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: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:19 AM
Oh you have to see that movie, its a classic. USS Nimitz, captained by Kirk Douglas, travels back through a rip in time to December 1941. Pure escapist rubbish but excellent all the same

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Jehosephat
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.

I think that if you check around, you'll see that the Phoenix missle was originally designed for the A-12 (fighter version of the SR-71). After cancellation of the A-12 program, the radar and missles were coupled to the F-14, which was being developed at the time. No point in wasting the technology, however, I wonder why the USAF never adopted these systems to the F-15.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:29 AM
The A-12 was a USAF programme, the USN fighter was supposed to be the F-111B which was also intended to use the AWG-9 and Phoenix missile. It was thr abject failure of this programme that led to the F-14 being created.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:41 PM
The F14 isnt a failure. From what i have heared the Phoenix is quite effective for its huge range.(missles tend to lose accuracy the father away the enemy is)
F14 is also quite versatile it did its job excellent as "bombcat"i have even heared stories that it had higher accuracy in bombing than the F18.

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 03:30 PM
The F-14 is definitly a failure, the Phoenix was more of a failure than the F-14, it's still a great fighter and even bomber.

The Phoenix only has a 60% chance to hit a long ranges, but that's still pretty decent for a missile of this age...

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 03:56 PM
I think 60% is quite good for a missle for that range and age. I do not know how good it is compared to the Russian counterpart for the mig 25 and mig 31.

And i just thought that what version are we talking about Aim 54A B or C?

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:39 AM
Two improtant corrections: First, the TFX became the F-111, not the F-14; Second, The F-14 was design for Fleet Air Defense and Interception, and the F/A-18 is primarily a strike aircraft! Next time double-check all your facts, and make sure your not comparing apples and oranges.

ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 01:37 PM
F14 a failure? BAH!! Ultra long range, can kill from well over 100 miles with pinpoint accuaracy, fast as all get up AND can operate from a carrier. Thats no failure!!!

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 03:13 PM
Comparing the F-14 to the F/A-18 is like comparing a pistol to an Assault Rifle.

The F-14 was meant as a Fleet Air Defense/Interceptor.

The F/A-18 mainly built for as a multi-role Strike Aircraft.

The F-14 in my opinion was in no way, shape, or form a failure. It lasted for 30 years, 30 YEARS! And it was adopted by other Naval Forces.

So, to say the F-14 is a failure, in my opinion, is a naive statement, I'm not calling anyone Naive, just saying that it's a naive statement(IN MY OPINION!).

Shattered OUT...

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:08 PM
I have to say, the F-14 was in no way a failure. It just so happens that our foreign policy was successful at keeping us from going to war with any nation that ever posed a threat to our fleets.

The F-14 has never really had an oppurtunity to show what it could do to enemy bombers. Anyhow in the time it served the F-14 truely was the worlds best a2a fighter.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:22 PM
It still is a excellent bomber. The F15 cant do the role the F14 is doing not now not in the future unless some major design changes were made. The F14 was made to make dogfights with phoenixes which is basically the same as fighting with several 500 kilogram bombs under your wings. If i would have a bomber in AA combat but is heavily loaded with bombs ill take the Bombcat.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:31 PM
Well I have often thought with aircraft of the calibre of the F/A-18 being equipped to US carriers that there really isnt much of a need to be working on the F-22 in a naval role. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the F-22 and other "next-gen" projects are smokescreens for more advanced designs.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:35 PM
To be honest, I find the F-18 to be a piece of crap. Really, it's slow, the radar is limited, it's not even that manueverable and doesn't carry a lot in the way of armament.

In virtually every catagory except cost realted areas, the F-14 is superior in everyway. Same goes for if the F-22 compared to the F-18. I suppose that the F-18 is acceptable as an attack craft, but it's definatly not the best. And it's basically a pregnant turkey in A2A situations. Our navy definatly needs the F-14 or a navalized F-22, other wise, we've got nothing on the Su-30 Flankers.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:41 PM
Gee thats great. Our first line fighter in Australia is the F/A-18C which I believe to be superior to most of the aircraft it might encounter locally, although Indonesia does have some F-16's. Luck we are involved in the JSF project. If that comes through then we will certainly have an edge over the rest down here.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:40 PM

Trying to remember, but has an F-14 EVER been shot down by an opposing aircraft?

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:06 PM
Everyone slags big aircraft, but with two engines and a healthy fusalge the thing has a very high survivability rate compared to any single engine fighter. Any plane that keeps it's pilot alive is NOT a failure.


posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:43 PM
You strap on a F-14 while I ride a Super Hornet. I'll take my chances.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:06 PM

Originally posted by JamesBlonde
Luckily we are involved in the JSF project. If that comes through then we will certainly have an edge over the rest down here.

A bold statement indeed! Check your facts man! Surely the Aussie air force trembles in fear of the great air armadas of Aoteroa (NZ). I mean the RNZAF has Iroquois & SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite helos, C130H Hercules and P3 Orions, a few jet air trainers and sundry other bits and pieces. Isn't the world so lucky we are a peaceful country!?

Edit: to add url.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by whita]

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 02:51 AM
sorry to allow me to say even if the tomcat is failure, but no one has been instead of it, include Raptor which has do not been good at top untill today.
the biggest problem is what could be used to attack a target far from three or foure hundred kilometers away even if the rader on the Raptor would ddetect targets over 400kilos far away. on the other hand, the Raptor is more expensive than Tomcat.

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:06 AM
The F-14 Tomcat is one of the greatest aircraft ever made. I don't know how any of you could even dare call it a "failure;" THE UNITED STATES NAVY DOES KEEP AN AIRCRAFT IN SERVICE FOR OVER 20 YEARS IF IT IS A FAILURE AT ITS JOB. So stop trying to act like experts on the subject or something. Same as the fools who said the F-15 and F-16 would be failures. And the same idiot "experts" who say the F/A-18 E/F "Superhornet" is a failure, citing stupid reasons like it has less range than the F-14 (gee, a measly 30 or so miles shorter). Jets have ranges in the thousands of miles.

The F-14 Tomcat did its job most definitely, and it did it very well. It was such a great multi-purpose fighter that that is why the U.S. Navy kept it in service for so many years. It was a great interceptor for a long time, and a great strike aircraft, with great range and payload capabilties. Now it is used solely for strike, but the Superhornet is replacing it as the Navy's next striker/fighter aircraft (alongside the JSF when that comes out).

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in