you'd still be suddenly retiring the F-14 fleet and basically building a new one from scratch, and the new one wouldn't be capable of filling 7 carriers like the F/A-18 fleet is capable of. You're not only introducing a capability gap, but the end of the gap is just three carriers with planes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See, that's an issue of the F-14 fleet not being very well kept after the Cold War ended. Halting production on them for years tends to suddenly create a lot of worn out jets without anything to replace them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not really, it's a case of it being an old design that couldn't really be modernized without spending billions of dollars. Basically you'd have to make a new airplane. So they did make a new airplane, except it was the Super Hornet. Modernizing, or really just plan redesigning is a better word, doesn't matter if F-14 or F/A-18, into the Super Hornet actually produced a plane that could be made in the required numbers.

                And whats more, the F/A-18E/F is a very capable airplane in realworld warfare.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                While it's reductive and not inherently a metric of quality, it's worth noting that the bug and superbug have both been very successful exports, even to countries without naval air capacity. Iran was the lone buyer of the Tomcat. Surely it would've eaten more into export sales of the Eagle for A2A supremacy, or Bug for multirole naval, if it was so impossibly incredible.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, there's only four F-15 operators. And one of those only adopted the F-15 after the F-14 retired.

                There are no countries that use the F/A-18 for naval aviation other than America.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Other than the fact that due to the canted pylons, if you fly an F-18 E/F in any configuration other than clean the range and performance goes to shit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The only reason the F-35 exists and the F-14 and a new A-variant doesnt is cause the retirement of the harrier would have left the marines without a STOVL plane

        Why does the DoD deep throat the core so much?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the stovl variant is the most popular variant overseas. Most countries dont have big boy carriers or are very small, to stovl makes a ton of sense for them, even for their land based air forces. As you can take off of short roads or damaged runways with the stovl version. It was always coming and is absolutely necessary.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fair enough as a general statement, but I think the F-35B was a big-brain 200 IQ move by NAVAIR to make all the gator-tops into functional CVEs instead of Corps cuck Sheds. They saw that amphib assault was a corps wank off dream and finessed them into spending their entire aviation budget for the foreseeable future on turning their dedicated amphib assets into actually useful components of blue water order of battle. About the only intelligent thing the Navy did in the late 90s/early 00s if true.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >No facts
    >No arguments
    >Just calling me a shill and spamming Chinese meme bullshit.
    Oh yeah I really feel proven wrong. The US is lucky Russia now is such a joke and we had nukes to hide behind, If cold war went hot we would all be speaking Russian

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >We
      You're not American, Chang.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's no Chang. He's a burger larping as a chink.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >USSR
      >winning against US
      With what fricking navy? With planes that get BTFO of the skies 0-102? With MiG-25 that gets 1:1 ratio at most?

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The F-14 was a 1960's piece of shit. The titanium chassis needed to support the variable wing started developing micro fractures. When faced with the decision to replace the chasis on every airframe or go with a new jet, the navy made the only smart choice

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    F-14 airframes was worn out, and takes up a shitload of deck/hangar space, meaning fewer could be carried. Sure, they could probably have done some good for another 5 - 10 years but after that new builds would be needed.

    >Dont even get me started on the F-35.
    Get back in your coffin Pierre

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >draggy, canted pylons
    sloppy trash

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Super Tomcat 21 would have been the most kino fricking plane ever made, we would still be talking about how awesome it is. They would have to modify the pilot's seat to massage the constant erections the pilot would have flying it. Anyone that doesn't like this or the F-14 in general is 100% *guaranteed* to be Dick Cheney spamming the board. Tell him to frick off and shoot someone else in the face

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If we put 'advanced' in front of everything it'll make this 1960s vintage plane competitive again
      Black person

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Frick off Dick Cheney, go shoot someone else in the face

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How about I shoot you in the face you stupid zoomer homosexual, 'kino' is irrelevant to whatever kills chicks best

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Frick off Dick Cheney you suck

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >B52
          >thinks it's a viable platform
          That thing was obsolete in the 19fricking60's, never mind the 80's. The only thing a B52 is good for is dropping bombs on ragheads.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not viable
            >except when it is

            k

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >thinks bombing dunecoons is war
              Lol, lamo.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Apparently the US military does, since it's been using it for 70 fricking years hahahaha get fricked moron

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    chink construction thread?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cheney was big mad with Grumman due to them being outright fraudulent in the A-12 program, which majorly fricked Naval Aviation and continues to frick it over today, almost 40 years later. So he was engaging in some emotional decision making when axing the Tomcat.

