In the 1970s, the United States had three revolutionary fighters enter service in the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Today, two of these platforms remain not only in service, but in production, with only the Top Gun F-14 relegated to museum duty.
Today, plenty of airplane nerds (like this author) still count the F-14 Tomcat among their favorite aircraft of all time… so what gives? Why was Maverick’s ride not only retired early by very literally being fed into the industrial shredder while the Eagle and Viper continue to roll off assembly lines to this day?
The truth is, the F-14 Tomcat was a highly advanced fighter that was really purpose-built for a world-ending nuclear conflict. When you look back on the program, its challenges, and subsequent solutions, the image becomes a bit clearer. The F-14 made sense when we were on the verge of World War III… but without a Soviet boogeyman to keep Uncle Sam’s pocketbook upturned and shaking, it became an incredibly expensive and sometimes problematic solution to a problem nobody had anymore. And to make matters worse, only a portion of the F-14 fleet was ever as capable as most of the world believed.
But to be completely clear, it was still one hell of a jet.
The F-14 Tomcat’s target was Soviet bombers
The Grumman F-14 Tomcat was an incredibly capable aircraft, and with good reason. In an era before Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) had matured into the go-to nuclear weapon delivery vehicle they would become, the Tomcat was designed in large part to neuter the Soviet Union’s most potent means of putting nukes on American soil; their fleet of strategic bombers.
In the present tense, the idea of a foreign power flying bombers over the continental United States seems practically impossible, thanks is no small part to America’s broad military footprint, advanced detection technology, and today’s geopolitical climate. That wasn’t the case at the peak of the Cold War. The threat posed by Soviet long-range bombers was so dire, in fact, that before air-to-air missiles had become prevalent in the 1960s, the U.S. actually developed a rocket-propelled air-to-air nuclear weapon that would wipe out entire formations with a single launch.
With the threat of Soviet bombers armed with nuclear weapons or anti-ship missiles at the forefront of their minds, Grumman designed the largest and heaviest carrier fighter in history, with a fair amount of that weight dedicated to the new Phoenix missile and the onboard systems required to leverage it. When fueled up and ready to go, the F-14 weighed in at 61,000 pounds, which is almost twice that of the future F/A-18 and quite a bit more than twice the weight of a fully-fueled F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Despite all of that heft, the Tomcat still needed to be fast, so Grumman paired the F-14 with Pratt & Whitney’s TF30 engines originally fitted to the F-111B they had failed to sell the Navy on. Each engine could produce 14,560 pounds of thrust under military power, with the afterburner kicking output up to 25,100 pounds. All told, the F-14 could use that combined 50,000+ pounds of thrust to push the aircraft to an astonishing Mach 2.3, and its variable-sweep wing design gave it excellent handling at both the low speeds required for carrier landings and the high speeds needed to intercept Ivan before he could deploy his anti-ship missiles toward an American carrier.
Thanks to that variable-sweep wing design, the F-14 could turn tighter than most of its capable 4th generation competition, including the small and nimble F-16 under the right circumstances. That meant it could not only cover ground quickly to engage Soviet bombers, the Tomcat really could dogfight and win if called upon to do so.
Related: Genie: The air-to-air nuke that would have taken out entire bomber fleets
“A nice aircraft powered by two pieces of junk.”
For all its capability, the Tomcat could also be troublesome. The TF30 engines were indeed powerful, but they were also arguably too sensitive for the job. They’d been designed for an even heavier application in the 80,000 pound F-111B, but that platform was more bomber than fighter. Bombers need powerful engines to carry their payloads at combat speeds, but they also have very different flight envelopes than fighters.
When operated at high angles of attack, or when the pilot adjusted the throttle position quickly (both common facets of the air combat the jet was built for but uncommon in bomber missions), the engines were prone to compressor stalls. This issue led some to call the Tomcat, “a nice aircraft powered by two pieces of junk.”
“From the very start you essentially teach the pilots to fly the engine as a priority over flying the airplane,” Capt. Lee Tillotson, the Navy’s F14 program coordinator, told the Washington Post in 1984.
“The pilot has to be very aware of what he does with the throttle at all times.”
More troubling still, with the engines mounted a vast nine feet apart to allow for greater lift and more weapons carriage space, a stall in one engine could throw the aircraft into an often unrecoverable flat spin. These issues led to the loss of a whopping 40 F-14s in all.
