DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » The Defense Biz » Why F-​​14s Must be Crushed

Why F-​​14s Must be Crushed

f-14-boneyard.jpg

For months, Defense Tech has been keep­ing a close eye on devel­op­ments over the issue of F-​​14 Tomcat spare parts. Theres fear that Iran could get its hands on enough after­mar­ket mate­r­ial to keep its aging Tomcats alive for years pos­ing a threat to U.S. naval inter­ests in the Persian Gulf.

One of the coun­trys best-​​sourced avi­a­tion indus­try ana­lysts a man with whom Ive worked at pre­vi­ous pub­li­ca­tions has put together an infor­ma­tive nar­ra­tive on the nefar­i­ous world of back­room deals and bureau­cratic incom­pe­tence that per­me­ates the jet parts aftermarket.

Iran’s aero­space indus­try and intel­li­gence ser­vices then embarked on what has become a nearly three-​​decade shell game of try­ing to find ways to covertly or ille­gally pro­cure parts for the F-​​14. Not sur­pris­ingly, inci­dents of spares “dis­ap­pear­ing” from store­houses at Subic Base in the Philippines and other Navy instal­la­tions world­wide became reg­u­lar occurrences.

Numerous mid­dle­men oper­at­ing from shad­owy front com­pa­nies ordered parts for the Iranian Tomcats.Some of these fronts have ended up in the U.S. courts over the years, but the Iranians have had far more suc­cesses than fail­ures in get­ting their hands on what they need. During Iran’s air show last year–27 years after the embargo was first imposed–several Iranian aero­space enter­prises openly dis­played over­hauled com­po­nents for the F-​​14 that they man­age to keep acquir­ing parts for up to this day. 

Rueben Johnson pulls no punches in his arti­cle, pub­lished in this weeks Weekly Standard, mak­ing the Defense Logistics Agency look par­tic­u­larly bad. He demon­strates that the Iranian parts rope-​​a-​​dope has had the unin­tended effect of ham­string­ing legit­i­mate for­eign weapons and parts mak­ers want­ing to do busi­ness with the United States.

In one pub­li­cized inci­dent, the paper­work from an Iranian agent for ille­gally pur­chased F-​​14 parts passed under the DLA’s nose, but the parts were then seized by Customs agents before they could be shipped to Iran. The spares were sent back to DLA, which, instead of putting them under guard, promptly sold them to another mid­dle­man work­ing on behalf of the Iranians. The fact that these spare parts were now iden­ti­fied as being on Iran’s wish list should have war­ranted some extra scrutiny when a sec­ond buyer came look­ing for them. What’s more, the Customs Service evi­dence tags from the first seizure were still attached to these items–they were lit­er­ally red-flagged–which makes the act of sell­ing them to a sec­ond Iranian agent inexcusable.

This all stands in stark con­trast to the bureau­cratic zeal with which the U.S. gov­ern­ment con­trols mil­i­tary tech­nol­ogy flow­ing into the United States. Try import­ing for­eign mil­i­tary spare parts and other materiel from for­eign nations into the United States, and U.S. gov­ern­ment over­sight sud­denly becomes ruth­lessly efficient.

U.S. com­pa­nies that oper­ate as Foreign Materiel Acquisition (FMA) agents cur­rently pur­chase mil­lions of dol­lars’ worth of for­eign mil­i­tary hard­ware and spare parts each year. Some items are used for train­ing U.S. forces, while oth­ers are used to equip the newly estab­lished and coalition-​​trained secu­rity forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In every one of these sales, there are reams of paperwork–including end-​​user cer­tifi­cates, copies of the company’s U.S. government-​​issued license that per­mits it to trade in armaments–all of which must be prop­erly authen­ti­cated, nota­rized, and signed by gov­ern­ment offi­cials on both sides. 

So the answer is to sim­ply destroy all the F-​​14s in the bone yard, essen­tially elim­i­nat­ing the spare parts issue for good? Way to sweep the issue right off the table, USG…

– Christian

Share |

July 16th, 2007 | The Defense Biz | 361887 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/07/16/why-f-14s-must-be-crushed/Why+F-14s+Must+be+Crushed2007-07-16+12%3A11%3A38Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « The Sunday Paper (Business Section) | Mega Indian Ocean Excercise Planned » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Max says:
    July 16, 2007 at 8:15 am

    Doubt if the Tomcats are worth much. Their avion­ics are way out of date, and would be a night­mare to keep run­ning. I think the Navy was prob­a­bly glad to see them go, in favor of more mod­ern planes. I think they are right to crush them all, to keep them out of the hands of Iran.

