First let me ask why so many people like the F-14 Tomcat? Let me remind you that the tomcat has been retired. The Tomcat is a lot heavier than most operational fighters in service and pulling Gs with in an aircraft that exceeds 25 tonnes makes it un-agile. For every hour spent in the air the tomcat needs 50 hours of maintanence, this is expensive and inefficient. The phoenix is far over estimated. Although it has a range of 100 miles, at this range the missile will burn out of rocket fuel and be useless to home in on a climbing aircraft at max thrust. The F-14 would be blown out of the sky by a modern MIG or Sukhoi at close range. The F-14 needs to get an aicraft in front of its nose to get a missile lock but with a G limit of ONLY 6Gs I doubt it can get a 747 in its sight, but the 29/27 with its off boresight can aim 100 degrees away from the enemy and blow it out of the sky. Russian aircraft would be so far better If they were only fitted with western avionics. Why do you think the Pentagon bought 21 MIG-29As (yes As) last year. And Indian SU-30MKIs wipped F-15C (with APG-63v2 radars) asses in all rounds in mock ariel dogfights. Why is the US buying the SU-30MKI off russia and fitting their own avionics. CUS Russia make the best fighter aircraft.

Simply, the Tomcat is "Americas Favorite Fighter" Ask anyone who flew it!
Pilot

Holy cow!!! Its been a long time since I have seen so many misconceptions in a single post.

quote:

Originally posted by colmvandyck:
First let me ask why so many people like the F-14 Tomcat?

I believe the first reason is for nostalgia, to fly a classic cold-war fighter from an aircraft carrier. Second would be that the F-14 is superior in range to the F/A-18, it can fly MUCH further without having to refuel. The F-14, since the 1990's, has also been proving to be a very effective precision strike aircraft. This is no surprise, since this aircraft was dropping unguided bombs as early as 1970 in flight testing.

quote:

Let me remind you that the tomcat has been retired. The Tomcat is a lot heavier than most operational fighters in service and pulling Gs with in an aircraft that exceeds 25 tonnes makes it un-agile. For every hour spent in the air the tomcat needs 50 hours of maintanence, this is expensive and inefficient.

You got these figures, where? Oh yeah, from an anonymous poster on this very forum.

quote:

The phoenix is far over estimated. Although it has a range of 100 miles, at this range the missile will burn out of rocket fuel and be useless to home in on a climbing aircraft at max thrust.

Tell that to the Iraqi Air Force. Several of their fighter aircraft were destroyed by AIM-54s launched from F-14s belonging to the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. Here is the link, and this is the second time I have posted it for you...you might want to look at it some time.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

quote:

The F-14 would be blown out of the sky by a modern MIG or Sukhoi at close range.

You're basing this on, what, exactly? Do you have any combat action reports you can link us to?

quote:

The F-14 needs to get an aicraft in front of its nose to get a missile lock but with a G limit of ONLY 6Gs I doubt it can get a 747 in its sight,

Not sure where you are getting your g-limit info from. Also, I'd like to know when the last time was that you heard of a 747 pulling 6 Gs. An F-14, as demonstrated by the IRIAF on numerous occasions, has apparently been able to lock and kill fighter aircraft with its "over-rated" weapons systems.

quote:

but the 29/27 with its off boresight can aim 100 degrees away from the enemy and blow it out of the sky.

Again, the proven combat effectiveness of this weapons combination is where?

quote:

Russian aircraft would be so far better If they were only fitted with western avionics.

Again, I disagree. Russian aircraft are fitted with great avionics. They may not have as many bells and whistles on them, have as many capabilities, and may not be as futuristic looking...but they are extremely rugged and reliable. You have to remember, Eastern and Western aircraft have very different design philosophies and war-fighting doctrine behind them. The avionics in Eastern aircraft are designed to fit into their war plan, just as Western avionics are designed to fit into Western doctrine. To have this understanding, you'd need to actually work with both on a regular basis...which I do.

quote:

Why do you think the Pentagon bought 21 MIG-29As (yes As) last year.

Because they can now. What better aircraft to use as a threat simulator than the very types of aircraft you expect to face in combat? It is a logical choice, and the opportunity is now there.

quote:

And Indian SU-30MKIs wipped F-15C (with APG-63v2 radars) asses in all rounds in mock ariel dogfights.

