[skidmarksdiecast]

I was watching Modern Marvels on History Channel last night --the episode on the F-14. The images of the F-14 being stripped down and scrapped just seemed down right wrong. I don't quite understand the logic of leaving the Navy without an Air Superiority fighter but, then again, I'm no military expert. It just seems like such a total waste to scrap the F-14-- a fighter that should have had another 20 years of service ahead of it.

[SKUNKY]

The government had to strip them down so they could sell the parts to the Iranians..

[DADoser]

I just caught the last couple minutes of that show before Dogfights. The line that hit me (and was kind of sad in a way) was:

"You'll never know if the aluminium body of the car you are driving or the soda can you are drinking from, was once used to defend the skies...." (I know that's not the exact quote - but pretty close.)

Really made me pause and think.

[skidmarksdiecast]

Originally Posted by DADoser

I just caught the last couple minutes of that show before Dogfights. The line that hit me (and was kind of sad in a way) was:

"You'll never know if the aluminium body of the car you are driving or the soda can you are drinking from, was once used to defend the skies...." (I know that's not the exact quote - but pretty close.)

Really made me pause and think.

Yup, but it's a little comforting to know that the survivors have retired in sunny AZ and are located just a few miles (or so) down the road at Davis Monthan.

[admin]

Originally Posted by skidmarksdiecast

Yup, but it's a little comforting to know that the survivors have retired in sunny AZ and are located just a few miles (or so) down the road at Davis Monthan.

A few miles?.......I think that I'd eat my lunch there everyday!!!!

[skysurfer808]

Nope, and the main reason they're scrapping them is that the Pentagon's spare parts office is too incompetent to keep the parts from falling into the wrong hands.

Also, the Navy doesn't want to have spare Tomcats lying around to justify their being upgraded, hence the scrapping contract.

Yes, the Tomcat is old, and had serious maintenance, flight hour issues. But look at the B-52 and A-10. Both are older then the F-14, yet both will soldier on. Our main tactical airlifter is the C-130, which is a 1950s design, as is the B-52. The A-10 is of a similar vintage and yet will soldier on for another 20 years. The F-15 is also of a similar vintage, yet will continue in service for as long as the A-10. So why is it that the F-14 was singled out for destruction. I don't buy the money argument. Rather, it is a case of bureaucratic vendettas at their very worse. The Navy wants to justify the Super Hornet, the only way it can do so is to cite a need for new aircraft. Nevermind that Grumman offerred a contract for the Tomcat back in the early 90s that would have given a similar price point for the Super Tom, and reduced maintenance hours to boot. The real reason the Tomcat was killed can be laid at the feet of the Hornet mafia, bean counters, and pure politics. Grumman was from a heavily Democratic district, McDonnell Douglas is from Missouri....which is as Republican as they come. There's also Dick Cheney's decision to zero out Tomcat funding in favor of the Super Hornet, and finally, there's Tailhook, which doomed Naval aviation's budget with the Clinton Administration. Had this chain of events not occurred, Tomcats would still be flying off carriers today. This, as much as cost question, is why the Tomcat is now being destroyed.

Skysurfer808

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by skysurfer808

Nope, and the main reason they're scrapping them is that the Pentagon's spare parts office is too incompetent to keep the parts from falling into the wrong hands.

Also, the Navy doesn't want to have spare Tomcats lying around to justify their being upgraded, hence the scrapping contract.

Yes, the Tomcat is old, and had serious maintenance, flight hour issues. But look at the B-52 and A-10. Both are older then the F-14, yet both will soldier on. Our main tactical airlifter is the C-130, which is a 1950s design, as is the B-52. The A-10 is of a similar vintage and yet will soldier on for another 20 years. The F-15 is also of a similar vintage, yet will continue in service for as long as the A-10. So why is it that the F-14 was singled out for destruction. I don't buy the money argument. Rather, it is a case of bureaucratic vendettas at their very worse. The Navy wants to justify the Super Hornet, the only way it can do so is to cite a need for new aircraft. Nevermind that Grumman offerred a contract for the Tomcat back in the early 90s that would have given a similar price point for the Super Tom, and reduced maintenance hours to boot. The real reason the Tomcat was killed can be laid at the feet of the Hornet mafia, bean counters, and pure politics. Grumman was from a heavily Democratic district, McDonnell Douglas is from Missouri....which is as Republican as they come. There's also Dick Cheney's decision to zero out Tomcat funding in favor of the Super Hornet, and finally, there's Tailhook, which doomed Naval aviation's budget with the Clinton Administration. Had this chain of events not occurred, Tomcats would still be flying off carriers today. This, as much as cost question, is why the Tomcat is now being destroyed.

Skysurfer808

The politicization of procurement of military hardware is a particularly disturbing issue that regrettably is all too prevalent and has been a fact throughout history. Regrettably, those who play such ‘political games’ are usually never the ones to face the direct consequences of their actions, which are usually borne by the poor sods on the ground (or pilot’s seat) who find themselves outmatched by foes with superior technology …

[slammin]

Yes, it should have been retired, but it should have been replaced by something better than the super hornet.

I love the tomcat. I doubt there will be a better looking airplane produced. But it was an older airplane that required a lot of maintenance. Two big advantages of the Tomcat over the super hornet are its radar and its range. It's hard to say that the tomcat is a better long range interceptor given the unreliability of the aging phoenix missle. The super hornet is a lot more flexible in terms of avionics and weapons options and costs less to maintain. So basically are radar and range a trade off for flexibility and cost? With no other countries fielding much of a bule water navy (until china gears up), the argument could be made in favor of the flexibility and cost.

All that being said, I still think the tomcat looks awesome, was a great airplane for its time, and should have been replaced by somthing more intimidating than the super hornet.

[VMF115]

I love the F-14 and I think it should have been upgraded.

[1250ships]

The Super Hornet ain't perfect but the Tomcats were logging too many hours in the hanger being repaired. The folks that had to fix them were happy to see them go. Perhaps things would have been different if there was still the threat of massive Backfire strikes.

The other Tomcat vintage or older aircraft cited in this thread have one advantage over the Tomcat. They are land based and there are essentially no limits to the amount of space available to work on the planes and stock spare parts. They also don't have to smash into a carrier deck after every flight.