Comments on: Why F-14s Must be Crushed

By: CPU64

CPU64 — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:09:21 +0000

Since everyone is talking about destroying my favorite man made machine, how about they give me one so I can display it in my front yard??? That cool?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:51:56 +0000

I think you underestimate the Tomcat completely. In a dogfight, an old Tomcat with a so-so pilot would most likely beat a well piloted Super Hornet. The design of the F-14 was and still is, nothing short of spectacular. This is why the DoD was so terrified of the Iranians having access to all of the spare parts. We ascertained that the Hornet drivers we would require to go up against these Tomcats, as old as they are, would have to be quite literally, "the best of the best" in order to ensure absolute victory, assuming of course that the Iranian pilots flying these "A' series Tomcats are at least halfway decently skilled. The primary reasons the DoD decided to retire the Navy's fleet of F-14D's were because of maintenance time issues and avionics upgradability. My advice is to give the F-14D's back to Locheed-Grumman and have them redesigned for better maintenance, just like the Hornets, give them also the most modern avionics, and design a bunch of room for future upgrading as well. Call it the F-14E, "Super Tomcat III", and I guarantee anyone would think not twice, but three or four times about engaging one in battle. Most people are unaware that the "D" model Tomcats literally pushed Mach 3, and if the engines weren't "governed" for lack of a better word, they would break up after that. At the time they were retired, they were the fastest fighters in the world! Don't get me wrong; the Super Hornet is a great fighter. But a totally new, re-vamped, completely re-engineered Tomcat would splash one almost every time if they were ever found in a dogfight against one another. It was all about money, that's all, plain and simple!!!! I was so very sad to see them go!!

By: Bob Tiller

Bob Tiller — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:02:42 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:20:24 +0000

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.

By: andy hunter

andy hunter — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:06:51 +0000

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

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:43:41 +0000

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."

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:41:03 +0000

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.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 05:12:49 +0000

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.

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:25:40 +0000

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.

By: doubtsoft

doubtsoft — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:46:21 +0000

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”.