    The F-14D and proposed Super Tomcat are for sure better aircraft than any of the bugs, but a basic b***h F-14D cost between $160- $220 million dollars in 2024 bucks depending on what cost estimate you use. That's like 3 super hornets. The Navy was already dealing with a 'strike fighter shortfall' so their hands were kind of tied. Given the situation we were in at the time, (GWOT), it was a logical choice to put the big cat to pasture.

    What was moronic was shredding them, when it was still a very dangerous and capable airframe, just too exquisite to be practical. Preserving alll of them would have been a negligible cost and the Navy could have kept 2 reserve squadrons operating them to keep the skill base alive in case we needed a fleet interceptor again before the whole fifth generation assets were rolled out. That was the moron moment, they would have been great in aggressor squadrons or for dissimilar training. The Tomcat's capabilities are both extreme and sort of bizzare, it's a very difficult plane to anticipate in the hands of a good driver because of the sheer list of bullshit tricks it can pull (manual wing sweep, lifting body, differential thrust, intentional OOCF, etc etc) and would have been excellent for Weapons School / Top Gun / Red Flag etc. That would have kept an operational cadre of aircrew and ground crews fresh, given great training to all branches, and retained an anti-tanker anti-AWACS capability in the F-14/AIM-54 combo that have been missing since 2005 and have no answer for except to hope the F-22 can hard-carry the entire team.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Preserving all of them
      While the pilots and everyone else must have shed tears when they put the F-14 down, Maintenance probably popped champagne. I just can't see anyone willing to keep them airborne. Even if it can pull off wild moves, you are still having to acquire ancient parts and with mechanics with little experience with it just to operate as Opfor with pilots who realistically won't be using all those capabilities often enough to justify not just using a cheaper Hornet or otherwise.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maintenance workload had gone down considerably with the F-14D and would have continued to decrease if additional investment in the type was made. Also, maintenance in a carrier shop is a b***h and a half compared to on land where you can literally base the birds at the depot if you want to. You've got a huge fleet of birds to keep 2 squadrons up so your tempo would be untouched even if availability on an individual basis was shit. Then you apply the new replicator techniques and the problem gets easier and easier.

        And dissimilar training is a bonus IMO and how you keep them occupied and the pilots current, while getting some good advantages out of the OP ACM tricks of the Tomcat. The main (and really sole) reason you keep them around is for the purpose they were designed, the outer-air-battle, especially at sea. We don't have any good answers for how to splash PLAAF AWACS and tankers since the retirement of the F-14, and that's a pretty big fricking problem. H-6s with DF-21Ds outstick the bugs by hundreds of miles, and then you're down to the limited SM-3s on the escorts for CVN protection, enough for maybe 1 or 2 engagements before you have to pull the entire CSG back for more ordnance. Right now the plan is to hope they don't get a fire control quality track at long range, which is betting a whole lot on positive thinking, or to try to have Raptors do everything out of Anderson in the scenario where Anderson doesn't become a crater in the first 30 minutes somehow. It's a big problem. And you would only really need 2 F-14 squadrons to put a major dent in that, since there are only going to be 2 carriers in theater most likely when the whole thing kicks off.

        It's a lot of insurance that could have been acquired for not a lot of cost, in my opinion. You might be able to jury-rig an SM-6 unto an F-15 (this is being worked on) but that still relies on there being an uncratered runway for them which is not something I would rely on.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >if additional investment in the type was made
          No.
          >It's a lot of insurance that could have been acquired for not a lot of cost, in my opinion.
          This isn't an opinion, it's someone posting a known falsehood.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            According to joe dipshit, ie you? Nice argument and logical reasoning btw.

            Explain how we are going to take down AWACS and tankers off carriers with bugs. I'll wait.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              lmao you're wrong and you're proving that by trying to change your point.

              "with some investment" LMAO

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Cool, so no facts, no sources, no argument. You lose. Better luck next time.

                they got shredded because smuggling rings sending spare parts to Iran were frequently discovered during the F14s history. Taking them out of active service would have meant less security watching for this shit or they'd have to spend more resources monitoring shit they weren't even using. They had to go.

                Yeah that never happened. Post one source about an uber secret Iranian smuggling ring swiping parts from NAVAIR or stfu. Also the idea that we had MAs guarding Tomcats 24/7 and driving up costs because of insidious Persian ninjas is so unhistorical to be truly hilarious.

                I get your both E-1 USAF pool gays, so keep that service pride, but you don't know shit about the Tomcat.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Cool, so no facts, no sources, no argument.
                LMAO It's just some investment. That's why one of the most expensive planes ever can be made affordable in 2006. Just some investment. All the ancient equipment in the plane can just be swapped out and we'll put a Pentium 4 in there, it'll be fine.

                Ahahahaha

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The plane has already been bought you absolute fricking moron. The entire avionics suite in 5 squadrons worth of F-14s (I'm saying keep 2 active) is already COTS with updated buses and access, so yes, you can just swap hardware for avionics that easily. Seriously, do you have a learning disability? Are you just baiting by being this moronic?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >dude it's just some COTS to update to the f-14D

                Not even that Black person, but you are full moron.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No it's not that easy and you have no idea what you're talking about. The myth that the F-14 had the first microprocessor or that it was anything other than a giant contraption of 60s logic circuits is complete fuddlore.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-07-16-mn-6840-story.html

                open wide little baby here comes your spoonfeed

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >maint goes down considerably
          War birds are high performance machines, not your grandma's 200k mile toyota corolla. If a critical part breaks people die. If your grandma's transmission shits itself you buy another $3,000 rust box, which is an apt comparison here as the transmission replacement would generally cost more than another used car, much like trying to keep old airframes battle capable.

          The tomcat as venerable as it was, ended up being too large and expensive for the role it really needed to perform. Ship borne AA advanced rapidly from the late 50s to the 80s, the adoption of the tico and burkes negated a lot of the purpose the F14's intercept/overwatch role served. The F-15 while not ship based could do everything the F-14 did better, and more. The F-22 then was/is a de facto superior inty.

          As much as we'd all meme to death a Super Tomcat it wasn't necessary with the super hornet, aegis, F-15 and then F-22.

          The F-14 was in fact a great plane for its time and if disagree you are literally just a mindless bandwagoner who have all your opinions given to you. Advances in technology since have rendered them somewhat obsolete but if they had survived and continued to get updates they’d still be doing their job very well.

          But, since the Navy’s budget has been continually slashed over the last 15 years it’s unlikely the F-14 would have lasted much longer in reality; the Navy is struggling with F/A-18 readiness now I’d hate to think how bad F-14 readiness would be,

          read above and then understand that we live in the era where tech advances so rapidly, a plane can be GREAT but become obsolete in 20 years. The design era of the F-14 is right in the middle of the highest rate of tech/material/manufacture advancement the world has ever seen. 20 years before that we were using piston planes and dive bombing, 20 years after that a computer the size of a briefcase could do ten times as much as the F-14s systems and the problems of guided missile reliability were mostly solved.

          Regardless of how an F-14 can curb stomp 80% of the rest of the worlds pre ~2015 aircraft, we simply did not need them anymore for any role past 1995.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I just can't see anyone willing to keep them airborne
        Yeah what kind of crazy rich and technological advanced state could do that?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You understand how your implication undermines your rhetorical question, I assume.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Iran can buy top shelf Russian or Chinese fighters but sticks with 40 year old US F-14s
            Yeah really undermines me alright

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're making me indirectly stump for Slavshit. Iran hasn't retired its F-14s (for Russian, Chinese, or any other new aircraft) because the country has been under a sweeping arms embargo for decades.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                When did Russia and China place them on an embargo?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you get how international sanctions work?

                https://i.imgur.com/7B0SNcz.jpeg

                >Russia
                >arms embargo
                is that right?

                What recent events have inclined Russia to barter with Iran for 70s-era drone technology? (hint: the answer is in this post)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you get how international sanctions work?

                I do. Why is it other countries that have been under international sanctions for decades don't field F-14's?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I consider myself baited.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your concession 🙂

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/7B0SNcz.jpeg

                >Russia
                >arms embargo
                is that right?

                Russia backed out of a deal to sell Iran MiG-31s in the early 2000s due to US pressure. It was only during the mid 2010s that they slowly started selling Iran somewhat modern aircraft but only in very limited numbers.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Almost 50 years ago?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia
                >arms embargo
                is that right?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And I'm sure the reason they just had their fricking President drop out of the sky is because their aviation is just top-tier with all those connections, right?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >be me can't comprehend hating teh Cheney's anymore than I already do
      >learn that they killed the tomboycats off
      Thanks anon, I'll pray even harder that diabetes and ebola wipes their entire bloodline out.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they got shredded because smuggling rings sending spare parts to Iran were frequently discovered during the F14s history. Taking them out of active service would have meant less security watching for this shit or they'd have to spend more resources monitoring shit they weren't even using. They had to go.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tHe f14 iS gOoD
    No it wasn't. It was a fricking White Elephant built to do one thing, and it didn't even do that.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is only due to the F-14 being an expensive hangar queen due to its complex wings that the FA-18 became a thing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everything I've heard from my old man and his friends who maintained them, they kept flying quite contently with pretty manageable maintenance as long as they KEPT FLYING.
      The moment you let them sit for a week it'd take a month to get it airworthy again.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any reason why they never put the F-14 radar into the F-18?

    The F-14 radar was just as good as an awacs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The fact that it wouldn't fricking fit?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Was the super tomcat slated to receive an APU for self starting, or was it still gonna rely on an external air source?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The F-14 was in fact a great plane for its time and if disagree you are literally just a mindless bandwagoner who have all your opinions given to you. Advances in technology since have rendered them somewhat obsolete but if they had survived and continued to get updates they’d still be doing their job very well.

    But, since the Navy’s budget has been continually slashed over the last 15 years it’s unlikely the F-14 would have lasted much longer in reality; the Navy is struggling with F/A-18 readiness now I’d hate to think how bad F-14 readiness would be,

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based both in reality and alone.

      The F-14 was not worth upgrading beyond a certain point. It had variable geometry wings, engines that - while incredibly powerful - would both be outdated and expensive to improve. Further, the design itself was rendered obsolete; ARH missiles no longer required such a large dedicated platform, the F-16 can carry the same AIM-120.
      The F-35 is a versatile and generally efficient anti-AD and penetration airframe. It does not carry as much as far as the F/A-18, but will allow the latter to be effective once the AD network is crippled. Same goes for AShM deployment, where the F-35 is not ideal, but can break a hole in the pickets.

      The F-14 is completely irrelevant today. It can do things only slightly better in some regards, but is throwing money into the wind for a tiny increase in capability. It's too expensive to be a strike fighter, but not stealthy enough to be an air superiority one. It's beautiful, but that means frickall. I love the F-14 - it's pure sex - but if the USN started flying it out again, I'd be worried.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The F-14 was a shitty hangar queen that only gets love because it starred in homoerotic volleyball movie.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The F-14's time had come. It was done for. I love the thing to death, but it's biggest advantage was the giga-radar it had by the time we got rid of it. That role is now filled by AWACS instead. Honestly if Fat Amy's lost as much weight as pilots are saying, we're gonna have to drop the fat part.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Dick Cheney had the gall
    dick used our government as a Haliburton job program and he still breathes freely for it

    our country is lawless

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muh favorite jet playn

    Later designs had more ergonomic designs for both pilot and mechanic. F-14's are a horror show to work on.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Y'all are arguing hypotheticals about the costs and benefits of keeping the F-14 in service until the present day instead of asking the real question which is, can the F-15EX be navalized?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      god i hope soon, love me eagle

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    USNavy vs USAF

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