This statement is wrong in so many ways. Do you have any idea how DACT exercises are conducted? They are scripted exercises which teach specific skill sets against dissimilar airframes. So far, I have yet to see a single article that supports your claim. In DACT exercises, there are wins and losses on both sides, and it is all very scripted and controlled...Blue will attack Red using X tactic, Red will defend using Y tactic...and so on. That's OK though. Many who read those articles don't have any real-world experience in the subject, so they interpret things in those articles to mean somebody kicked someone else's rear-end...and its simply not true. Did you know that many of the "surprises" dealt to the Americans were in exercises where Indian AF aircraft were flying co-operative missions with F-15Cs and E-3s? The surprise came when the Indian pilots adapted so quickly to different tactics and procedures. Strangely enough...most articles written by Indian sources make no claims as to wins or losses. I guess their journalists are a little more professional and actually know something about the subject.

quote:

Why is the US buying the SU-30MKI off russia and fitting their own avionics. CUS Russia make the best fighter aircraft.

Threat simulators again, and they're cheap. They should also fit them with Western engines. Russian engines? Not so good.

HOLY AMAZING CR@P! Iguana proved you wrong in almost every area! Im' speechless! and yes, the F-14 is an excelent fighter, ever wonered WHY it gained it's fame?

Hi some very interesting points to read so here is enother one.
F-14 is a geat plane no doubt about that, but than why did it get pulled out of service or at least to a sertan degree. I personaly think that MIG 21 as it had so many loses against F-14 is not a match for it where as the coment was made about MIG-29/SU-27 and F-14 in combat. Talking about Russian engins on flankers and folcrums, it's unknown if thay good or not but the thrust ratio to it's weight is considarebly greater than US jets (it goes up like a rocket) and in combat thats all that matters.
Cheeper planes doesn't necessaraly mean all that bad since production time would be reduced replacing number of planes fuster just like thay did with tanks T-34 in WWII but hopefully that's not longer the case in 21st century .

Most plane are made for specific tasks and capabilities and that's why compering one to another is inadiquate and I'd fly F-14 just for the fun of it but never the less if you were finding youre self in a combat where one of F-14 and one of SU-27 on an intercept course what would you choose to fly to stay alive.(over)

The main reason the F-14 was stood down is because the funding was taken away. This is the kind of thing that happens when certain politicians have their own money invested in the defense industry. The stock they bought goes up when the competition is eliminated.

Engines DO matter in combat. If your aircraft is grounded for maintenance, its T/W ratio doesn't mean a thing. Its just a fact. Due to the metallurgy of the materials in Russian engines, they wear out faster than Western engines, that is known. Besides, the WWII example is valid, but it must also be noted that the factory workers in the Soviet Union didn't eat unless they produced equipment. There, it wasn't about earning money to buy food with ration stamps like in the US...if you didn't produce war materials, you starved to death.

Appriciation for what is said but there is no need to mention factory workers who starved due to the fact that the hole nation starved, united and driven with hope for victory.
Tank T-34 was made faster not only becouse of the indusrial scale but olso due to the man hours spent producing it right down to its bearings and suspention.
Here is enother example of their product AK47,simple and effective it has almost nothing in it to break.
So ussumption can only be that it takes so many man hours less to manufacture a Flanker than Tom Cat what ever the procentage is.
I was suprised to know that it takes between 8 to 9 month to manufacture one off the Boing 747
chassis not that it's a mass production plane but still long time and some of the Rollsroys engines are kept close garded secret.
So I guess some how it's posible to relate all this to metallurgy in Russian engins.
As to what it says in the post above,regarding F-14 being out of service,I get the impression that US spends massive amount of money on millitary and than decides no it'a aint worth it.(lol)

That first sentence of your's is complete horse puckey. It reads pretty much like a Soviet propaganda poster. The "nation" of which you speak, which was actually a collection of no less than 15 nations, enslaved its own people. They either worked for the war effort, or they died. Forgive me if I can't find any way to glorify what was done to the citizens of the Soviet republics BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. I'll put it to you this way, if the residents of some of your major cities, like many in Ukraine, come out to welcome Hitler's military...well...that is proof that your government is pretty f'd up.

