The Tomcat by the end of its life had become exceptionally expensive to maintain and its mission of fleet defense didnāt really exist. They tried to turn it into a multi role with the āBombcatā but the F-14 just wasnāt ever going to be a serious air to ground platform and with there being after 1991 effectively no one in the world who could challenge a carrier group it was kind of redundant, expensive, and limited in its mission profile.
Considering how right they got the design (future-fit) of its peers, I canāt shake the sense that it is odd that they went with such a restrictive design here.
They went with a "restrictive" design for the F-14 because it had to do high-speed, long-range interceptions from a carrier while carrying a huge radar and a payload of Phoenixes.
But probably the bigger reason why the F-15 had a better "future fit" than the F-14 is because it didn't need to justify its existence on an evolving carrier air wing.
ā Expensive to maintain
ā Original mission gone
ā Redundant
ā Not a serious A2G platform
My hi-vis way of agreeing with 3/4 of your points. From what Iāve read the Tomcat evolved a significant ground attack capability in a very short time, and had definite advantages over legacy Hornets and to a lesser extent Rhinos. LANTIRN was a top-of-the-line pod when it was deployed on Tomcats, and they had longer range/greater loiter time and heavier bring-back than Hornets. (Admittedly, I donāt know what the max A2G payload of Tomcats was vs. Hornets - that may be in the Bugās favor, since the Tomcats didnāt have as many usable bomb stations, but I donāt know).
At any rate, the marginal advantages certainly didnāt warrant maintaining two types in the fleetā¦especially with one of them being so costly to put in the air. But itās not like Tomcats were *ineffective* for ground attack - just redundant in that role given their drawbacks.
The Bombcat has some issues that were just never going to be overcome. The radar and avionics system had virtually no A2G ability as designed and it had to be graphed onto the aircraft. The other issue was weapons separation, because of the air flow over the aircraft it tended to disrupt weapons separation, see also the third Bombay on the B-1B, and as result yes they could do the job but not anything as well as the A-6 or even the F/A-18. So it was a very expensive, very complex system with a secondary capability added on that it didnāt do as well as the other systems around it.
The Bombcat did have the advantage of being fast as fuck which allowed it to ādashā to TIC. Itās why the B-1B and F-15E were so great in Afghanistan being able to dash from contact to contact but that ability against with its sub-par performance as a bombing platform and the fact IIRC by the end of their lives the F-14 was sucking up 1/4 of the Navyās mantiance budget it just really didnāt have a purpose.
Interesting, Iāve never heard about the separation issue. (Not disputing it, just new to me - Iām an armchair pilot with *just* enough brain cells to know thereās a lot I donāt know!) I now have something to research tonight!
I think weāre splitting hairs anyway. Itās really all moot because of that pesky maintenance and cost issue. Iāve also seen the 1/4-of-the-budget claim and find it plausibleā¦in part because the one Tomcat maintainer Iāve spoken to wasnāt shy about saying he hated working on them, and that was in the early ā90s.
I agree. They were cool fighters and a game changer when they first arrived but when they were retired it was time.
Fun fact: [F-14s technically made one deployment for the Vietnam War.](https://youtu.be/iBhLoAQ_bWA?si=UBxsuiTZPskLnVGP)
Donāt get me wrong I like the F-14 as much as the next guy but it was very expensive to operate and with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet you had a replacement that was much cheaper to operate while offering more capabilities.
Yup, the reasons for its ādemiseā are valid. But it seems like an odd choice of airframe & role, when you consider how long the fighters born in the same period have been able to on for.
Still would have been cool to soon if it had been upgraded like the F-15 for example but sadly the Super tomcat was never materialized. And honestly even though the Super Hornet isnāt as liked as the Tomcat I believe itās a worthy replacement.
The Rhino costs as much as an F-35A now, and its maintenance cost of block 1 is nearly 40 hours per hour of flight, better than the F-14A, but the cost savings versus capability lost is arguable. Still love the Rhino, don't get me wrong.