But it wasn’t just the stall issue plaguing the engine’s in Maverick’s ride. The turbine blades inside the engine were also prone to failure long before their anticipated service life expired, causing catastrophic damage to the engine and putting pilots’ lives at risk.
Navy Secretary John F. Lehman Jr. went on to say the TF30 engine “in the F-14 is probably the worst engine-airplane mismatch we have had in many years. The TF30 engine is just a terrible engine and has accounted for 28.2 percent of all F14 crashes.”
Today, we may look back on the F-14 with wistful awe, remembering how it was the only fighter that could stand toe-to-toe with the (fictional) MiG-28. But when it was in service, not everybody loved the Tomcat.
“The sooner we are out of it, the happier I will be,” Lehman told Congress in 1984. “I guess the good news is that all the Iranian F-14s have the TF30, too.”
In 1987, F-14s began receiving new engines in the General Electric F110, which offered more thrust and eliminated many of the reliability problems associated with the TF30. These improved F-14Bs and the subsequent F-14Ds were very much the Tomcat of Top Gun fame, and as a result, you’ll often find Tomcat fans dismissing the TF30’s woes as a problem specific to the F-14A in the early days of operation.
The truth is, a yoyoing budget made the transition from the TF30 to the F110 slow going. By 1996, nine years after the F110 entered service in the F-14, the Navy F-14 fleet included just 126 Tomcats with the new GE engines, while the other 212 were still flying on the troublesome TF30. In fact, F-14A’s running the TF30 were still flying for the Navy until as late as 2004.
Related: F-14 Tomcat: Iran’s best fighter jet used to be America’s Top Gun
The problem with a variable-sweep wing design
The F-14’s variable-sweep wing design is one of the aircraft’s most striking visual characteristics, and there’s no denying that the premise behind it makes sense. The wings could vary from 20° to 68° while airborne to allow for the best possible flight characteristics at both low and high speeds. Wing positioning was controlled automatically by the Central Air Data Computer onboard, ensuring the wings were positioned for the best possible lift-to-drag ratio for each situation, but they could also be controlled manually by the pilot.
As you can imagine, a system that capable and advanced was not only complicated and heavy, it also required quite a bit of upkeep. Depending on the Navy estimate, the F-14 Tomcat required between 30 and 60 hours of maintenance for every one hour it spent in the air. The high prices associated with maintaining the complicated sweep-wing systems is often cited as one of the most pressing reasons for the Tomcat’s early retirement when compared to its American fighter peers.
But while maintenance costs may have been the biggest issue with the F-14’s wings, price wasn’t the only thing people complained about.
While adjustments to wing position were rapid and automatic, pilots training against Tomcats in F-15s and F-16s soon began reporting that the shifts in wing position helped them quickly assess the F-14’s energy state and momentum during maneuvers. Like a boxer telegraphing his punch, the F-14 Tomcat telegraphed its maneuvers, making them easier for skilled and experienced opponents to read and predict.
Related: MiG-28: ‘Top Gun’s’ fictional Cold War killer
The Phoenix missile wasn’t much use against fighters
Had the Navy been forced to put their F-14s in to combat, it’s likely the branch would have lost more aircraft to engine failures than it would have to enemy fire, and even its incredible Phoenix missile was unlikely to change that fact.
While later F-14 iterations like the F-14B and F-14D came with better engines, a digital cockpit, and improved avionics, a good portion of the fleet operated sub-standard TF30 engines for the majority of the fighter’s service life. These jets were limited to just 6.5G maneuvers in order to alleviate concerns about the compressor stalls in the engines, but that put the Tomcat at a distinct disadvantage against modern fighters like the F-15, which were rated to exceed 9 Gs. Some, however, still contended that the F-14 Tomcat didn’t need to be acrobatic thanks to it’s amazing new weapon system: the Phoenix missile.
The famed AIM-54 Phoenix missile and AN/AWG-9 radar developed specifically to leverage it really does deserve the respect its gained over the years. The AN/AWG-9 radar could identify and track up to six targets from 100 miles out, and when armed with six AIM-54 Pheonix missiles, the F-14 could deploy all of its weapons in just 38 seconds. It was an air-to-air weapon without equal in its day, but it just wasn’t really intended for use against enemy fighters.