I mentioned internal corruption in the US...but don't run too far with that. The US is still going strong after 230 years, the Soviet Union...how long did it last? Oh yeah, 74 years, and, quite frankly, the military in its former republics is a shambles.

BTW...as I have repeatedly tried to point out...the basic metallurgy in BOTH Western AND Eastern engines is well-known.

Well I didn't write the first sentence for you to read and take it literally, I was ectually pointing out that the nation (ye 15 nations USSR) as a hole fought the war not just the factory workers and as for the tank builders I would have thoght that thay were far better of producing weapons than to be on front line facing Germans and if you had figured it out at first there wouldn't be the need for this discation i.e relating starvation to the tank design and the rest.
As for you idea that the only thing that fought the war was eat or die,I'll say there more factors to include:Yes thay did welcome germans simply becouse thay were pissed off with the ruthless didctaor on one hand and yes it does take a ruthless didctator to fight enother, something Europe didnt have accept priminister Churchill. There ware frends and families with support of each other no wonder why russian soldiers wre so agresive towards germans after what thay did to them and when a nation is in defeat it plays a major psychological part and neturaly becoming unified with common spirit so to speek, there is so mush more to include not just to say that thay needed to eat so thay had to build a tank or told so by Stalin.I've seen quite a few educational programs on uk tv history about this stuff wich gives me an idea of what I'm talking about and when you mentioned some thing about my counry don't bring that up me I don't get upset I just don't like it.

quote:

I mentioned internal corruption in the US...but don't run too far with that. The US is still going strong after 230 years, the Soviet Union...how long did it last? Oh yeah, 74 years, and, quite frankly, the military in its former republics is a shambles.

So what?

Understood, Hocart. Most of what I learned of Soviet history, I learned in the Miltary-Historical Museum in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation during the time that I lived there. These were proud exhibits, but the stories they told seemed pretty screwed up to me.

I don't quite understand the rest of your post. Are you Ukrainian? If so, I didn't mean to suggest that your country sided with Hitler, just that it had been so mistreated by Stalin that Hitler seemed like a good alternative. Nobody knew the extent of what Hitler OR Stalin had done until the war was over.

I didn't bother to read this whole thing, but I did want to quickly ask what the intial poster thought about the engine quality of the MiG-29's. From what I remember reading, then needed an engine overhual every 500 hours of flight time - and its amazing ability to burn oil and fuel - at an amazingly high rate.

Meh... just a few thoughts.

I don't know much about fighters, but I'd have to agree with IKing and Viper on this one. I knew a Tomat pilot and I'd still have to agree with Iking and Viper.

KW.

quote:

I didn't bother to read this whole thing, but I did want to quickly ask what the intial poster thought about the engine quality of the MiG-29's. From what I remember reading, then needed an engine overhual every 500 hours of flight time - and its amazing ability to burn oil and fuel - at an amazingly high rate.

Hi
I'm not sure about the initial posters thoughts I just don't know where that is, however here's another thought about planes.

Mig-29 is not a passenger jet, Mig-29 has high performence engines no doubt about that and that they are not so durable but its not like other fighters ie F-16 F-14 don't need engine replacement and to truly get an idea of how bad Mig-29 engines are I think the 2 comperison tables should be presented with their performances, maintances and durability.
Fuel consumption it is not the case for economy it is the case of ability for carring payloads and range ect.Despite anything here is another historical fact: the first effective German jet in service was Me-262, couple of hundred were built towards the end of WWII it was deadly or effective against esorted allied bombers and only one of them ever got shot by a fighter besides the subject that was shot by a Russian fighter, Me-262 was the top plane in the sky but it was not built to last, it had engines that lasted not hundreds of hours but only a dozen and evensualy the planes ware grounded becouse there was no oil available to fly them.

From my perspective it's a score if Mig-29 kills an F-16 before its first engine replacement and real success if it kills enother one during its life time.

Additional thing to add to IguanaKings posts is that I beleave that US temporarely suspended F-14 not nessesarely becouse of investsments regarding F14 but investments for making the newer and better model of plane otherewise USAF would say: we don't need TOP-CAT we need TOM-CAT.

quote:

I don't know much about fighters, but I'd have to agree with IKing and Viper on this one. I knew a Tomat pilot and I'd still have to agree with Iking and Viper.

