Yeah i like the Tomcat, like an F-15D jock told me at an airshow here in the UK. 'if an aircraft 'looks' right, its because it usually is.

Yup the F-14 looks right to me.

Cos it is.

Not many of the ole swing-wingers aboyt now. B-1/ Tornado, handful of russian stuff. Thats about it now.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yeah - the 120 is a very fine missle. It's just that the hornet from what I have read has a very short range.

I'm sure our CBG's will be fine, but I'd like to see a carrier Raptor varient.... Wishfull thinking, I know.

The Super Hornet's range is fine, I'm not worrying about the Super Hornet because I know it will perform admirably, both air-to-air, and air-to-ground.

It's ferry range is 1,660 nautical miles, which is fairly close to that of an F-14.

NO ! theyre retireing a nice plane!
i loved that plane!
damm. now i'll have to just start getting used to the JSF...........ok screw that.

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yeah - the 120 is a very fine missle. It's just that the hornet from what I have read has a very short range.

I'm sure our CBG's will be fine, but I'd like to see a carrier Raptor varient.... Wishfull thinking, I know.

The Super Hornet's range is fine, I'm not worrying about the Super Hornet because I know it will perform admirably, both air-to-air, and air-to-ground.

It's ferry range is 1,660 nautical miles, which is fairly close to that of an F-14.

Yeah - what I was reading was the regular hornet

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
It's ferry range is 1,660 nautical miles, which is fairly close to that of an F-14.

Ferry range isn't important (unless you're kamikaze), what matters is range with weapon load!

On checking recent stats, the F-14 MMH is something like 60-80 man hours of maintenance per flight hour. While the Super Hornet is only about 15. Big difference in sustainability in a combat theater.

If the F-14 is good why are they retiring it?

I think it almost entirely stems from the fact that they are now getting quite old, bear in mind at this point that catapult launches and arrested landings fatigue or 'age' an aircraft much more severely than normal land based ops do, coupled with the fact that they are very expensive to maintain compared to more modern types like the F/A-18E & F.

Its an economic and logistical decision rather than an operational one. I do think that this is very much at odds with the fact that the USAF is spending billions on the Raptor though. Unless there is a fighter we do not know of (possible ,but I doubt it) the USN must feel really peeved (polite version).

Originally posted by waynos
I think it almost entirely stems from the fact that they are now getting quite old, bear in mind at this point that catapult launches and arrested landings fatigue or 'age' an aircraft much more severely than normal land based ops do, coupled with the fact that they are very expensive to maintain compared to more modern types like the F/A-18E & F.

then no one is going to buy F-14s?

I'd be quite surprised if they did, purely on cost grounds, the capability they offer is certainly something to be coveted.

Man. ill miss the gal. Flying from oceana, cutting through the air like a dart, buzzing houses of people who hate the Jet noise! What is really sad is that it didnt have to go. They could have built new ones with the same improvements as the Super hornet(ie new engines, avionics, reduced rcs, more range and weapons stores, more maintenance friendly) and included thrust vectoring, but hornet proponents took over the navy and pushed for their way.

The Super Hornet is a great plane and a good a-a fighter, but it will never be as good as the tomcat in a-a combat.

That grave yard makes me very sad. The same feeling i get when i saw them take out that firetruck from the 9-11 site. I love military aircraft (and fire trucks ) so for me to see them out there rotting in the desert really is a tear jerker for me but i guess just like everything the f-14 has got to have a life span. I just wish it didnt end in the grave yard.

I don't understand the pressure to retire the F-14's. IMO they're far superior to F-18's in a carrier and interceptor role. The F-14D is a superb plane and replacing it with F-18E/F's seems very premature. The navy has also lost a powerful long range engagement tool in the AIM-54 Pheonix.

The F-111's withdrawal was also premature I believe. It's only active equivalent in the role it performed is the F-15E, which is big heavy and expensive. The swing wing also made it more versatile. I don't understand those DoD and Congress nuts

EDIT - The JSF sucks too. They're replacing the F-111's here in Australia with JSF's which are worse in every way: range is less than half, max speed is less than half, warload is less than half.

What the hell is wrong with these people who make decisions on military hardware? They all have severe brain damage. I'd be buying surplus F-111F's off the US or new F-15E's (which are, as I said, the nearest equivalent to the strike job it performed). I think I might go for the job

[edit on 22-9-2004 by Ivegottheskill]

I think it came down to operating costs, and also supply of parts. This was detailed previously in this thread I believe.

Ladies and gentlmen we are gatherd here today in mourning of this sad day to honor one of the greatest warfighters of our time.