The AIM-54 Phoenix was 13 feet long, 15 inches in diameter, and technically had a maximum range of 125 miles (though targeting was limited to 100). It was dropped like a bomb before igniting its massive engine, which would immediately propel the missile up to 80,000 feet where it would close with its target and use its kinetic energy to guide it down into its intended target. This approach to long-range engagements would work against large, slow moving, prop-driven bombers like those employed by the Soviet Union, but weren’t much use against faster and more nimble fighters. Covering such long distances just gave enemy fighters too much opportunity to recognize that they were targetted and take sufficient evasive action.
In January of 1999, two F-14s each fired one Phoenix missile at two Iraqi MiG-25s, only to have both miss. Later that same year, another F-14 fired a Phoenix at a MiG-23, only to miss once again. No F-14 ever shot down an enemy aircraft with the missile it was designed to carry.
Related: Sea Eagle: America’s plan to put the F-15 on aircraft carriers
The F-14 made the F-35 seem like a bargain
When we hear discussion about the F-14 being an expensive aircraft, it almost rings hallow in this era of trillion-dollar fighter programs like Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but just like it’s hard to compare box office returns for movies released decades apart, inflation has a way of robbing the shock value from dated figures. So, in the interest of context, let’s convert these F-14 price points to 2021 figures.
The Navy’s first batch of F-14As rang in at $38 million per aircraft in 1973. That sounds pretty cheap compared to around $88 million for a new F-15EX these days, but when you adjust that number to reflect nearly five decades of inflation, you get a downright shocking figure of more than $234 million per F-14 Tomcat.
The F-35’s initial production run per-unit cost was also quite high, but still more than $10 million less than the Tomcat, at $221 million per fighter. By 1988, 13 years later, the F-14D cost $74 million per airframe, which adjusted for inflation brings the Tomcat’s price down to $171 million per aircraft in today’s dollars. Last year marked 13 years since the F-35’s first production batch, with per-unit prices of the F-35A now at around $78 million per airframe–$93 million less than the F-14 per jet.
When you see these numbers for what they really are, you begin to appreciate just how potent a threat the United States saw Soviet bombers to be. These prices were considered justifiable as a means of staving off the end of the world, but after the fall of the Soviet Union, the apocalypse seemed to be on hold for the foreseeable future.
Related: What went wrong? How the F-35 got to be so expensive
The F-14 Tomcat was anything but junk
If you started reading this article with a special place in your heart reserved for the F-14, you may be grinding your teeth by now–but it’s important to remember that being expensive and problematic doesn’t mean the Tomcat wasn’t also a mind-boggling performer with no real peer in its era. Again, it pays to draw comparisons between Maverick’s fighter and the modern F-35.
Today, you don’t have to go far to find people calling the F-35 a failure because of cost over-runs, production delays, and some early reports of the fighter’s poor performance against older jets. The people you won’t find calling the F-35 a failure, however, are the men and women who fly the 5th-generation power house in combat. The F-35 is just too different to grade using the same metrics we use for fighters like the F-15. It relies on technology, not brute force, to win fights–and effective as that approach may be, it doesn’t make for exciting press releases.
The F-14 Tomcat also had a troubled development run and sometimes got beat up by America’s other fighters in wargames, but like the F-35… it was built to do things no other fighter was capable of doing at the time.
When the F-14 first took to the skies, it was bigger, heavier, and could carry more ordnance than any carrier fighter in history. It could track and engage enemy bombers from triple-digit ranges in a time when many national Air Forces were still focused on guns and cannons for air-to-air fighting. Through subsequent upgrades, it was on the cutting edge of avionic systems and eventually even picked up respectable air-to-ground capabilities like its multi-role peers.
But reaching so far ahead is expensive… and ultimately, it’s dollars and cents that dictate the makeup of America’s fighter fleets. Could the F-14 have been modernized, upgraded, and improved to still be flying today? Of course it could. But like the bringing the F-22 Raptor back from the dead… sometimes it would cost more to keep a really good older fighter than it would cost to design and build a great new one. The F-14 may have had a short shelf-life compared to some of its sister jets of the 70s, but there’s no denying… the mighty Tomcat’s presence had lasting effects on Naval aviation and even on foreign relations around the world.
The F-15 and F-16 may have gotten to stick around longer, but the F-14 will always be the Top Gun for some of us.
The real answer is because Cheney hated Grumman.