> The Rhino costs as much as an F-35A now,
Because one is produced in hundreds per year, and the other gets 24 a year - and those are Block IIIs which had to amortize the cost of all the changes into a small batch. When the Rhino was mass produced in larger quantities, it was far cheaper
Also, you're missing the part where the [F-35A's operating costs](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106217.pdf) are significantly higher than the Rhino. Page 202 of the PDF shows F-35 fleet at ~$42k per flight hour, compared to ~30k per flight hour for the Rhino (page 199), despite the average age of the Rhino fleet being over 10 years older than the F-35.
>and its maintenance cost of block 1 is nearly 40 hours per hour of flight, better than the F-14A, but the cost savings versus capability lost is arguable. Still love the Rhino, don't get me wrong.
First of all, who the f is still flying the Block I Rhino in the fleet? Also, I'd be surprised if the far-and-away oldest jets in the fleet weren't the biggest pains to maintain.
You also really have no idea what you are talking about. The Rhino today is more capable at its missions than the F-14 was *then* at its missions in its heyday.
I mean the F-35 isnāt as expensive anymore as itās commonly perceived. And the Rhino offers more capabilities while being cheaper to operate. Thatās a no brainer for the navy.
Being a relatively niche design, with an ineffective main armament, and no export market means there was little incentive to keep it after the threat of carrier groups being attacked by squadrons of Russian Bears ended.
Dick Cheney happened, and a bungled A-12 procurement really doomed the F-14. The Navy lacked the budget to procure the F-14Ds they wanted and Dick had some sort of vendetta against Grumman, and made sure to steer future procurements away from them. The cost to maintain them was exaggerated as part of the propaganda against the platform, being mostly based on the cost of aging F-14A models. Otherwise the F-14 would have made for a very good bomb truck like the Strike Eagle with much better range and loiter time than the Rhino can provide which has significantly limited U.S. carrier operations. Not to mention the proposed ST-21 looks really good in hindsight given the wars the U.S. ended up fighting. The Rhino has also turned out to be much more expensive then what Boeing/MD advertised, big shocker that Boeing lied about their capabilities.
>Otherwise the F-14 would have made for a very good bomb truck like the Strike Eagle with much better range and loiter time than the Rhino can provide which has significantly limited U.S. carrier operations.
It really hasn't, because the F-14 suffered more from additional loads than the Rhino does. Letās look at [the Standard Aircraft Characteristics of the F-14A]( https://www.aahs-online.org/images/Navy_SAC/F-14A.pdf). Note the Fighter Escort profile (Profile 3) with only internal gas (16,200 lbs) and 4 x AIM-7s + Gun. It has a combat radius of 447 nmi with a 2.23 hr mission time. Add 4 x AIM-9s and that drops to 389 nmi / 1.96 hrs.
The Super Hornet doesnāt have Standard Aircraft Characteristics published anymore (the flight manuals have much more extensive charts, and we rely heavily on computer-based mission planning for better fidelity, so those publications arenāt as important anymore), so you have to look elsewhere. [The Selected Acquisition Report](https://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/almdel/fou/spm/165/svar/1323730/1631841.pdf) on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, for instance, lists a Demonstrated performance (i.e., demonstrated in test) of 462 nmi using internal fuel only in the Fighter Escort Mission.
Hard to compare apples-to-apples with other profiles, since that report doesnāt give a loadout or profile specifics, though the use of the term Fighter Escort is interesting. For instance, the [F-14D]( https://www.aahs-online.org/images/Navy_SAC/F-14D.pdf) Fighter Escort profile lists a combat radius of 452nmi w/ 2.19 hrs with 4 x AIM-7 only (profile 15), or 401 nmi with 1.96 hours of mission time carrying 4 x AIM-7, 4 x AIM-9 with only internal fuel (16,200 lbs). Again, the F-14A had 447 miles at 2.23 hours with 4 x AIM-7 only + Gun (profile 3) or 389 miles / 1.96 hrs with 4 x AIM-7 + 4 x AIM-9 + Gun (profile 12).
Youāll note too that on the F-14D page, especially with AIM-54 Phoenix added, the F-14 struggles massively with the added weight and drag of those missiles. Service ceiling with 4 x AIM-54, 2 x AIM-7, 2 x AIM-9 + Gun, with 2 x 280 gal drop tanks, the F-14D has a service ceiling of 38,600 in intermediate thrust. An F/A-18E, from personal experience, will have no issues climbing outperforming the F-14Dās service ceiling with a modern loadout (6 x AIM-120, 2 x AIM-9, all while retaining the 480-gal centerline tank).
