# F-14s returning to duty!



## evangilder (Jul 19, 2006)

Didn't we all say she still had some fight in her?


> By LAURENT L.N. BONCZIJK
> Of The News Register
> 
> The Evergreen Aviation Museum was poised today to take the first step toward addition of a choice piece to its collection - an F-14D Super Tomcat, the fighter plane Tom Cruise flew in the hit film "Top Gun."
> ...


News-Register.com


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2006)

Have to feel for the maintanence crews. They are in for a long tour.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Hell Yeah, Get some Tomcats!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Neilster (Jul 20, 2006)

Glider said:


> Have to feel for the maintanence crews. They are in for a long tour.



Ahh...they'll love it. There is great pride associated with keeping older aircraft serviceable. I know from experience.

I bet the guys who've spent years keeping F-14s flying are actually glad. It's a tough jet with an amazing presence and you become emotionally attached when your working live revolves around them.

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## R988 (Jul 20, 2006)

can't keep a good plane down I guess


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

My buddy who used to be a F-14 mechanic was estatic. He knew the old girl had it left in her.


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 20, 2006)

HOO YEAH!

Lovin it!


----------



## Neilster (Jul 21, 2006)

Yup. That is one tough jet.

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 25, 2006)

mmm purty!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 26, 2006)

the old dog's still got pretty much fight left in them...
let that rig age for 30 years then our air force will probably get it


----------



## solo (May 29, 2008)

One of the best......One of the kind


----------



## Trebor (May 29, 2008)

que Kenny Loggins!!


----------



## parsifal (May 30, 2008)

whats this "one of the best!!!!"....its THE best


----------



## Kruska (May 30, 2008)

Yes, Tomcat for ever.

It fully backs up my opinion which I forwarded under: Russia Loses the Quantity War. “F-4’s and F-14 could match any Russian aircraft at present”.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Thorlifter (May 30, 2008)

Here kitty kitty kitty!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2008)

As stated, can't keep a good jet down!!!!!


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 30, 2008)

Especially one made by Grumman!

Go Tomcat Go!

TO


----------



## timshatz (May 30, 2008)

It's kinda funny to watch them come in to land, gear down and all dirty. For all the world, they really do look like Turkeys.


----------



## fly boy (May 30, 2008)

yes yes yes f-14's going back into servie time to kick @$$ with that plane


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2008)

Flyboy look at when this post was started...

2006

The F-14 has been completely removed from service since then.


----------



## Trebor (May 30, 2008)

damn, now I feel like an idiot posting in an old thread >_<


----------



## timshatz (May 30, 2008)

Trebor said:


> damn, now I feel like an idiot posting in an old thread >_<



Hah! Don't worry about it, got more than one of us! 

Good one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2008)

hey, (ahem, cough) I knew it all along! ....... cough..........


----------



## Marcel (May 30, 2008)




----------



## Messy1 (May 30, 2008)

I read a interesting article a few years ago in I think in Flight Journal, before the Super Hornet came into service or shortly there after about upgrading the remaining Tomcats. Seems the author was not too impressed with the range and abilities of the Super Hornet, and basically considered them a step back from the Tomcat in many regards. I'll have to see if i can find the article and scan it. It was a interesting article. Not sure if there was any merit to it or not. could be a good discussion.


----------



## SoD Stitch (May 30, 2008)

Fortunately, I checked the date before I said anything . . . . .

Also, there's one inaccuracy in that original article (if someone else hasn't already pointed it out); I'm pretty sure the F-14's used in the film "Top Gun" were actually "A's". The "D" model wasn't in-service until 1991, and the movie was shot in '86. It couldn't even be a "B", those didn't enter service 'til '87.


----------



## Trebor (May 30, 2008)

so? still an F-14, and DAMN good movie!


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 30, 2008)

TO


----------



## Matt308 (May 30, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Fortunately, I checked the date before I said anything . . . . .
> 
> Also, there's one inaccuracy in that original article (if someone else hasn't already pointed it out); I'm pretty sure the F-14's used in the film "Top Gun" were actually "A's". The "D" model wasn't in-service until 1991, and the movie was shot in '86. It couldn't even be a "B", those didn't enter service 'til '87.




Thankyou. And those lamenting that the F-14 is "totally" superior to the F-18E/F is hanging onto memories. She served her day well and deserves the place in history that she commands. But without major upgrades to both avionics, powerplant, weapon systems she was destined for retirement.


----------



## Kruska (May 31, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Thankyou. And those lamenting that the F-14 is "totally" superior to the F-18E/F is hanging onto memories. She served her day well and deserves the place in history that she commands. But without major upgrades to both avionics, powerplant, weapon systems she was destined for retirement.



Yes, and these upgrades would be cheaper then to purchase a new F-18 or F-35 and just as effective IMO.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## evangilder (May 31, 2008)

Those upgrades would have been pretty expensive, and they would be going into an aging airframe. Cheaper than a new plane? Maybe, but you have to wonder about the risk of the aging airframe. 