Thank u Jared – u are dead on – the writer of this shit is completely wrong – the proud son of a Grumman Airframe Engineer- dad worked on the Tom Airframe among others but now deceased so I speak 4 him
Touche. Sound arguments. Keep up the great work.
my webpage; cycling diet
Wow, superb blog format! How long have you been running
a blog for? you made running a blog look easy.
The overall glance of your website is great, as neatly as the content material!
my page understand lucid dreaming
I wanted to compose a small note to say thanks to you for all the awesome tricks you are posting
here. My considerable internet lookup has now been honored with useful
concept to talk about with my friends and classmates.
I would suppose that many of us visitors actually are unequivocally blessed to be in a fabulous network with many marvellous people
with very beneficial advice. I feel quite blessed to have used
your entire website and look forward to tons of more fabulous
minutes reading here. Thanks a lot once more for everything.
My blog post – top skin care
Hi, I do think this is an excellent website. I stumbledupon it 😉 I may revisit once again since i
have book-marked it. Money and freedom is the greatest way
to change, may you be rich and continue to help other people.
My web page :: sex party
Hey are using WordPress for your blog platform?
I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and set up my own. Do you need any html coding knowledge to make your
own blog? Any help would be really appreciated!
my web site :: monthly income
What’s up mates, how is everything, and what you want to say about
this article, in my view its really amazing designed for me.
Check out my blog post … https://imperios6.com
An interesting discussion is definitely worth comment.
There’s no doubt that that you need to write more on this issue, it may
not be a taboo matter but generally folks don’t discuss such issues.
To the next! Many thanks!!
Review my web blog … indoor growing mini-course
Nice read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was
doing a little research on that. And he just bought me lunch since I found it for him smile Therefore let me rephrase
that: Thanks for lunch!
Look into my web site: weight loss plateau
Hello.This article was extremely fascinating, especially because I was looking for thoughts on this
issue last Wednesday.
My site: https://bibliodigital.escoladocaminho.com/
I as well as my friends have been looking through the good items found on the website and unexpectedly
came up with an awful suspicion I had not expressed respect to the website owner for them.
My young boys ended up for this reason passionate to
see them and have in fact been enjoying them.
Thanks for indeed being so thoughtful and also for getting this form
of great guides most people are really desperate to learn about.
My very own sincere regret for not expressing appreciation how to make a man orgasm earlier.
Hi! I could have sworn I?ve been to this web site before but after going through
some of the posts I realized it?s new to me. Anyways, I?m certainly delighted I stumbled upon it and
I?ll be bookmarking it and checking back regularly!
My web-site: upcoming travel
I enjoy you because of all of your hard work on this blog.
Ellie really loves managing investigations and it is easy to see why.
All of us notice all relating to the lively mode you offer both interesting and useful tricks
by means of this website and even boost response from others about this situation while our own daughter is certainly studying a lot of things.
Take advantage of the rest of the year. Your carrying out a very
good job.[X-N-E-W-L-I-N-S-P-I-N-X]I’m really impressed together with your writing abilities as
smartly as with the layout on your weblog. Is that
this a paid subject matter or did you customize it yourself?
Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it’s uncommon to see a great
blog like this one these days.
my site mybbplugins.com
This design is steller! You certainly know
how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your
videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Wonderful job.
I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.
Too cool!
Feel free to surf to my blog; holiday weight loss
Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.
Look advanced to far added agreeable from you!
By the way, how can we communicate?
My blog – 98e.fun
Hi there! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords
but I’m not seeing very good gains. If you know of any please share.
Cheers!
Visit my page: build muscle diet
I’ve been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality
articles or blog posts in this sort of house . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this site.
Studying this info So i’m glad to exhibit that I’ve an incredibly
excellent uncanny feeling I found out just what I needed.
I such a lot without a doubt will make sure to don’t overlook
this site and provides it a look on a continuing basis.
Look into my homepage seeds starts
I like this weblog very much so much wonderful information.
my web page – https://xld-zm.com
Hi I am so delighted I found your webpage, I really found you by error, while I was researching on Aol for
something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to say cheers for a marvelous post and a all
round enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design),
I don?t have time to read through it all at the minute but I have
saved it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will
be back to read more, Please do keep up the fantastic
jo.
My blog :: healthy eating habits
Very good information. Lucky me I discovered your
site by accident (stumbleupon). I have saved as a favorite for later!
Incredible quest there. What happened after? Good luck!
Hey there would you mind letting me know which web host you’re utilizing?