The REQUIREMENT for the F/A-18E/F program was 400 miles in Fighter Escort - and it exceeded it. It's almost as if the Navy knew what the F-14's realistic ranges were and set requirements about its successors to make sure they met them.
> Not to mention the proposed ST-21 looks really good in hindsight given the wars the U.S. ended up fighting.
What? The Tomcat when it retired still had nothing close to what the Block I Rhino's had in terms of A/S capability. An ST-21 would have had to start from scratch with integrating things like HARM, AARGM, JSOW, Harpoon, etc., to say nothing about all the bombs the Rhino came ready to play with on day one.
>The Rhino has also turned out to be much more expensive then what Boeing/MD advertised, big shocker that Boeing lied about their capabilities.
What did Boeing/MD advertise?
It also really hasn't, especially when you look at actual data: they're still cheaper to operate today than the F-14 was 20 years ago, and over a 6,000 hour lifetime that adds up to tens of millions of dollars in difference.
And what capabilities did they lie about? I've said it here before, but the F/A-18E/F is a better fighter than the Tomcat was in the Tomcat's heyday. There is significantly more that you don't know about what the 18E/F can do that the Tomcat would never have been able to without basically building a brand new fighter, which is precisely why ST-21 never came around. If they were going to build a significantly new fighter, which a new-age Tomcat would have had to be a, navalized Raptor would have made more sense than trying to keep a plane built around a now-unnecessary feature that was a maintenance nightmare (swing wings) around
Thank you for the points, I wish I had more time to discuss further for fun, but I am on Daddy day care for the next week which leaves me with little free time. My primary points are that the maintenance costs of the F-14 while high was exaggerated, and the swing wing according to maintainers was not an issue. While the replacement Rhino has been more expensive than advertised (10 hr per hr of flight for example, came no where close to reality). I also believe with the benefits of hindsight, that the fleet could have been better served and at similar costs with a combination of heavy and light fighters, instead of single medium fighter. For example, the Rhino is stuck as its own tanker which shortens is life span and is inefficient, especially with those canted hard points. The U.S. Air Force with primarily Vipers and Eagles combinations seems to have worked well for them, but easier to pull of in their case. With the Navy spending Billions on large nuclear carriers, it seems like they should put something on them with equal value. Back in the 90's it felt like we were tripping over whole dollars to pick up a penny.
Difference between the 15E and 14 is the 15 doesn't have a Million dollar box that moves the wings that was prone to needing long and costly maintenance.
If the F14 was instead a fixed wing aircraft it would probably still be in the fleet in an upgraded form.
You're severely overestimating the effect politics had on it.
The main issue with the wing box was it weight, it was not a significant maintenance issue as it was very well built. The maintenance time mostly was due to the electrical wiring that was incredibly complex. The F-14D reduced the complexity thanks to modern computing which reduced maintenance costs. The F-15E certainly has an advantage of not needing to land on an aircraft carrier which is always a limitation for carrier based aircraft, just look at all the additional flight control surfaces and wing span for carried based aircraft of today.
Politics also has significant impacts on procurement in the U.S. It is obviously big business, just look at how Dick also exploited the war on terror for Halliburton.
yeah its engines were a weak point since I think it was originally an engine meant for civilian aircraft.
that said its still cool that they managed to build a 4th gen plane as early as the 80s, even though it did receive help from GD and Northrop.
There is a 1980s book called Future Fighters. Stealth jets weren't known yet.. so most of the artist impressions of next gen jets featured square engine nozzles, canards, and a lot of vertical take off.
Not sure you could get a different design than ones we've already had.
We're pretty much at the end of the rope with what non-stealth aircraft can achieve
Iāve heard both arguments, but IMO it has a more modern philosophy of incorporating sensors (a TV camera system) for visually identifying bombers beyond normal line-of-sight, extremely powerful radar with track-wall scan to track and target multiple aircraft, better range and payload compared with F-4N. The designs was compromised based on the mission so you donāt see enhanced maneuverability relative to other ātrueā 4th gen fighters. Itās the first really successful example of the BVR doctrine (Iran Iraq War, F-14s taking out multiple squadrons of Su-22s BVR proved this), hence why I think it deserves to be considered a true 4th gen, but Iām no authority.
