Jump to content

Happy 50th Birthday F-14


Recommended Posts

“Probably the coolest jet aircraft ever, turns 50 today.  First flight 21 December 1970.”

 

That’s a ridiculously subjective comment.  Counter-argument:  “one of the most overrated jet aircraft ever—propped up by a mid-80s US Navy propaganda film—would’ve turned 50 today, had it not been retired from front line service over 14 years ago.”

 

And yes, I know the IRGC still flies them.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Waco said:

 

“Probably the coolest jet aircraft ever, turns 50 today.  First flight 21 December 1970.”

 

That’s a ridiculously subjective comment.  Counter-argument:  “one of the most overrated jet aircraft ever—propped up by a mid-80s US Navy propaganda film—would’ve turned 50 today, had it not been retired from front line service over 14 years ago.”

 

And yes, I know the IRGC still flies them.

 

 

 

 

☝️😭

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 12/23/2020 at 7:49 PM, Waco said:

 

“Probably the coolest jet aircraft ever, turns 50 today.  First flight 21 December 1970.”

 

That’s a ridiculously subjective comment.  Counter-argument:  “one of the most overrated jet aircraft ever—propped up by a mid-80s US Navy propaganda film—would’ve turned 50 today, had it not been retired from front line service over 14 years ago.”

 

And yes, I know the IRGC still flies them.

 

 

 

 

It's not the IRGC that flies them, it's the IRIAF. That's a huge difference there. Those two services despice each other like a pest and the IRIAF hates having to lend some of their Tomcats to the IRGC guys .... As rarely as this happens though.

Edited by bushande
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2020 at 1:49 PM, Waco said:

 

“Probably the coolest jet aircraft ever, turns 50 today.  First flight 21 December 1970.”

 

That’s a ridiculously subjective comment.  Counter-argument:  “one of the most overrated jet aircraft ever—propped up by a mid-80s US Navy propaganda film—would’ve turned 50 today, had it not been retired from front line service over 14 years ago.”

 

And yes, I know the IRGC still flies them.

 

 

 

 

while the other cool jets just keep plugging away. The F15 will do another twenty years while the Tomcat now carries a PBR label. Even the F16 and A10 are still rolling right along like gang busters. Face it, it was just another piece of aluminum lost in time. Even the F18 started out in that same time frame, and is still moving right along. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now i feel silly modeling the dead plane and even promoting a group build of it in my signature : )  I think the appeal of the F-14 was in the swing-wings. Young ones and young-once alike like toys and moving parts.   I do know some people build subjects long gone though.  Older hardware do look cooler than today's gear.  And for some modeling them just brings back good memories.

Edited by crackerjazz
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 10:22 PM, ChesshireCat said:

while the other cool jets just keep plugging away. The F15 will do another twenty years while the Tomcat now carries a PBR label. Even the F16 and A10 are still rolling right along like gang busters. Face it, it was just another piece of aluminum lost in time. Even the F18 started out in that same time frame, and is still moving right along. 

gary

Yeah but that has nothing to do with the design and the plane itself. That is just timing and politics. You don't see all that many F-22 either and also not getting the "love" it would deserve by the USAF (one of the reasons why there is an F-15EX at all?!), the F-117 has not lasted that long either and the only reason those other "cool" jets are still around seems to be affordability, simplicity of the system itself, that the envisioned replacements are not produced in sufficient numbers or are not coming along quickly enough or still show teething problems that leads decision makers to cling to the old stuff and that there were other customers who paid for further development (hence affordability).

 

If times in the early 90s would have been anything like they are today, if the Navy had the money and the backing things might look different today. But in any case, the F-14 was a Navy plane and the Navy is just that ... a Navy that just so happens to have aircraft because of the need for them and not the  other way around. Most naval branches in the world don't have any significant air arms. A lot of missions that the F-14 was supposed to carry out were taken over by ship based systems or just given up. If there is a way to cover a mission and an ability by anything other than an aircraft, the Navy will most likely prefer that route.

 

It's not as easy as you are trying to make it and let's be honest, you know that.

Edited by bushande
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bushande said:

Yeah but that has nothing to do with the design and the plane itself. That is just timing and politics. You don't see all that many F-22 either and also not getting the "love" it would deserve by the USAF (one of the reasons why there is an F-15EX at all?!), the F-117 has not lasted that long either and the only reason those other "cool" jets are still around seems to be affordability, simplicity of the system itself, that the envisioned replacements are not produced in sufficient numbers or are not coming along quickly enough or still show teething problems that leads decision makers to cling to the old stuff and that there were other customers who paid for further development (hence affordability).

 

If times in the early 90s would have been anything like they are today, if the Navy had the money and the backing things might look different today. But in any case, the F-14 was a Navy plane and the Navy is just that ... a Navy that just so happens to have aircraft because of the need for them and not the  other way around. Most naval branches in the world don't have any significant air arms. A lot of missions that the F-14 was supposed to carry out were taken over by ship based systems or just given up. If there is a way to cover a mission and an ability by anything other than an aircraft, the Navy will most likely prefer that route.

 

It's not as easy as you are trying to make it and let's be honest, you know that.

I little if much at all about the F22, or even the F35 double ugly. The F14 was for sure a pretty airframe, but being pretty only goes so far. It will never go down as another Mustang or Spitfire in my eyes. I'm from the old school that seek function ahead of form. The Tomcat was pretty good, but not great at a lot of stuff. Kind of a compromise of a lot of functions. Yet nothing the grand old F18 wouldn't do for a lot less of my tax dollars. Looks wise; I'll take the F18 seven days a week. And yes they all hatched in a similar time period. As for the F117; I always thought it to be double ugly, but it also did what it was designed to well. (it never was a fighter jet), The F117 was nothing but a stepping stone for other, and better things to come. Was surprised it even went into production. 

     So why doesn't most Naval branches in the world seem to lack significant arms? When your standing outside; it's really easy to see. You spent all your money getting there, when you could well have divided your cash flow up better. Just how many aircraft carriers do we really need? To be exact, if you didn't build another carrier for twenty years; you'd still be good to go. The poor old Marine Corp is constantly at the low end of the food chain because you dumped all the money into projects that were already covered. I also don't thing the Air Force is any better either. To be exact all three branches are buying a lot of junk right now that they don't actually need. The only project that seems to be working (but not perfect) is the rebuilding of armor instead of buying new stuff.  As bad as I hate MacNamera, there were somethings he did right. Is there any reason the Air Force couldn't use the F18? Or the Navy could not have done a slight redesign of the F15 or make it land and take off from a carrier? The actual structure of the F15 is stronger than the F14, so that part is covered. You did it with the F4 and A7, so why not? In a dog fight the F15 wins 98% of the time. Otherwise Grumman would have sold Tom Cats to everybody besides Iran. Why not a Naval F22? Or is it because it's an A.F. idea? 

      It's time for the Fed to break up all these mega rich arms producers into smaller companies to make the mega contracts cheaper in the long run. Plus it's long time too late in stopping their lobbying! I worked in the arms industry, and saw the Generals being bought daily. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...