I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different internet browsers and I must say
this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you recommend a good
web hosting provider at a honest price? Cheers, I appreciate it!
If some one desires expert view about running a blog after that i recommend him/her to pay a quick visit this
website, Keep up the fastidious job.
Hi there! This post couldn’t be written much better! Reading through this post reminds
me of my previous roommate! He continually kept
preaching about this. I will forward this information to him.
Pretty sure he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!
Hello! Quick question that’s completely off topic.
Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly?
My web site looks weird when viewing from my apple iphone.
I’m trying to find a theme or plugin that might be able to fix this problem.
If you have any suggestions, please share. Thank you!
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my site
thus i came to “return the favor”.I’m trying to find things to improve my website!I suppose its ok
to use some of your ideas!!
I worked on the DFCS for the F14 to extend its life.
I am just curious as to why there is so much talk about the Pheonix missles on f-14s. It almost seems like the 14s never had sparrow iiis or sidewinders. I rarely ever saw a 14 with strictly Phoenix missles being carried.
Seems to me if a 14 were being engaged in aerial combat, a sparrow or sidewinder would be the weapon of choice, not the Phoenix.
The biggest problem with this aircraft was that it became a political airplane, not a military airplane.
All of the f-14 problems were correctable with money. It was a viable weapon platform, but there was not much political support for it. Funny, how other aircraft programs ended up with billions in funding and some can’t even fly in the air with all the associated problems.
Nice article. As a former F-14 RIO, it’s good to see the continuing interest in the Tomcat. I don’t want to address every point, only one: the automatic wingsweep system. The F-14’s automatic wingsweep system (controlled by the CADC) was actually very reliable. The idea that the wingsweep system was a problem seems to be a point made by several F-14 critics these days, but it’s simply not true.
One more point: you mention how big and heavy the F-14 was, but when new it was one of the most maneuverable fighters in the world! It’s early performances at the Paris Air Show were a sensation in the aviation press. Yes, newer fighters soon came along that were very maneuverable, but the Tomcat remained a versatile and capable machine.
Thanks for keeping the Tomcat legend alive, Alex!
(My qualifications: F-14 RIO with 2,500 F-14 flight hours in three squadron tours; Topgun instructor 1984-87.)
The Phoenix was a bad design, badly built, they often came off the line with thousands of solder errors. The TF-30 was a crap engine. Good article, fair all around, but the Navy would have been better off with F4s with better engines than what it cost to put the F-14 in service.
👍. Smart well presented article.
I agree
Every aircraft stands on the shoulders that came before it, some far better than others. The F-14 was a great design to deal with a slow USSR Bomber fleet as it could simultaneously engage multiple targets at great range. RANGE. The one point not mentioned in this article. For all its lack of perfection, the F-14 had a range of 1,800 miles, It’s most important function, as a carrier-based interceptor, was to cover a great deal of space in a little amount of time and shoot down a large number of bombers. For its day, for its purpose, the F-14 was exceptional.
The article brought back fond memories. One of my first jobs was for the company that designed and produced the ejection system for the F-14. They also worked on the Phoenix, which was indeed a ‘troubled’ bird.
You get many things wrong. The TF30 was always intended to be the interim engine. The General Electric F110 engine was the engine Grumman planned to use in the F-14. That engine was also to be used in the B-1A. When Carter cancelled the B-1 program, GE moved development of the F110 to the back burner. Once Reagan restarted the B-1 program, GE moved the F110 into production. Thus, most B and all C and D variants of the F-14 had the F110; an engine with none of the problems of the TF30, and which gave the Tomcat near F-15 Eagle performance.
The same characteristics which gave the Tomcat it’s anti-bomber abilities(which, even before the F-14 went into production, was clearly a mission that had disappeared: no one in the mid-70’s expected the Soviets to use bombers as their main mode of attack during a nuclear conflict) also gave the F-14 to tools to prosecute it’s primary mission: protect and screen the carrier battle group. The Hughes AWG-9 radar system was far more advanced than any other radar used at the time and allowed the F-14 RIO/NFO to track and engage multiple targets simultaneously, at significant range. Something the F-18 or the execrable F-35 still can’t do without the support of an E-2 Hawkeye AWAC. The F-14 had FLIR; something the latest variants of the F-18 are getting only NOW.