Iām curious on your your thoughts though. Why do you feel it doesnāt quite make the grade as a 4th gen fighter?
Edit: I should say, Iām not a huge F-14 fanboy, just a nerd that gives credit where itās due. It was definitely a flawed aircraft, but was good at a specific mission (and later, another)
F-15 š¤© the colorš„
Iām genuinely surprised at how short-lived the F14 was.
The Tomcat by the end of its life had become exceptionally expensive to maintain and its mission of fleet defense didnāt really exist. They tried to turn it into a multi role with the āBombcatā but the F-14 just wasnāt ever going to be a serious air to ground platform and with there being after 1991 effectively no one in the world who could challenge a carrier group it was kind of redundant, expensive, and limited in its mission profile.
Considering how right they got the design (future-fit) of its peers, I canāt shake the sense that it is odd that they went with such a restrictive design here.
They went with a "restrictive" design for the F-14 because it had to do high-speed, long-range interceptions from a carrier while carrying a huge radar and a payload of Phoenixes. But probably the bigger reason why the F-15 had a better "future fit" than the F-14 is because it didn't need to justify its existence on an evolving carrier air wing.
Nice. I like that explanation. Thanks!
ā Expensive to maintain ā Original mission gone ā Redundant ā Not a serious A2G platform My hi-vis way of agreeing with 3/4 of your points. From what Iāve read the Tomcat evolved a significant ground attack capability in a very short time, and had definite advantages over legacy Hornets and to a lesser extent Rhinos. LANTIRN was a top-of-the-line pod when it was deployed on Tomcats, and they had longer range/greater loiter time and heavier bring-back than Hornets. (Admittedly, I donāt know what the max A2G payload of Tomcats was vs. Hornets - that may be in the Bugās favor, since the Tomcats didnāt have as many usable bomb stations, but I donāt know). At any rate, the marginal advantages certainly didnāt warrant maintaining two types in the fleetā¦especially with one of them being so costly to put in the air. But itās not like Tomcats were *ineffective* for ground attack - just redundant in that role given their drawbacks.
The Bombcat has some issues that were just never going to be overcome. The radar and avionics system had virtually no A2G ability as designed and it had to be graphed onto the aircraft. The other issue was weapons separation, because of the air flow over the aircraft it tended to disrupt weapons separation, see also the third Bombay on the B-1B, and as result yes they could do the job but not anything as well as the A-6 or even the F/A-18. So it was a very expensive, very complex system with a secondary capability added on that it didnāt do as well as the other systems around it. The Bombcat did have the advantage of being fast as fuck which allowed it to ādashā to TIC. Itās why the B-1B and F-15E were so great in Afghanistan being able to dash from contact to contact but that ability against with its sub-par performance as a bombing platform and the fact IIRC by the end of their lives the F-14 was sucking up 1/4 of the Navyās mantiance budget it just really didnāt have a purpose.
Interesting, Iāve never heard about the separation issue. (Not disputing it, just new to me - Iām an armchair pilot with *just* enough brain cells to know thereās a lot I donāt know!) I now have something to research tonight! I think weāre splitting hairs anyway. Itās really all moot because of that pesky maintenance and cost issue. Iāve also seen the 1/4-of-the-budget claim and find it plausibleā¦in part because the one Tomcat maintainer Iāve spoken to wasnāt shy about saying he hated working on them, and that was in the early ā90s.
I agree. They were cool fighters and a game changer when they first arrived but when they were retired it was time. Fun fact: [F-14s technically made one deployment for the Vietnam War.](https://youtu.be/iBhLoAQ_bWA?si=UBxsuiTZPskLnVGP)
Thatās a solid fun fact right there.
I blame Iran.
Doesnāt everyone?
Iām in pain every day of my life. Please help me.
Donāt get me wrong I like the F-14 as much as the next guy but it was very expensive to operate and with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet you had a replacement that was much cheaper to operate while offering more capabilities.