Folks check the dates on these type of thread before replying. The F-14s did return to service briefly, _two years ago_. As of now, they are all destined for storage and/or the smelting pot, with a few static displays in various museum. The Tomcats had a good run, but they're history now, sadly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Yes, and these upgrades would be cheaper then to purchase a new F-18 or F-35 and just as effective IMO.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



The problem was not in the cost of the upgrades but the cost to keep the F-14 flying period.

The F-14 was an aging aircraft and they were breaking alot. It was expensive and difficult to keep them in the air. 

This guy I used to fly with, was in the Navy before he switched over to the Army. In the Navy he was an F-14 mechanic and it said it was a bitch to keep them up. They were time consuming and expensive.

I will have to ask him the number of hours of maint. for every hour of flight.


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2008)

I bet when he tells you we will all be shocked.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The problem was not in the cost of the upgrades but the cost to keep the F-14 flying period.
> 
> The F-14 was an aging aircraft and they were breaking alot. It was expensive and difficult to keep them in the air.
> 
> ...



Hello D.A.I.G.,

Off course elder a/c need more maintanance - flying hours are for sure more expensive, but would it still hold up a comparrison to 160 million $ for a new generation a/c.? which also has its maintanance and flying hours costs.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello D.A.I.G.,
> 
> Off course elder a/c need more maintanance - flying hours are for sure more expensive, but would it still hold up a comparrison to 160 million $ for a new generation a/c.? which also has its maintanance and flying hours costs.
> 
> ...



In the end yes. I am sure that if would could find out the maint hours per flying hours of an F-22 it would be far less than the F-14. 

Its the cycle of life for aircraft my friend...


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello D.A.I.G.,
> 
> Off course elder a/c need more maintanance - flying hours are for sure more expensive, but would it still hold up a comparrison to 160 million $ for a new generation a/c.? which also has its maintanance and flying hours costs.
> 
> ...



Okay Kruska, I'll play your game...

Your construct is that the battlefield is a one-on-one airframe vs airframe. That is juvenile in todays battlespace. Todays airbattle is not just about physical maneuverabilty. That was yesterday's battle. That was Korea. Today, we fight on the see-and-be-seen battlefield.

The F-22 is not the lame Dominatrix that you wish for your close range scenarios, but lacking specifics of the platforms of which you profess, I question their viability. Even given the Meteor BVRAAM without a Tornado AESA, the F-22 is a net-centric capable aircraft operating similar to an AWACS that allows force multiplication with existing aircraft (F-15, F-16, Eurofighter, F-35, Predator, Reaper, etc). And for us engineering [wink, wink, nod, nod] name droppers, supercruise, AESA, LINK16, SDR, and SDB make the F-22a force to be reckoned with.

Bring your [whatever acronym you quote) GAF Tornado to this fight. I'm sure that our mutual NATO friends would choose an F-22 anytime. And cost? You get what you pay for.

Perhaps she's a Cold War relic, but her capabilities are unparalleled.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello D.A.I.G.,
> 
> Off course elder a/c need more maintanance - flying hours are for sure more expensive, but would it still hold up a comparrison to 160 million $ for a new generation a/c.? which also has its maintanance and flying hours costs.
> 
> ...



Yes - you'd be surprised how quickly you could piss away 160 million in maintenance costs on a 25 year old airframe, and the newer aircraft will always be cheaper to operate, especially in the first 5 years.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes - you'd be surprised how quickly you could piss away 160 million in maintenance costs on a 25 year old airframe, and the newer aircraft will always be cheaper to operate, especially in the first 5 years.



Hello FLYBOY,

I wouldn't know about USAF or USN maintenance costs calculation in contra to new generation aircraft, but obviously Germany and other NATO members have come to a different conclusion.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay Kruska, I'll play your game...



Hello Matt,

Maybe we got off on the wrong foot,

I never said the F-22 is no good, useless or lame. I said very clearly = it is a very good aircraft , but a RaSigma enhanced Tornado can do the job as well, and in view of tracking range capability it would even outmatch a F-22. Therefore the Tornado could match an F-22. I never said the Tornado is better then an F-22.

So now after having hopefully clarified this matter let us go and look at the whole picture.

1. Comparison: 
Europe or Germany needs sooner or later a new generation a/c if we conclude that a Eurofighter (EF) still can be regarded or referred to as a 4th generation aircraft. So what makes a 5th generation a/c? If one would compare a EF and an F-22 (supercruise, AESA, JTRS - LINK16replacement and TTNT (EF-R2 Retrofit) are common to both, only the IFDL would be solely F-22) it would come down to stealth enhanced capabilities. Both aircraft use indigenous RAM materials, Hotspots are reduced or disabled by various structural incorporations such as deep lying engines, canopy redesigns or elec. emissions, IR reductions, etc. etc.

