It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


F-14 was a failure so F-22 really worth it?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:56 PM
Thinking about the supposed capabilities of the new F-22 made me recall a tale about an earlier "super fighter." The second generation of the TFX was called the F-14. It was controversial and radical. It proposed to use long range radar and bvr missiles of unprecedented range managed by a computer system - sort of a mini AWACS built right into a fighter plane (in which role Iran operated the F-14 at one time). A test was set up with a reserve fighter organization - a stacked test as it were because reserves tend to be the best units in the entire air force system. If the F-14 was any good in multiple air combat, it should be able to demonstrate this, although it was only a prototype, and no tactical doctrine yet existed for it.

The test, written up by Aviation Week and Space Technology, involved the first multiple kills in history to missiles. Regretfully, although unarmed Phoenix missiles were used, they included two actual kills! The missile offset (they were set to miss by 100 feet) was ineffective because weapons release was too close, and the flight path was inside the skin of the target fighters, so a single F-14 came away with 5 kills (the others were camera killes) out of 7 engaged - in a series - one on one, one on two, finally one on four. The opposing commander called off the test when two of his flight of four went down - as he should have done.

F-14 was a technical mistake. It has never achieved its promise. It was excessively expensive, dictating the size of US carriers be larger than would be required for F-18s. There were never enough missiles to make it combat effective - IF they worked - because they were too expensive. But they never worked. Long range shots in 1991 missed. The unique radar betrays the aircraft upwards of a thousand miles away, and it could be used to guide (passive) incoming weapons.

Will the F-22 turn out to be a white elephant?

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:36 PM
Tom Connally was right; the F-14 was a better carrier aircraft than the F-111 could have ever been. I Don't see how a weapon system that has kept U.S. aircraft carriers safe for 30 years could be called a failure.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:41 PM
This is the first I've ever heard of this. As many have manta-d here, "where's you proof" I'd like to research it before I buy what you are selling. And if you statements prove true what's the value of your question? We only can assess what we know and if the US Goverment "lied" for close to 25 years about the Tom-Cat why would they stop now about a new system?

Sorry, even if you present so-called data to support your claims we have the record of the plane, or the fact that not one carrier has been struck by an ememy doggie.

BTW, I believe Iran's F-14's were like Isreal's F-15's....stripped down versions.

Now if you wanted to debunk anti air craft defense systems I could believe.

edit for spelling..Doit!

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Ikema]

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:00 PM
F-14 was not really a failure. It was just damn expensive to maintain. With 4 Pheonixes launched,even if only 1 hit,thats a kill,but the missles were too expensive.

The F-22 now,is nothing like that,using the same cost effective AAMRAAMs that today's F-15s are using, but requires a lot more maintainence. If the US were to go to war with China now, the F-15s will probably get shot down easily due to Su-30s/27s and anti aircraft fire, so they need a stealth fighter to penetrate deep into enemy airspace.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:16 PM
If they retired the SR71. well then, they must be flying something above and beyond the rapture..yes

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:57 PM
the F-14 phoenix missles were mainly designed to go after Russia nuclear bombers. And the F-14 was the only one that could use them.

You might as well say the B-52 was a failure because it never dropped a nuclear bomb and had to be "upgraded" to use conventional bombs

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:06 AM
W4rl0rD, modern U.S. F-15s could take on any planes China has, due to superior avionics and pilot training. Anti-aircraft fire, you are correct, would pose a problem though.

As for the F-22, it is cheaper to maintain than the F-15.

And what hte heck is this with the F-14 being too large. The new Super Hornet is just as large as the F-14, and is a fabulous plane. The F-14 was a dedicated interceptor for many years, before becoming a strike aircraft. It was very succesful.

A "failure" is what you call those two European aircraft, that one that look like a single-finned F-18 and the other look like a dual-finned F-16.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:31 AM
No,everyday you will have to check everything to make sure that all the stealth is working as it should. And,F-15s can take on China's flankers,but remember,China has the NO-11 Zhuk radar,which is not that far behind the AESA radar,and China also has AA-10 (R-27) missles with a range of 60km, while AAMRAAMs have a range of 45km.

And oh,F-14s are bigger than F-18s significantly. This is a shot of the Tomcat and F-18 side by side of VF-32 Swordsmen (I have a model of a tomcat from that carrier

Yeah,what the heck right?

[edit on 12/2/05 by W4rl0rD]

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
A "failure" is what you call those two European aircraft, that one that look like a single-finned F-18 and the other look like a dual-finned F-16.

What? Why drag European aircraft into this argument? I suppose your first description is of the Rafale, I can't figure out what your second descriptuion refers to as I can't think of a twin finned european fighter.