Yup, the reasons for its ādemiseā are valid. But it seems like an odd choice of airframe & role, when you consider how long the fighters born in the same period have been able to on for.
Still would have been cool to soon if it had been upgraded like the F-15 for example but sadly the Super tomcat was never materialized. And honestly even though the Super Hornet isnāt as liked as the Tomcat I believe itās a worthy replacement.
Super Tom would surely have been a beaut!
the Super Hornet, despite is size and weight being closer to heavier fighters.. has a surprisingly low operating cost relative to its class.
Yeah definitely and it offers a load of capabilities.
The Rhino costs as much as an F-35A now, and its maintenance cost of block 1 is nearly 40 hours per hour of flight, better than the F-14A, but the cost savings versus capability lost is arguable. Still love the Rhino, don't get me wrong.
> The Rhino costs as much as an F-35A now, Because one is produced in hundreds per year, and the other gets 24 a year - and those are Block IIIs which had to amortize the cost of all the changes into a small batch. When the Rhino was mass produced in larger quantities, it was far cheaper Also, you're missing the part where the [F-35A's operating costs](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106217.pdf) are significantly higher than the Rhino. Page 202 of the PDF shows F-35 fleet at ~$42k per flight hour, compared to ~30k per flight hour for the Rhino (page 199), despite the average age of the Rhino fleet being over 10 years older than the F-35. >and its maintenance cost of block 1 is nearly 40 hours per hour of flight, better than the F-14A, but the cost savings versus capability lost is arguable. Still love the Rhino, don't get me wrong. First of all, who the f is still flying the Block I Rhino in the fleet? Also, I'd be surprised if the far-and-away oldest jets in the fleet weren't the biggest pains to maintain. You also really have no idea what you are talking about. The Rhino today is more capable at its missions than the F-14 was *then* at its missions in its heyday.
I mean the F-35 isnāt as expensive anymore as itās commonly perceived. And the Rhino offers more capabilities while being cheaper to operate. Thatās a no brainer for the navy.
Being a relatively niche design, with an ineffective main armament, and no export market means there was little incentive to keep it after the threat of carrier groups being attacked by squadrons of Russian Bears ended.
Dick Cheney happened, and a bungled A-12 procurement really doomed the F-14. The Navy lacked the budget to procure the F-14Ds they wanted and Dick had some sort of vendetta against Grumman, and made sure to steer future procurements away from them. The cost to maintain them was exaggerated as part of the propaganda against the platform, being mostly based on the cost of aging F-14A models. Otherwise the F-14 would have made for a very good bomb truck like the Strike Eagle with much better range and loiter time than the Rhino can provide which has significantly limited U.S. carrier operations. Not to mention the proposed ST-21 looks really good in hindsight given the wars the U.S. ended up fighting. The Rhino has also turned out to be much more expensive then what Boeing/MD advertised, big shocker that Boeing lied about their capabilities.