    Reply
  2. Olav says:
    July 16, 2007 at 9:14 am

    Why not make fake spare parts that will just fail or cause prob­lems because with respect to the Iranians won’t know which is good and which is bad. Or add a track­ing cir­cuit in a spare part. Use the spare parts game against them.
    That would be cool.

    Reply
  3. George Skinner says:
    July 16, 2007 at 10:23 am

    I agree with Max — not a lot of value left in the Tomcat fleet for the US mil­i­tary. The design is almost 40 years old, sup­ply chain was becom­ing a night­mare with many sup­pli­ers hav­ing gone out of busi­ness or the com­po­nents man­u­fac­tured with obso­lete processes, and the air­frames were show­ing their age after years of car­rier oper­a­tions. On top of that, putting the Tomcat back in ser­vice would prob­a­bly take 3–5 years in order to train up the new air­crew & main­te­nance per­son­nel. Faster to just order more Super Hornets.

    Reply
  4. springbored says:
    July 16, 2007 at 11:04 am

    Yeah, well, if we’re crush­ing F-​​14s now, what will we be doing with the F-​​16s later? (owned by Venezula, Pakistan, Saudi, etc., etc…)
    We’re solv­ing the prob­lem by elim­i­nat­ing a symp­tom, but not the ulti­mate cause..

    Reply
  5. Harry Canyon says:
    July 16, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Why not sell Iran all the spare parts they need to get their F-​​14s fly­ing? Then we can shoot ‘em down and be done with it.

    Reply
  6. Galls says:
    July 16, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    While every­one has sen­ti­men­tal feel­ings towards the tom­cat, curse tom cruise and his boy­ish good looks, it is still not ben­e­fi­cial to the Navy at this point.
    The only old air frame that should be re invested in is the A-​​10.

    Reply
  7. Ward says:
    July 16, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    I like Harry’s idea …

    Reply
  8. George Skinner says:
    July 16, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Yeah, but why stop with shoot­ing down the F-​​14s? I think a nice big fighter sweep to liq­ui­date Iran’s air force would be a well-​​deserved vaca­tion for the bored fighter jocks who’ve been fly­ing bomb­ing mis­sions over Iraq for years.

    Reply
  9. C says:
    July 16, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    a con­sid­er­able reduc­tion in Iran’s air power is inevitable. i do see the value in try­ing to limit a parts sup­ply to poten­tially hos­tile nations in the mean­time, if only to make sure that the spares they have didn’t come from us. it wouldn’t be too ter­ri­bly dif­fi­cult to reverse-​​engineer an entire F14 aside from the soft­ware and start fab­ri­cat­ing parts in these countries.

    Reply
  10. G says:
    July 16, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Or bet­ter yet, screw up the parts to an inop­er­a­tive degree, then sell it to them out­right. Get their money and then laugh when the Iranian Air Force is grounded and penniless.

    Reply
  11. diablotakahe says:
    July 16, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    why not give all the air­frames to iran as part of the iraq deal?
    one less big order for sukhoi.
    then everybody’s happy!

    Reply
  12. Ken says:
    July 16, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    I think it’s a waste of time and effort wor­ry­ing about OLD F-​​14s in Iran.
    The ‘Cat is easy to find, either by Radar, Sigint, imagery or just lookin’ for the smoke.
    It was a great fleet defense weapon in it’s time, it’s time has passed it by. It’s like the MiG 23s, etc the Iraqis had, easy to find, easy to kill, and pro­vides a false sense of secu­rity for the own­ers.
    If the the time ever comes for us to face them, we know exactly how to find and kill Tomcats.
    Nobody has more time on that sys­tem than us.
    If the Iranians don’t “smug­gle” spares from us they’ll build them in-​​house or get the Chinese to build them.
    Not a big prob­lem, I could build spare parts for my Model T but the guy in the Mustang will still smoke me.
    KEN

    Reply
  13. Chris Johnston says:
    July 16, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    So, is every sin­gle last one being destroyed, or are a few going to kept fly­able for airshows?

