...and what possible threat would that have to be? Does F-18 and F-35 do everything F-14 could?
GUNNER
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Gunnersmate04 |
Could we (US) build the F-14 again in an emergency... |
Lead | |
|
Registered Member
Posts: 134 ( 8-May-2008 19:03:10) |
|
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4218 ( 8-May-2008 19:43:52) |
No, we couldn't. Production jigs and tooling were destroyed long ago, and I very much doubt that full technical drawings were retained.
I can't imagine a threat that would cause us to want to anyway. While there probably are things that the Tomcat could do that the others can't right now, it would almost certainly be easier to modify existing aircraft than to restart production of an old and functionally obsolete one instead. |
||
|
Desertfox.historypolitics... |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 63 ( 8-May-2008 23:14:57) |
No we can't cause some stupid SOB who happens to be VP ordered everything destroyed.
There are quite a few things that neither the Hornet nor the JSF can do that the Tomcat could. For one the SH full load range just plain sucks. Ask the Navy to hit a target far inland, and they simply can't do it, not without having most of the strike being SH with buddy fueling packs instead of bombs. |
||
|
wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 2041 ( 9-May-2008 01:30:27) |
Desertfox wrote: Oddly enough, the F-18C/E/F airgroup has a lot longer strike range than did the old F-14/F-18 or A-6 and A-7 airgroup. Mainly that has to do with doctrinal
changes but it is indisputable that in my day we would never have even tried to hit Afghanistan from carrier decks without major tanking support. In fact, we
probably would have passed the whole job off to the USAF.
|
||
|
Desertfox.historypolitics... |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 64 ( 9-May-2008 06:08:33) |
Really? The KA-6 could carry way more fuel than a SH with a buddy system, and the F-14 has a much better payload to range ratio than the SH. How many SH are
actually making the bomb drop? 1 or 2?
I don't have anything against the JSF, it can do the job its required to do, the SH OTOH... Sure the F-14 was very expensive to operate, but in terms of performance the ASF-14/ST-21 was way better than the SH. It had better speed (no draggy pylons), better payload/range combinations, and more room for growth. Sure the SH has better electronics, but electronics don't care what airframe you stick them in. |
||
|
seasick |
The F-14 | ||
|
Posts: 4645 ( 9-May-2008 06:18:49) |
The F/A-18E/F are being produced with the AN/APG-79 AESA radar and earlier Super-bugs are being retrofit with it in place of the earlier AN/APG-73. This radar
along with the AIM-120D gives the Super-Bug quite a punch.
The AIM-120D has about 2/3 of the range of the Phoenix a Mach 4 velocity, and higher agility. The AN/APG-79 can "see" targets with higher resoultion than the AN/AWG-9. The AN/AWG-9 radar IIRC is mechanically scanned and anolog. The AN/APG-71 of the F-14D was better than the AN/AWG-9 but still isn't as good as the AN/APG-79. A Super-Bug can easily take 8 AIM-120D aloft with 2 AIM-9X on the wing tips, a fully loaded M61 and a center line drop tank. IIRC -- Are not the AIM-120C and AIM-120D somewhat lighter than the older AIM-7M? PS: Dick Cheney did order the destruction of tooling for the F-14 while he was George HW Bush's secretary of defense. The Clinton administration in the second half of his first term had seriously started to consider remanufacturing some of the F-14A into F-14B but this was canceled when it was confirmed that the tooling had been destroyed.
Last Edited By: seasick
9-May-2008 06:24:32.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Gunnersmate04 |
The PHOENIX | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 136 ( 9-May-2008 15:11:27) |
It was my understanding the plane was designed around the missile, is that true? Essentialy the "Turkey" was designed to carry and fire the PHOENIX.
Is the missile carried by anything else? Or is the missile now replaced by something better?
Sorry if these are stupid questions, I was surface fleet and don't know my birds. GUNNER |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3738 ( 9-May-2008 18:02:55) |
Gunnersmate04 wrote: iirc, the initial design of the Phoenix (it's nice to see somebody else who can spell "phoenix," it's not "pheonix" I believe that the planned replacement for Phoenix was AAAM (Advanced Air-to-Air Missile), which had comparable range to Phoenix.
|
||
|
Dave Bender |
Why? | ||
|
Posts: 6488 ( 9-May-2008 18:20:14) |
I suspect the F-35C would enter production before the F-14 production line could be re-established. |
||
|
Gunnersmate04 |
why keep them | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 138 ( 9-May-2008 19:18:30) |
at the airplane graveyard then, do other Countries (besides IRAN) have any F-14's still in inventory that may need a part or something?
Seems a waste to keep them in storage, or perhaps parking them under the desert sun is probably not that expensive on second thought... GUNNER |
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4219 ( 9-May-2008 20:18:03) |
AAAM was actually supposed to seriously outrange Phoenix.
|
||
) and the AWG-9 were started as part of the TFX program. Of course, it's
arguable that the Aegis system's design was based on that of the Typhon ( 
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