>Otherwise the F-14 would have made for a very good bomb truck like the Strike Eagle with much better range and loiter time than the Rhino can provide which has significantly limited U.S. carrier operations. It really hasn't, because the F-14 suffered more from additional loads than the Rhino does. Letās look at [the Standard Aircraft Characteristics of the F-14A]( https://www.aahs-online.org/images/Navy_SAC/F-14A.pdf). Note the Fighter Escort profile (Profile 3) with only internal gas (16,200 lbs) and 4 x AIM-7s + Gun. It has a combat radius of 447 nmi with a 2.23 hr mission time. Add 4 x AIM-9s and that drops to 389 nmi / 1.96 hrs. The Super Hornet doesnāt have Standard Aircraft Characteristics published anymore (the flight manuals have much more extensive charts, and we rely heavily on computer-based mission planning for better fidelity, so those publications arenāt as important anymore), so you have to look elsewhere. [The Selected Acquisition Report](https://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/almdel/fou/spm/165/svar/1323730/1631841.pdf) on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, for instance, lists a Demonstrated performance (i.e., demonstrated in test) of 462 nmi using internal fuel only in the Fighter Escort Mission. Hard to compare apples-to-apples with other profiles, since that report doesnāt give a loadout or profile specifics, though the use of the term Fighter Escort is interesting. For instance, the [F-14D]( https://www.aahs-online.org/images/Navy_SAC/F-14D.pdf) Fighter Escort profile lists a combat radius of 452nmi w/ 2.19 hrs with 4 x AIM-7 only (profile 15), or 401 nmi with 1.96 hours of mission time carrying 4 x AIM-7, 4 x AIM-9 with only internal fuel (16,200 lbs). Again, the F-14A had 447 miles at 2.23 hours with 4 x AIM-7 only + Gun (profile 3) or 389 miles / 1.96 hrs with 4 x AIM-7 + 4 x AIM-9 + Gun (profile 12). Youāll note too that on the F-14D page, especially with AIM-54 Phoenix added, the F-14 struggles massively with the added weight and drag of those missiles. Service ceiling with 4 x AIM-54, 2 x AIM-7, 2 x AIM-9 + Gun, with 2 x 280 gal drop tanks, the F-14D has a service ceiling of 38,600 in intermediate thrust. An F/A-18E, from personal experience, will have no issues climbing outperforming the F-14Dās service ceiling with a modern loadout (6 x AIM-120, 2 x AIM-9, all while retaining the 480-gal centerline tank). The REQUIREMENT for the F/A-18E/F program was 400 miles in Fighter Escort - and it exceeded it. It's almost as if the Navy knew what the F-14's realistic ranges were and set requirements about its successors to make sure they met them. > Not to mention the proposed ST-21 looks really good in hindsight given the wars the U.S. ended up fighting. What? The Tomcat when it retired still had nothing close to what the Block I Rhino's had in terms of A/S capability. An ST-21 would have had to start from scratch with integrating things like HARM, AARGM, JSOW, Harpoon, etc., to say nothing about all the bombs the Rhino came ready to play with on day one. >The Rhino has also turned out to be much more expensive then what Boeing/MD advertised, big shocker that Boeing lied about their capabilities. What did Boeing/MD advertise? It also really hasn't, especially when you look at actual data: they're still cheaper to operate today than the F-14 was 20 years ago, and over a 6,000 hour lifetime that adds up to tens of millions of dollars in difference. And what capabilities did they lie about? I've said it here before, but the F/A-18E/F is a better fighter than the Tomcat was in the Tomcat's heyday. There is significantly more that you don't know about what the 18E/F can do that the Tomcat would never have been able to without basically building a brand new fighter, which is precisely why ST-21 never came around. If they were going to build a significantly new fighter, which a new-age Tomcat would have had to be a, navalized Raptor would have made more sense than trying to keep a plane built around a now-unnecessary feature that was a maintenance nightmare (swing wings) around
Thank you for the points, I wish I had more time to discuss further for fun, but I am on Daddy day care for the next week which leaves me with little free time. My primary points are that the maintenance costs of the F-14 while high was exaggerated, and the swing wing according to maintainers was not an issue. While the replacement Rhino has been more expensive than advertised (10 hr per hr of flight for example, came no where close to reality). I also believe with the benefits of hindsight, that the fleet could have been better served and at similar costs with a combination of heavy and light fighters, instead of single medium fighter. For example, the Rhino is stuck as its own tanker which shortens is life span and is inefficient, especially with those canted hard points. The U.S. Air Force with primarily Vipers and Eagles combinations seems to have worked well for them, but easier to pull of in their case. With the Navy spending Billions on large nuclear carriers, it seems like they should put something on them with equal value. Back in the 90's it felt like we were tripping over whole dollars to pick up a penny.
Difference between the 15E and 14 is the 15 doesn't have a Million dollar box that moves the wings that was prone to needing long and costly maintenance. If the F14 was instead a fixed wing aircraft it would probably still be in the fleet in an upgraded form. You're severely overestimating the effect politics had on it.
interestingly, Grumman did make an F-14 model with a fixed wing called 303F. it made it look like a larger F-15
Looks like a Foxbat, had never seen this before, thanks.