    Reply
  14. polandspring says:
    July 16, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    whats every­one so wor­ried about? f-​​22 any­one?
    then again i wouldnt put it past the ira­ni­ans to do some kamikazi mis­sions with those rusted out bone­yard tomcats

    Reply
  15. Quackstacker says:
    July 16, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    Why don’t we just sell them the old F-​​14s.
    My com­puter that I have has a faster proces­sor in it.
    Plus the Iranians have the 35 year old blocks not the newer ver­sions that we were run­ning when we decomis­sioned them.
    If I’m not mis­taken those older ‘CATS couldn’t be retro­fit­ted to even com­pete with any of our air­craft we have out today.

    Reply
  16. Quackstacker says:
    July 16, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    Why don’t we just sell them the old F-​​14s.
    My com­puter that I have has a faster proces­sor in it.
    Plus the Iranians have the 35 year old blocks not the newer ver­sions that we were run­ning when we decomis­sioned them.
    If I’m not mis­taken those older ‘CATS couldn’t be retro­fit­ted to even com­pete with any of our air­craft we have out today.

    Reply
  17. new says:
    July 17, 2007 at 12:13 am

    Sure they would lose in an engage­ment with us, but they might not be used against us. No sense in giv­ing bad regimes deadly weapons. How hard can it be to just moth­ball them some­where where the Iranians will never get them?

    Reply
  18. Bruce says:
    July 17, 2007 at 2:56 am

    They’re defen­sive weapons. Don’t attack and every­thing will be ok.

    Reply
  19. GeorgePlunkett says:
    July 17, 2007 at 10:48 am

    Sell them all the parts they want. We can use the money. The Tomcats they have are anti­quated and are no match for any of our warbirds.

    Reply
  20. S. Robertson says:
    July 17, 2007 at 10:57 am

    How about we use our B-​​2 Bombers and destory the Iranian F-​​14s. This will serve two pur­poses. 1. They no longer have a fleet of air­planes that need spare parts. 2. Show them that we have the bet­ter IEDs, can’t see the planes, they fall from the sky, they pack a big­ger punch than the hon­memade ver­sion killing our troops in Irag. Can you say “JDAM” !!!

    Reply
  21. Scotty says:
    July 17, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    The Iranians would have an even tougher time find­ing a pilot that could actu­ally han­dle a Tomcat in nor­mal flight much less in a com­bat sit­u­a­tion. If they want to take us on using a bird we sold to the Shah in the 70’s let them try.

    Reply
  22. tuj says:
    July 18, 2007 at 8:39 am

    The Iranians use the F-​​14 as a sort of mini-​​AWACS since it has such a pow­er­ful radar. That capa­bil­ity is still quite impor­tant to them, even if they can’t out-​​fight an F-​​22. Denying them a pow­er­ful air­borne radar sys­tem would cer­tainly be to the advan­tage of the US in any type of con­flict.
    The US needs to be more thought­ful when it sells weapon sys­tems. The fact that the Israelis have a US-​​made air­force is not lost on the rest of the mid-​​east.

    Reply
  23. Pau says:
    July 18, 2007 at 7:17 pm

    I think we should empty the Smithsonian and
    Wright-​​Patterson Air Museums before those pesky
    ter­ror­ist get really big ideas. Imagine Al-​​Queda
    get­ting their hands on a X-​​15, Mach 6.8, baby!
    Or the first Wright Bros. ORIGINAL stealth
    fighter. Wood and can­vas, the pilot takes off his watch & bingo, no RADAR return! Better still,
    hook the con­trols up to a PS2 and *BAMM*, a RPV!
    At nearly a mil­lion dol­lars each to de-​​mil a TomCat, we should just leave then in the Arizona
    sun. Sooner or later the UV, Ozone, Gamma rays
    and yahoos with 22 LRs will reduce these once
    mag­nif­i­cent air­planes to dust. Or, sim­ply douse
    them with JP8 and turn them into pools of aluminum!

    Reply
  24. Zeffman says:
    July 18, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    I think that the US should send in a covert oops team to put a time delay explo­sive device that works when teh plane is fired up-​​small enough to not be seen but big enough to blow the SOB up-​​that way we take teh planes and their “pilots” all at the same time!!!!

