F-14s returning to duty!
- Thread starter evangilder
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
hey, (ahem, cough) I knew it all along! ....... cough..........
Messy1
Master Sergeant
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
Banned
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.
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.
ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
TO
Matt308
Glock Perfection
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.
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
- Thread starter
- #31
evangilder
"Shooter"
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.
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.
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
Glock Perfection
I bet when he tells you we will all be shocked.
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
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
Glock Perfection
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
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
Master Sergeant
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.