The F-14 also had more than twice the combat radius of the F-18 and F-35. If the Navy still fielded the F-14, we wouldn’t be so worried about the Chinese DF-21/23 anti-ship(anti-carrier) missiles. The F-14’s could hold them at risk(later variants of the F-14 had strike capability and were known as “Bombcats”) while the Battle Group stayed out of Chinese missile range.
And finally, the F-18 and F-35 are not fighters. They are strike aircraft that can self-escort; that is, they do not require a fighter escort to prosecute their missions. They are both highly compromised platforms when asked to serve as fighters. The F-18 was designed to operate in a world where the F-14 also existed. The F-35 was designed, originally, to operate in an environment that had already been sanitized by the F-22. Because they are not fighters.
The flawed, faulty reasoning behind the retirement of the F-14 is the same as the lunatic reasoning for truncating the F-22 buy at 187 aircraft: history was over. We would never again face a peer or near-peer in combat, so we no longer needed our most effective platforms. With the rise of China as a military power that reasoning has been revealed for the idiocy it was.
Fantastic response, Jon. Great detail.
Jon, I do not believe that either the F-14A or the F-14D had anywhere close to twice the range of the F-35C. The deck launch combat radius of the F-35C is pretty decent, not great, at 670NM. There are conflicting numbers out there but the deck launch combat radius of the F-14A was about 665NM and the F-14D was around 500NM. If the F-14A was launched with two drop tanks that were jettisoned en route to the engagement, then the F-14A could get out to 910NM, but nowhere close to twice the 670NM range of the F-35C.
The only way the F-14 had “more than twice the combat radius of the F-18 and the F-35” is if you only look at comparing it to the short legged F-18 or you use the F-14’s ferry range vs. the F-35C combat radius.
That having been said, it is a pity that the USN has decided to forgo developing conformal fuel tanks for the F-35. Increased range while maintaining all or most of the reduced RCS would bring a LOT of additional utility to the aircraft.
Ziv, you are correct about the Tomcat needing drop tanks; but so what? The point is that the F-14 could use drop tanks and the F-35 cannot; at least not without spoiling it’s stealth profile. With one tanking going in, the F-14 could reach the DF-21 while the carrier was still out of range. The F-35 would require tanking too close to the target; we currently have no stealthy tankers(though why the Navy has not yet started making use of the MQ-25 is a mystery.) You are also correct that I was thinking of the F-35A’s range and not the F-35C’s. Sorry about that.
The real pity–tragedy, in fact– is not the Navy forgoing conformal tank development for the F-35. It is that the Navy passed on the opportunity to acquire the naval variant of the F-22. A factor often overlooked in discussions re: why the DOD and USAF chose the YF-22 over the YF-23 is that there was a planned naval variant of the YF-22. The Navy, probably distracted by it’s planning for the LTC, the Zumwalt Class and the Ford Class, passed.
Jon , thanks for that reply . Also , Alex says that the Phoenix missile never shot an enemy aircraft , maybe not a bomber, but I read that the Iranians did shoot down MiG 25 ‘s and MiG 21’s as well in the Iraqi/Iranian war . Please correct me if I’m wrong, thanks again!
Great article. I learned a lot.
One point-The F-35C is the carrier variant and costs more than the F-35A. So perhaps the cost comparison should have been done vs that more comparable aircraft.
For Mr. Alex Hollings: humbly suggest your next article should be why the USAF is getting rid of its most capable air refueling platform, the KC-10, at a time when the KC-46 is not yet ready for prime time, and the retained KC-135s are much less capable.
Why no extra inlet doors to stop engine stalls ? Why did the engine replacement be so limited?
I was wone assembly man on F117 it was slow but positive air flow it had GE104 none mock. There should have been more compatible engine’s to choose from and yes price could have been better.
Have to wonder, if an F-14 was a clean sheet design now, with modern materials, engine tech etc, using the avionics of an F-15EX, would it still be that pricey? Just a though experiment. The point of the Phoenix’s is very relevant, as one of the techniques a nimble fighter can use against large SAM’s is to make it bleed energy via maneuvering, basically wearing it out, and leaving it with nothing to close.
I recall a bit of an interview with an Air Force general on “60 Minutes” many years ago — when the F-14 was mentioned, the general said, ah yes, the F-14 — proving the theory that given enough horsepower, even a brick can fly.”
That was in reference to the F4 not the F14. “The F4 was McDonnel-Douglas’ proof to the world that, with a big enough engine, even a brick can fly.”