If I had known an F-14 pilot I would present you with available info but that wouldn't change the plane and I think one thing is to support a sports team and enother is to agree with their success.

Never mind that, folks/dudes thanks for reading crp anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by hocart:
Despite anything here is another historical fact: the first effective German jet in service was Me-262, couple of hundred were built towards the end of WWII it was deadly or effective against esorted allied bombers and only one of them ever got shot by a fighter besides the subject that was shot by a Russian fighter, Me-262 was the top plane in the sky but it was not built to last, it had engines that lasted not hundreds of hours but only a dozen and evensualy the planes ware grounded becouse there was no oil available to fly them.

Why did the axial-flow turbojets on the Me-262 not last very long? Did it have something to do with the metallurgy I mentioned before? Axial-flow engines were MUCH harder on the materials in the engine because the combustion chamber was right in the middle of the engine where all the moving parts were. There is an Me-262 replica that flies today, but it has modern axial-flow turbojets in it, which last MUCH longer due to better materials. Incidentally, its opponent, the Gloucester Meteor, still flies with its original, radial flow engine.

quote:

Simply, the Tomcat is "Americas Favorite Fighter" Ask anyone who flew it!
Pilot

So that would be... the tomcat is "Tomcat pilots favorite Fighter" then.

What is the point in bankrupting your Nation by constantly replacing engines with short life spans. Modern engines in western ac are designed to last as they have to be proven cost effective through life. Besides, the thrust difference is minimal in the argument, these ac are designed to perform to a standard and that is what is achieved.

Why have lots of thrust to go up when a switched on pilot will lag and point, and send a heater up your overly powerful, afterburning engines? Especially if he has the nose authority of a F/A-18

In regards to the phoenix being a **** weapon, I realy think you need to reveiw it. First of all it will have no trouble taking out climbing targets. The Aim 54 climbs to an ultra high altitude befor dive bombing it's target at five times the speed of sound. It's draw-backs would be it's ability to maneuver as well as some shorter rang missiles like the AMRAAM, but then again it was chiefy designed to take out slow moving bear bombers. It was also fired by the RIO and not the pilot, in which case I can see your point in not making a flyable aircraft, but i'm sure you will be forgiven for over-looking the twin crew layout, and making the systems similar to that of a F-18 with CAS capabilities. Come on, give us a us carrier fighter with a working hook, even if it's the F-18. pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeez! Everybody wants one.
And for thoughs of you that that don't understand why everyone wants a flipping Tomcat, It's because they all fanticise about being Tom Cruse in Top Gun. They just to embarrest to admit it.

quote:

Originally posted by colmvandyck:
First let me ask why so many people like the F-14 Tomcat? Let me remind you that the tomcat has been retired. The Tomcat is a lot heavier than most operational fighters in service and pulling Gs with in an aircraft that exceeds 25 tonnes makes it un-agile. For every hour spent in the air the tomcat needs 50 hours of maintanence, this is expensive and inefficient. The phoenix is far over estimated. Although it has a range of 100 miles, at this range the missile will burn out of rocket fuel and be useless to home in on a climbing aircraft at max thrust. The F-14 would be blown out of the sky by a modern MIG or Sukhoi at close range. The F-14 needs to get an aicraft in front of its nose to get a missile lock but with a G limit of ONLY 6Gs I doubt it can get a 747 in its sight, but the 29/27 with its off boresight can aim 100 degrees away from the enemy and blow it out of the sky. Russian aircraft would be so far better If they were only fitted with western avionics. Why do you think the Pentagon bought 21 MIG-29As (yes As) last year. And Indian SU-30MKIs wipped F-15C (with APG-63v2 radars) asses in all rounds in mock ariel dogfights. Why is the US buying the SU-30MKI off russia and fitting their own avionics. CUS Russia make the best fighter aircraft.

You'll reconsider when you have a flight of bombers coming for ya

man u are crazy,you have not idea about the f14.the tomcat its still the best interceptor of the navy and is a very capable machine,the problem off its retairment its only because it cost to much an blabla bla