In any case, by what means would they be failures? Or is it just American sour grapes that we built our own instead of buying yours?

Getting back to the original topic, there's no way the F-14 could be classed as a failure, it has been THE dominant naval fighter in the world for 30 years, if that is failure then I'll have some of it.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:53 AM
IMO F-15s will not be used in any near future US-China war because they will be vulnerable to chinese air defences..At least in the east..

Come to think of it th eonly A2A combat zones I can foresee in such a war would be in western and south western China if the US decided to flank attack from central Asia...
The air defences are not too good there... Mostly concentrated in the north-NE-East-SE region..

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:55 AM
Definetly the best,but the problem was that it was too difficult and expensive to maintain.

The Rafale does not look like a F-18 at all,and there are no dual finned European planes that look like a F-16.Then again,you are probably just jealous.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:01 AM
Oh, come off it people, what is this with jealousy here? This isn't the forum for 3 year-olds. The two aircraft I was referring to were never put into mass-production, because their designs were too lousy. And jealous of the Eurofighter? Why would I be jealous of something like that? What is there to even be jealous about? You people make some truly azznine statements sometimes.....

And uhhhh, YES, the F-18 E/F Superhornet is just as large as an F-14. I should've made myself clearer, I did not mean the F-18 C/D was as large as a Tomcat, I meant the Superhornet.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:09 AM
Nobody mentioned the Eurofighter (Typhoon) except you, does that mean that you ARE jealous of it?

That is a joke by the way.

Which designs did you mean? I'm genuinely curious to know about these two failures.

How can the F-14 be a failure? Remember how they splashed those Zero's in ""The Final Countdown"

[edit on 12-2-2005 by waynos]

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:12 AM
-------------------F/A-18E/F-----------------------------F-14 Tomcat

Length---------18.31 m--------------------------------18.6 m
Height----------4.88 m----------------------------------4.8 m
Wing Span--13.62m-----------------------------------19 m unswept,11.4 m swept

Ok,so the size is more or less the same. But then,the F-14 came out 30 years ago,and is not really as versatile as the F-18E/F,but a good plane anyway,and it also looks quite good.

[edit on 12/2/05 by W4rl0rD]

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:20 AM
Actually, I never ever mentioned the Eurofighter. That was you guys who brought it up. And also, I was actually just referring to those two European aircraft as an example; I didn't mean it as an insult directly to Europe or anything like that. But Europe has tried a few times to match the U.S. in aviation in regards to jet fighter aircraft and failed. Those two planes were two examples. I forget their names though. If I can find them, I will post them.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:26 AM
OK, fair enough. I only ask because I was wondering if they really were failures or whether they were just design studies en route to the Typhoon, there were several of those, as there are with any new fighter.

Just to nitpick a teeny bit, if I may;

this was the firsrt mention of Eurofighter in the thread;

And jealous of the Eurofighter? Why would I be jealous of something like that?

You see? Nobody mentioned it but you said you weren't jealous of it, hence my jokey retort.

I think I'll leave it there as the joke is now lost anway

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:40 AM
This is really an apples and oranges discussion and to call the F-14 a failure is wrong.

First and foremost, the F-14 was strictly designed as an fleet defence vehicle. The Pheonix missiles were desigend to extend the outer battle area around the carrier and allow the standing CAP to at least engage Backfire, Blinder, and Bear bombers before they could volley off thier ASM's at the battle group. In this role the F-14 was the right plane at the right time. Hardly a failure.

The F-18E if I recall has a slightly less footprint than the F-14 but given that the carriers are not carrying thier full loadout as in the cold war the space is not an issue.

With some modifications to its landing gear and maybe a bigger wing, there is no reason why the EF would not make a good carrier aircraft.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:44 AM
You brought the Eurofighter in by mentioning that you "built your own" in regards to the aircraft, or at least, that is how I took it, so fair enough. The main jet attack aircraft, that is brand new, that Europe is known for at the moment is the Eurofighter. I mentioned it first by name, but to me, you were the first to make a reference to the aircraft itself, by suggesting I was jealous that Europe built their own now.

Some European countries have built some newer fighters though, I believe, but the one everyone is looking to at the moment is the Eurofighter, to see if it will live up to expectations or be a flop.

When you mentioned, "Or is it just American sour grapes that we built our own instead of buying yours?" I took it you were referring to the Eurofighter.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:04 AM
I see. It was just a general comment actually and I was thinking in terms of all the european fighters with US equivalents rather than any one specific model.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by waynos

How can the F-14 be a failure? Remember how they splashed those Zero's in ""The Final Countdown"

[edit on 12-2-2005 by waynos]

Now I'm curious..what was that all about??!! Zeroes and F-14s??

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in