    Reply
  25. Roy Smith says:
    July 18, 2007 at 9:05 pm

    There are a lot of peo­ple here who’s jaws will drop to the floor when those “sim­ple” Iranians, armed only with tiny speed­boats &/​or “civil­ian” boats & Mach 2.5 SS-​​N-​​22 Sunburn &/​or C-​​801 anti-​​ship missiles,sink one or more of our air­craft car­ri­ers,& accom­pa­ny­ing destroyers,in the Persian Gulf right now.The F-​​14 Tomcat was the ONLY naval air­craft armed with the long range AIM-​​54 Phoenix air-​​to-​​air mis­sile which would have kept our ships out of the Persian Gulf & harms way.The Super Hornet can­not carry this mis­sile & so the navy nat­u­rally “retired” it.Don’t believe the crap about our supe­rior weapons & technology.If supe­rior weapons & tech­nol­ogy won wars then Israel SHOULDN’T have lost to Hezbollah last year.I mean,they sure didn’t win & those 3 Israeli sol­diers are STILL hostages.

    Reply
  26. Leon Marino says:
    July 19, 2007 at 1:15 am

    Clearly the prob­lem is not that there’s a retired fleet of F-​​14s sit­ting at Davis-​​Monathan, or that Iran is try­ing to buy parts for their fleet. No, the prob­lem is that the DLA is inca­pable of mon­i­tor­ing who it sells the parts to!
    How many other coun­tries, copo­ra­tions, or indi­vid­u­als oper­ate F-​​14s? Right! Howabout we don’t sell any parts to any­one? That would solve the prob­lem right there.

    Reply
  27. Ken R says:
    July 19, 2007 at 1:44 am

    Perhaps we could end the “prob­lem” by a cou­ple of flights of stealth bombers drop­ping thou­sands of bomblets on the old Tom’s. Let the Iranians know we are not piss­ing around with them any­more. The only thing is the Iranians are spend­ing a great deal of their resources try­ing to get the f-14’s air­wor­thy. Take that away from them and they will divert those resources to get­ting newer fight­ers else­where and we may be fac­ing a more advanced Soviet or French built aircraft.

    Reply
  28. doubtsoft says:
    July 19, 2007 at 10:46 am

    It is actu­ally in the best inter­est of the US to allow Iran to con­tinue to use the F-​​14s instead of cut­ting off all parts and sup­port, because if they did, Iran would just upgrade to a more advanced Soviet sys­tem that is harder to shoot down.
    Of course, no offi­cial arms deals are allowed, so things just “disappear”.

    Reply
  29. George Skinner says:
    July 19, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    The F-​​14 and Phoenix would never have kept US car­ri­ers out of the Persian Gulf. The rea­son the car­ri­ers are IN the Gulf is to increase the abil­ity of the strike air­craft on those car­ri­ers to hit tar­gets in the area. With the car­ri­ers oper­at­ing out­side the Gulf, you’d either have a reduced sor­tie rate because of the long tran­sit time to tar­get, or you might even be out of range alto­gether.
    Superior weapons & tech­nol­ogy don’t win wars by them­selves, but they make a pretty big dif­fer­ence in com­bi­na­tion with effec­tive train­ing and doc­trine. Israel had the tech­nol­ogy, but it’s become obvi­ous that they had prob­lems with train­ing and doc­trine. It’s also fairly obvi­ous that Hezbollah’s “vic­tory” amounts mainly to not hav­ing been wiped out — they lost a lot of peo­ple, weapons, and polit­i­cal sup­port in the region.

    Reply
  30. Roy Smith says:
    July 20, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Those air­craft car­ri­ers have no defense against Mach 2.5 anti-​​ship mis­siles like the Sunburn & the C-​​801 missile.Keeping them in the gulf exposes them greatly to this danger.Putting them safely in “blue” water over-​​the-​​horizon makes them safer.Crappy obso­lete planes with good anti-​​ship mis­siles can cause just as much havoc & the Sunburn & the C-​​801 mis­siles can be car­ried by air­craft in addi­tion to being launched by ship(or small craft) & land.The Chinese are con­vert­ing old obso­lete fighter jets into UCAVs.They can both launch anti-​​ship mis­siles & then crash into ships like a kamikase​.An F-​​14 with Phoenix mis­siles could stop them well before they came in range to harm U.S. ships.But,you know the story about where F-​​14s & Phoenix mis­siles are today.

    Reply
  31. George Skinner says:
    July 20, 2007 at 11:41 am

    Yeah, we know the story with the F-​​14 and Phoenix mis­siles. They’re a late ‘60s design that have fin­ished their use­ful lives with the fleet and have been retired. The Navy botched devel­op­ment of the AAAM and NATF, so there’s no direct replace­ment.
    As I pointed out before, putting the car­ri­ers in blue water lim­its their abil­ity to attack tar­gets, or keeps them from attack­ing at all. Blue water is great for fleet bat­tles, but a purely blue water fleet can’t do much when the job is pound­ing tar­gets on land.
    Also, are you sure that the fleet is defense­less against those mis­siles? The F-​​18 and AMRAAM don’t have quite the stand-​​off range of F-​​14/​Phoenix, but they’re not use­less either. And there’s still AEGIS and Phalanx.

