- Thread starter
-
- #41
I know why our goverment is dumb and likes to waste money
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I know why our goverment is dumb and likes to waste moneyActually 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
No i haventNo. The F-14 was retired to save money.
I'm guessing you've never run a business, is that right?
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.I know why our goverment is dumb and likes to waste money
No i havent
I rather have minmal return then spend billions on something we didnt and dont needThem you should look up the term "return on investment".
At a certain point, diminishing returns make further investment unwise.
And trying to keep the 1960s era technology F-14 around is spending money on something we didn't and don't need!I rather have minmal return then spend billions on something we didnt and dont need
But it would be cheaper then buliding the F-18And trying to keep the 1960s era technology F-14 around is spending money on something we didn't and don't need!
Nope - ultimately sustainment costs would catch up to it because the airframe is obsolete and as previously mentioned is not maintenance friendly!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?But it would be cheaper then buliding the F-18
I rather have minmal return then spend billions on something we didnt and dont need
2 engines is better than 1You'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
2 is better because if one fails you can still make it home40 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
I dont trust single jet planesWhich 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
I dont trust single jet planes
I havent but 9 times out of 10 you wont make it in a single engine when it failsI didn't realize I was talking to a pilot, I'm sorry. How many have you flown?