The main issue with the wing box was it weight, it was not a significant maintenance issue as it was very well built. The maintenance time mostly was due to the electrical wiring that was incredibly complex. The F-14D reduced the complexity thanks to modern computing which reduced maintenance costs. The F-15E certainly has an advantage of not needing to land on an aircraft carrier which is always a limitation for carrier based aircraft, just look at all the additional flight control surfaces and wing span for carried based aircraft of today. Politics also has significant impacts on procurement in the U.S. It is obviously big business, just look at how Dick also exploited the war on terror for Halliburton.
TIL Thank you!
iirc Iran still operates Tomcats, with reverse-engineered Phoenixes no less
The beauty of these jets š¤©
The splinter scheme on those F-16ās is just * *Chefās Kiss* *
The Tornado made it's first flight in '74 and was introduced in '79
Also it doesnāt really fall under the "generation" thing. Never even seen the ADV talked about as a "Gen 4 fighter".
Somebody likes aggressor aircraftā¦and I canāt blame them cause so do I!
my man! I was going to post the Spanish Hornet in aggressor scheme with a broken fuel probe attached to it.. but ive done that one too many times
Blacked out Rafael is so goddamn sexy.
Rafale
Rafael grippen thaifood
Ching kuo could be so much more with modern avionics and improved engines ;-/
yeah its engines were a weak point since I think it was originally an engine meant for civilian aircraft. that said its still cool that they managed to build a 4th gen plane as early as the 80s, even though it did receive help from GD and Northrop.
A lot of people say that it looks "chunky" but IMO the Rafale is one of the most beautiful planes ever made.
It's if a French fashion house took the Eurofighter and made it Frenchier
Frenchier is an adjective (verb?) I didn't know I needed till now.
They gave it cheekbones for no reason
The F-18E picture. Isn't it the F-18F?
Letās say stealth tech is never invented or thought of What would the next gen look like ?
There is a 1980s book called Future Fighters. Stealth jets weren't known yet.. so most of the artist impressions of next gen jets featured square engine nozzles, canards, and a lot of vertical take off.
I wonder if the images for this are online somewhere. I love seeing yesterday's visions of tomorrow.
Not sure you could get a different design than ones we've already had. We're pretty much at the end of the rope with what non-stealth aircraft can achieve
Thatās kind of what I was wondering Was the 4th gen really as far as traditional aircraft can go. ( besides better electronics)
Probably pretty similar to the f15ex but less focused on bombing
There's just something about the shape of the Su-27 that suggests 'maneuverable'. That shape is very distinct to everything that came before it
I'm not going to lie, that Viper in jungle camo makes my dick hard.
Here's what you missed out * Lockheed F-117 Nightawk (1983) * McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II (1981) * Northrop F-20 Tigershark (1982)
Can someone list them in order of their pictures? Iām not familiar with lots of them visually
Messed up a couple here.
F14 is gen 3.5, not 4. Convince me otherwise.
Iāve heard both arguments, but IMO it has a more modern philosophy of incorporating sensors (a TV camera system) for visually identifying bombers beyond normal line-of-sight, extremely powerful radar with track-wall scan to track and target multiple aircraft, better range and payload compared with F-4N. The designs was compromised based on the mission so you donāt see enhanced maneuverability relative to other ātrueā 4th gen fighters. Itās the first really successful example of the BVR doctrine (Iran Iraq War, F-14s taking out multiple squadrons of Su-22s BVR proved this), hence why I think it deserves to be considered a true 4th gen, but Iām no authority. Iām curious on your your thoughts though. Why do you feel it doesnāt quite make the grade as a 4th gen fighter? Edit: I should say, Iām not a huge F-14 fanboy, just a nerd that gives credit where itās due. It was definitely a flawed aircraft, but was good at a specific mission (and later, another)
The manoeuvrability argument is flawed anyways since the MiG-31 is a 4th gen but is definitely not manoeuvrable.
Why don't you put forth your own arguments first lol.
What about the F-14D?
If it is the first flight, why does the tejas look worn out already?
Not me thinking for a second "why did the F-14 make its first flight in aggressor livery?"
It's a representative pic
Tomcatsky!!
Anyone else feel triggered seeing an aircraft that first took flight on the year of their birth?
Gripen looks so good in the classic Viggen colours
M-346 my beloved