Tomcat forever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VA5124]

Actually the B-52 flown since the 50s. It was a bomber and had an entirely different mission that lended itself to be continually overhauled and there has been consideration to replace it. You're comparing apples to oranges. The F-14 is now an obsolete design and again I showed you quite clearly why it's no longer in service. I liked the Tomcat (and still do) but you have to grasp reality, put your testosterone in check and have the intelligence and maturity to recognize you cannot justify your argument. I suggest you, on your own and with an open mind, examine WHY the Navy decided to retire the F-14, (and understand why the F/A-18 not only replaced the F-14 but at least 3 other airframes) you might learn something.

I know why our goverment is dumb and likes to waste money

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know why our goverment is dumb and likes to waste money

No. The F-14 was retired to save money.

I'm guessing you've never run a business, is that right?

 

[VA5124]

No. The F-14 was retired to save money.

I'm guessing you've never run a business, is that right?

No i havent

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I know why our goverment is dumb and likes to waste money

This has NOTHING to do with the "government" being dumb. It was about highly educated naval officers realizing the F-14 was OBSOLETE and taking steps to ensure our navy continued to have the best combat aircraft available and operating those aircraft cost effectively.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No i havent

Them you should look up the term "return on investment".

At a certain point, diminishing returns make further investment unwise.

 

[VA5124]

Them you should look up the term "return on investment".

At a certain point, diminishing returns make further investment unwise.

I rather have minmal return then spend billions on something we didnt and dont need

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I rather have minmal return then spend billions on something we didnt and dont need

And trying to keep the 1960s era technology F-14 around is spending money on something we didn't and don't need!

 

[VA5124]

And trying to keep the 1960s era technology F-14 around is spending money on something we didn't and don't need!

But it would be cheaper then buliding the F-18

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But it would be cheaper then buliding the F-18

Nope - ultimately sustainment costs would catch up to it because the airframe is obsolete and as previously mentioned is not maintenance friendly! You would also be putting a 1960s design airframe up against more modern end aerodynamically efficient generation 4 and 5 aircraft. Would you want to fly an aircraft designed in the late 1960s against an Su57?

Again, you're making statements by just shooting from the hip!

The F/A-18 in later blocks replaced the F-14, A-6, EA-6 and as a tanker the S-3. Do you want to discuss how much each one of those aircraft cost to build and maintain?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I rather have minmal return then spend billions on something we didnt and dont need

You'd rather throw money away on a weapons-system that cannot reliably fight the current fighters of our prospective opponents, nor perform other missions efficiently, thereby allowing cost-cutting across the board?

How is that smart money? Go ahead, pay for two crew, two engines, complicated wings. Let's see how many airplanes you get, and how useful they actually are in 2022.

Let me go crack open a beer. This should be interesting.

 

[VA5124]

You'd rather throw money away on a weapons-system that cannot reliably fight the current fighters of our prospective opponents, nor perform other missions efficiently, allowing cost-cutting across the board?

How is that smart money? Go ahead, pay for two crew, two engines, complicated wings. Let's see how many airplanes you get, and how useful they actually are in 2022.

Let me go crack open a beer. This should be interesting.

2 engines is better than 1

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

2 engines is better than 1

40 years ago. Time and engine tech both move on. This ain't 1975.

 

[VA5124]

40 years ago. Time and engine tech both move on. This ain't 1975.

2 is better because if one fails you can still make it home

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

2 is better because if one fails you can still make it home

Which is why I mentioned that engine tech has moved on. They're much more reliable now. Check it out.

 

[VA5124]

Which is why I mentioned that engine tech has moved on. They're much more reliable now. Check it out.

I dont trust single jet planes

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, reading up to compare Phoenix and AMRAAM, I learned that the -120 can sense when it's being jammed, and then switch from active to passive-homing to kill the jammer (on the assumption that the jammer is probably the target anyway). That's some stupendous cool.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I dont trust single jet planes

I didn't realize I was talking to a pilot, I'm sorry. How many have you flown?

 

[wuzak]

I dont trust single jet planes

Luckily the F/A-18 A/B Hornet and F-18E/F Super Hornet have two!

 

[VA5124]

I didn't realize I was talking to a pilot, I'm sorry. How many have you flown?

I havent but 9 times out of 10 you wont make it in a single engine when it fails

 

[wuzak]

As an aside, should the F-18E/F have received a new designation, considering that it is quite a bit larger than the legacy F/A-18s.