Main stealth advantage and mission disadvantage for the F-22 is the internal weapon bay. Combat calculations against a Su35 show a 10.1:1 for the F-22 and an 8.5:1 for the EF. For a RaSigma Tornado it is 7.6:1, (before 4.8:1)for a RaSigma EF it is 9.4:1 so let the F22 enjoy the 0.7 lead which reduces a 260 million $ aircraft to a single role, okay plus mini AWACS function.

How many Su27-35’s or equivalents are there in order to justify a 10.1, or 7.6:1 or 9.7:1, well not enough for 100 GAFTornados or 160 GAF EF’s or 300+ EF’s.
Conclusion a 7.6:1 RS Tornado can fulfill the job just as well, even though a 10.1:1 is much better to have.
http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf this report will be hard to read for an F-22 hardliner, some critics have been taken up into the program – which will make the F-22 cost even more then the present 260m$.

Conclusion: the F-22 plays its trump card in the field of stealth. For this it pays a heavy price in $$, mission capability and robbing F-15’s/18’s the chance for upgrades.

2. RaSigma:
View attachment 64047


Just for fun:
View attachment 64050


Now, all stealth factors, plus EMI, Radar emission, IR, mission configuration RCS and in service RCS etc. are based on calculation formulas and can only be verified – controlled by fly by maneuvers – actual radar pickups. These are expensive, time wise not manageable and a 360 degree pickup and evaluation is not possible. Damages, weathered surfaces can only be verified by actual RCS pickup, the source for enlarged RCS can only be pinpointed in painstaking/time-consuming manual inspection, cross interference on electronically equipment and antenna positioning underlie the same factors.
Conclusion: all stealthy factors are pure theory, ex works designer table and mockup scale model evaluations and do not apply in practical usage per aircraft. So by the time the F-22 pilot finds out his aircraft is not “invisible” it’s too late. 

RaSigma is the answer to upgrade the stealth capabilities of existing aircraft in 1:1 real mode, therefore enhance the doctrine first look – first shoot. It is far cheaper to upgrade an existing even older aircraft and to enhance its capabilities to a certain degree then building a new aircraft based on theoretical values. Off course a new generation fighter would have the additional advantage of the RaSigma platform – which right now only Germany/Europe possesses. 
So the 7.6:1 or the 9.4:1 is based on proven RCS due to RaSigma, the F-22’s 10.1:1 is based on RCS theory values.

Final conclusion: Europe or Germany is actually not interested in building an F-22 or a 5th generation aircraft. The money will be used to develop UCAV’s for 2020-40, and it will be this technology that an F-22 will have to face in its upcoming service live of 20-40 years. In the meantime RaSigma will do its best to upgrade existing a/c’s such as a Tornado or Eurofighter to close the gap. 

Now to make all F-22 enthusiasts happy: the F-22 will defeat a Tornado clearly, it will have a hard stand against an RS EF, but right now we (Europe/Germany) do not see the US as our enemy, so it is not about the F-22 against Europe but – F-22 against Su27-35’s. So the F-22 is a very good aircraft, but the Tornado or Eurofighter can do the job just as well.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 2, 2008)

I am sure the maintenance of the F-14's would be a nightmare, along with replacement parts. I think the author of the article was down on the cost of the Super Hornet, and the distance and amount of ordinance the Hornet could carry vs. the F-14. I believe the author's opinion was that the Super Hornet was just a plane good enough to get by until something much better comes along. I have not read up much on the Super Hornet, so this is not my opinion. I also may be a little biased as I, along with many others it seems, loved the F-14.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> I wouldn't know about USAF or USN maintenance costs calculation in contra to new generation aircraft, but obviously Germany and other NATO members have come to a different conclusion.


Probably because they put less hours on their aircraft. When you have a high performance combat aircraft with a lot of time on the airframe, mod programs become more and more difficult as you'll find your self fixing things that were not anticipated begin broke and the best maintenance programs in the world will not catch everything until you start ripping the aircraft apart and look and spaces that would normally never be accessed.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Probably because they put less hours on their aircraft. When you have a high performance combat aircraft with a lot of time on the airframe, mod programs become more and more difficult as you'll find your self fixing things that were not anticipated begin broke and the best maintenance programs in the world will not catch everything until you start ripping the aircraft apart and look and spaces that would normally never be accessed.



Yes agreed, but don't forget that the upgrading does not take place soley on 25 year or 15 year old Tornados in service, but mostly by using preserved or stored airframes.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Yes agreed, but don't forget that the upgrading does not take place soley on 25 year or 15 year old Tornados in service, but mostly by using preserved or stored airframes.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



That would make a big difference, especially if they are low time airframes.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That would make a big difference, especially if they are low time airframes.



I wouldn't know about the USAF, but requisition for GAF aircrafts such as F-104, Alpha Jet, Tornado and Eurofighter require a standard supplement of 15-20% on stored (never used) airframes and about 15% on interim stored aircrafts (after block upgrades) - usually after a service period of less then 5 years. The Tornado so far was exeptional that no upgrades were undertaken for almost 15 years.

Therefore the quantity stored (of never used) was still within 60 airframes and 45 interim frames. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

Interesting....


----------