    Reply
  32. Roy Smith says:
    July 20, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Concerning the Sunburn missile.I remem­ber when we sunk the USS America air­craft car­rier after it was retired.I was totally opposed to that. They just blew holes in it & sunk it.However.….,if the U.S. could get hold of a cou­ple of Sunburns &/​ other of these mach 2.5 anti-​​ship missiles(from what I under­stand the exo­cet & har­poon mis­siles can’t even travel above mach 1,if they can even reach a speed of mach 1),that would jus­tify sink­ing the Forrestal air­craft car­ri­ers as a test of defenses against these mach 2.5(I read that India & Russia are work­ing together on a anti-​​ship mis­sile that can travel at mach 3).From what I read,these mis­siles skim the sur­face of the water & then rise up & hit the decks(I was never navy,so I’m not sure what you call the top sur­face of the ships) of the ships.They can also be nuclear tipped,which would be a great prob­lem with China if we ever come to blows over Taiwan.That would be the only jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for ‘sink­ing” the Forrestal Aircraft carriers,the USS Constellation,& the JFK.I know about the AAAM.I also read that when the navy dis­con­tin­ued it,that is when they dis­con­tin­ued the upgrades of the F-14.They are still build­ing F-​​16s,& except for the fact that they are not “stealth”,they could still com­pete with the Eurofighter,the Rafale,& the Gripen.The F-​​16 Sufa & or F-​​16E/​F Block 60 would be top notch,but we don’t seem to want to buy them.
    I remem­ber the tri­als between the F-​​22 Raptor & the F-​​23 Black Widow & I still won­der how the F-​​23 lost the “competition.”

    Reply
  33. andy hunter says:
    November 14, 2007 at 5:06 am

    The F-​​22s left here for Japan on Friday but were forced to turn back when a “soft­ware issue” affect­ing the nav­i­ga­tion sys­tem was dis­cov­ered, the Air Force said Tuesday.
    No rea­son was given when offi­cials first announced on Sunday that the most expen­sive fighter planes in the world had been sent back to Hawaii.
    kode mon­keys = virus hardrives .made in china best of luck in the next bat­tle for oil

    Reply
  34. Steve says:
    February 13, 2009 at 10:20 am

    The F-​​14 is an out­stand­ing air­craft. The specs pub­lished were with those junk P&W engines.
    The truth be known, Cheney wanted to spend $330 mil­lion each for the F22 instead of $50 mil­lion for an F14, so now we spend $50 mil­lion for F18’s.
    The Soviets have re engined the air­craft, and the last time I checked have an air­craft insur­ing that its speed is much higher than the 1976 listed speeds, man­u­fac­tur­ing busi­ness in Russia that can make spares for them. However it seems that the GAO found the Pentagon sell­ing spares to Iran any­way.
    By crush­ing and shred­ding the F14 you only insure that the Iranians have them, and we have noth­ing that can com­pete with them.
    You guys are either Traitors or some­thing else.

    Reply
  35. Bob Tiller says:
    March 13, 2009 at 1:02 am

    Forget about the Iranians. Sell the Israelis the F-​​20 Tigersharks. Have Northrop go into pro­duc­tion and make them, 2 squadrons. In my estimation,they are twice the F-​​14s, in speed and manuev­er­abil­ity, and they almost can’t be shot down by Sidewinders. If a pilot stops stunt fly­ing and lays it out in a straight plane, or bet­ter, a dive, the sidewinder can’t close the dis­tance. If they get close to the moun­tains or earth, the sidewinder gets con­fused at the heat sig­na­ture and plows into the ground. They fly 2.34 Mach, and they don’t lose speed in the turns like the Tomkats, which have 42% more weight. That’s their yahoo, the turns. The Tomkats in a tight turn will slow down. Also, the tight­est 90 degree turn is only made in 7 miles. The F-20’s can make them in 4, so whose bet­ter? The F-20’s. They’ll see them­selves invest­ing in an infe­rior fighter in replace­ment parts and seek new fight­ers, and Israel will stay safe for a long time.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage