F-14s last flight..

[Theis]

TR Traps Last Tomcat from Combat Mission

[quote]

[Ecko]

Isn't it just the last flight for the US Navy? I believe the IIAF still have some operational F-14s, right?

Anyway, still sad to see such a beautiful aircraft go..

Great fly by shot!!

[beefhole]

We will never forget the greatest fighter of all time!

*cringes* let's be careful Theis, this is a board of *gasp* aviation enthusiasts after all.

Sad to see it go indeed, but the F/A-18 will do a fine job stepping in.

[Ivan]

Isn't it just the last flight for the US Navy? I believe the IIAF still have some operational F-14s, right?

But how much of these is still genuine F-14... that's the big question.

Stuff that has been added over the years
Certain: Exocet racks, Air-to-Ground radar, some stuff that allows Russian missiles (possibly up to AA-9)
Possible: full glass cockpit upgrade, Flanker radar, HMD sights for AA-11, Su-27 engines.

And the 'Anytime Baby' badge was used by the IRIAF pilots in the Iran-Iraq war too.

[Skligmund]

THe question is: What will (not) replace this aircraft? What will (not) replace the A-6? What will (not) replace the A-10 (that they are 86'ing as well). What will (not) replace the never produced B-1 bomber? They all have a purpose, and that purpose is trying to be completed with aircraft not specificly designed.

Did you know the B-1B is NOT allowed to fly into known icing? Did you know that the A-6 is still one of the most weather impurvious aircraft in the world? Did you know that air cover for a ground battle is not an option for any aircraft we have except for a C-130? What can a C-130 out manuever?

I'm sorry, the F/A-18 is a good aircraft, but it is not an aircraft that can precision bomb in horrible weather like an A-6. It doesn't have the range or the intercept capabilities of the F-14. It doesn't have the payload of the B1.

The U.S.A.F. is getting rid of things they have no replacements for. Dumb dumb dumb dumb.

[Ivan]

Replacement for the A-6: F-18. Not because it can do the role but because it cost less to have only one aircraft type wherre you have to train pilots for.

Replacement for A-10: Predator drone with Maverick. Pilots are too expensive to be used as targets for tanks. And with the Tunguska replacing the dreaded ZSU you can't outclimb the mobile AAA anymore.

With the CURRENT state of the world the US doesn't need F-14's. Problem is that when the tide turns (and that won't take long) the US will have to reinvent the long range interceptor, as the F-22 isn't exactly made for that purpose (it's made for AWACS assisted air defence where it can hang around while the enemy only sees the AWACS on his radar while the F-22 tries to sneak in close enough to make a kill while keeping out of range of EOS and R-27E)

The biggest problem for the US is that at the moment they are just messing around with some 3rd world airforces that don't have the cash to put something decent in the air.

And the main reason for getting rid of the F-14... read the news i tell you. Someone who uses them is the next one to get a visit, and they won't take the risk of getting allied nations pissed off because of friendly fire risks (like in 1991 with ) this time.

[Chris_F]

I thought the main reason for getting rid of the F14 was because the maintenance costs were high and spare parts supply non existant.

[Airshow_lover]

What its leaving!!!  I love that airplane! so genuinly sad

So dissapointed

[town]

The F14 is a mans airplane. It has the most striking profile of ANY aircraft ever built (and that includes all russian airfraft of which there are some very pretty ones). It's built out of girders and is as strong as an ox and having stood sentinal over us for thirty years it will keep its lonely vigil in the Arizona desert waiting to be called upon if we should ever need it.

It is and always will be in my eyes the supreme carrier borne interceptor.

I say no more

Gordon

[Ivan]

I thought the main reason for getting rid of the F14 was because the maintenance costs were high and spare parts supply non existant.  It was either do a major upgrade to the aircraft or retire it.  If the US was only worried about mixing up US F14s with Iranian F14s then the much cheaper solution would be to not fly F14s over Iran.

They were getting phased out anyway... because the main structural parts are over their maximum rotation count. It's the fact that they are rushing the process that amazes me given the current situation... and what makes me think that they are up to someting.

The F14 is a mans airplane. It has the most striking profile of ANY aircraft ever built (and that includes all russian airfraft of which there are some very pretty ones). It's built out of girders and is as strong as an ox and having stood sentinal over us for thirty years it will keep its lonely vigil in the Arizona desert waiting to be called upon if we should ever need it.

Probably will be heading for the shredder with high priority. If there is one aircraft that has high black market value it's the F-14, as the possible buyer isn't short of cash.

This isn't the cold war anymore.  Of the countries the US can expect to be in immediate conflict with, none of them really has a modern airforce.  And those with a sophisticated air force could be engaged by the airforce with its newer F15 and F22s.  Besides, which air forces can put something in the air roughly equal to an F18?  Is there anyone (except maybe Canada and Isreal) outside of Europe that could do it?  They're pretty much either all US allies, or have good relationships with the US.  

Something that can beat the F/A-18? Su-30MKI (and the other Thomson/CSF equiped versions) are better than the F-22, with almost the same cockpit workload. Brasil and Venezuela have plans to buy some, China has them as has India. And the Russians sell them to anyone willing to pay the price...

[town]

Probably will be heading for the shredder with high priority. If there is one aircraft that has high black market value it's the F-14, as the possible buyer isn't short of cash.

Davis Monthan airbase Tucson Arizona is where they will reside for the next few years. They will not start destroying them yet. I would imagine it would be quite difficult to smuggle something like a Tomcat out onto the black market.

[Chris_F]

Something that can beat the F/A-18? Su-30MKI (and the other Thomson/CSF equiped versions) are better than the F-22, with almost the same cockpit workload. Brasil and Venezuela have plans to buy some, China has them as has India. And the Russians sell them to anyone willing to pay the price...

I think we place different emphasis on the relative advantages of Low Observable technology and aerobatic prowess.  I disagree that the SU30 is on par with the F22, nevermind better.  I think the SU30 is more similar in capability to the F18.  I know you'll disagree on this.

And although I don't think Brazil poses much of a threat to the US, and China seems pretty benign (probably an ally if/when the US or other regional countries go against N.Korea) I agree Venezuela is a concern.  But then again, Venezuela is pretty close to "home" and the US shouldn't have much problem deploying F22s over the region instead of relying on carrier based forces.

[beefhole]

War with South America?

The world is getting weird. Maybe we can take back what rightfully belongs to us, Cuba!

Besides, the US has nothing to fear from any single South American country.  Who cares if one country gets their hands on a bunch of Russian fighters that are rough equivalents to US fighters if the US has five times more? It's that simple, if the Su-30=F/A-18 and we have five times more F/A-18s, plus F-15s, F-16s, F-22s.... that settles that. There are very, very few countries that could go head to head with the US in an air war and have a hope to win-why? Not necissarily because of pilot skill as much as the simple fact that the US has the largest modern AF in the world.

A South American coalition, on the other hand, could be formidable.

Let's please avoid the US/Russian fighter argument, they've never met in combat, so we really don't know anything.  US fighters have a better record, but they've also been seeing waaaaaay more combat (against weak foes) than modern Russian fighters, essentially nullifying that point.  The argument stalls there, and the rest is all speculation (at least it should stall there). I know it's fun to speculate, but I personally find the 1v1 dogfight speculation irrelevant. Air combat rarely happens like that.

Not to mention we're all completely biased.

Last time I checked Ivan, the only evidence we have of how good the F-22 is in comparison to Russian fighters is the computer generated kill ratios, which have put the F-22 at a 10:1 advantage over modern Russian fighters. Does that mean it'll be that good in RL? Of course not. But you need to stop slinging around opinions like they're fact. The F-22 has not only never met Russian fighters in combat, it's never even met them in mock dogfighting.

[Ivan]

Last time I checked Ivan, the only evidence we have of how good the F-22 is in comparison to Russian fighters is the computer generated kill ratios, which have put the F-22 at a 10:1 advantage over modern Russian fighters. Does that mean it'll be that good in RL? Of course not. But you need to stop slinging around opinions like they're fact. The F-22 has not only never met Russian fighters in combat, it's never even met them in mock dogfighting.

The 10:1 ratio is purely based on the fact that the F-22 RCS is a lot lower (so the missile can't lock on), and is flying outside EOS range (or moving in on the target which hides it's worthless heat signature).

And that one is based on radar guided R-27 vs AMRAAM in BVR mode to prevent some embarassing statistics...

Tests with the East German MiG-29 (ok you can't compare these to the usual export stuff but just to prove the point) showed that when you have R-73 under the wing and get close enough to use them, any NATO fighter is toast, no matter how good the pilot is.

(i wanted to show a picture of the F-22 engine glow at cruise power but you'll always see that you can't find the shots you want when you need them)

The worst thing you can field against the F/A-22 if it flies low is... an ultralight with enough strength to carry R-73 missiles. You can't see it on the radar, it's small enough to hide behind almost anything and it definetly packs a punch.

[beefhole]

The problem with facts like those Ivan, is that, without exception, it goes both ways-someone will chime in with something that NATO has that makes any Eastern fighter toast. It goes in circles, and circles, and circles...

And my point still stands.  Go ahead, send up your Su-30 that can make any NATO fighter toast.  We'll have 8 F/A-18s flying CAP waiting for it. (I started a massive thread on this a while back if anyone remembers, about how regardless of pilot skill, the US does airborne command and control better than any other nation because we've had so much practice)

The Raptor bashing gets old too, considering every unbiased source I've seen has painted it as having a nearly unfair advantage.