Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why The USAF Never Bought F-14 Tomcat?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3588 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16097 times:

I was reading in a book that stated that the USAF was looking at the F-14 Tomcat to replaces the Convair F-106 interceptor. Why did they not buy the Tomcat. The F-14 could have work well together with th F-15 and F-16 and seeing that the USAF kept some of there F-106 shows they had different jobs so why not replace the F-106 with a different aircraft like the Tomcat?

88 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3926 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16103 times:

The F-14 is a good fighter, but it was incredibly expensive, even compared to the F-15. Taking that into account, the F-14 is much overrated.  stirthepot 

Another answer is that the Navy and Air Force were simply not going to buy each other's aircraft, with just one major exception: the F-4.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
seeing that the USAF kept some of there F-106 shows they had different jobs

I'm sure the USAF would have loved to replace every F-106 with an F-15, but you can't always get what you want.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16060 times:

The USAF did not want the same aircraft as the USN/USMC. This has nothing to do with inter-service rivalry, but the F-4. The F-4 was provided to the US air forces as acommon service requirement, and to save money. The results showed limitations of the aircraft that was not suitable for all of it's employed roles. At the time of the F-4's replacement, each service was strict in the assertion of their need for a unique type.

USAF: F-15, F-16
USN: F-14, F/A-18
USMC: AV-8A, F/A-18
Army: Sorry...

The USAF did evaluate the F-14, and the USN looked at a version of the F-15 called the "Seagle".

/M


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16043 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):

Another answer is that the Navy and Air Force were simply not going to buy each other's aircraft, with just one major exception: the F-4.

And A-7.


User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16032 times:

There was also a naval evaluation of the F-16


Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15994 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
The F-14 is a good fighter, but it was incredibly expensive, even compared to the F-15. Taking that into account, the F-14 is much overrated.

The F-14 and the F-15 were evaluated by the former Shah of Iran and they of course opted for the F-14 instead. The F-14 is hardly overrated where as in fact, it is perhaps the best plane that never truly was able to live up to the way it's designers intended for it to be. The P&W TF-30's were designed for the F-111 and not the F-14, and this plagued hte F-14 airframe for the majority of its life. By the time funds rolled around for the GE F110's, it's years spent too specialized on the A/A role combined with some highly inept tactics during Desert Storm forced some incredibly myopic if not outright treasonous political repercussions to kill the program.

Quoting Starrion (Reply 4):
There was also a naval evaluation of the F-16

While the USN did order some Navy specific F-16N's, these aircraft were for aggressor training only (not even a gun) and never intended to be carrier capable. The USN beat the crap out of these birds and in just a couple of years had nearly torn the wings off of them before being forced to park them.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15980 times:

Because it was a flying bucket of crap.

Eagle Keepers rule.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3926 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15946 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 2):
results showed limitations of the aircraft that was not suitable for all of it's employed roles.

That's news to me. So what was wrong with the F-4 according to the USAF? A joint replacement for the F-4 would have been perfecty feasible. I think it's the F-111 history that played up here.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 3):
And A-7.

Oops, you're right of course.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
The F-14 and the F-15 were evaluated by the former Shah of Iran and they of course opted for the F-14 instead.

Everybody else of course opted for the F-15, including the Isaraelis, who seem to have a pretty good idea of what works. I trust they had a look at the F-14 as well.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
F-14 is hardly overrated where as in fact, it is perhaps the best plane that never truly was able to live up to the way it's designers intended for it to be.

Yep, the F-14's potential was not fully exploited. And the very couse of that was that it was so bloodily expensive. The F-14 has a basic flaw and that is that it is too complex.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
The P&W TF-30's were designed for the F-111 and not the F-14, and this plagued hte F-14 airframe for the majority of its life

Sounds like wrong engine selection by Grumman.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15951 times:

The main reason the USAF did not buy the F-14 was because it carried a crew of 2. The much better fighter and interceptor F-15 has a crew of 1. Don't forget, the F-14 was optumized for the intertceptor role, not the fighter role. So the USAF didn't see the USN jet as a multi-role aircraft, which at the time was true.

The F-14 version the USAF was considering did not include the Phenix missle system, so it was only marginally better than the (then almost 20 year old) F-106A. The F-15 had a much better radar, and the F-14A costs about 15% more than a F-15A. The proposed USAF version (F-14C) was even more expensive.


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15901 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
the USAF didn't see the USN jet as a multi-role aircraft, which at the time was true.

Wasn't the F-15 initially an air defense fighter, i.e. interceptor?

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
So what was wrong with the F-4 according to the USAF?

No internal cannon, that came later. Poor range and smokey engines.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 6):
Because it was a flying bucket of crap.

I don't know if I would go that far. I would sure hate to have an F-14 after me. Soviet pilots were told to just "run from it and not engage" (Belenko, 1986)

/M


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3926 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15893 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 9):
No internal cannon, that came later. Poor range and smokey engines.

These F-4 problems were adressed in the F-14 as well as the F-15, so no reason not to build a joint successor.

Quoting MigFan (Reply 9):
Soviet pilots were told to just "run from it and not engage" (Belenko, 1986)

Pilots of what? This naval heap of junk?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter de Jong




The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15878 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 6):



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 6):
Because it was a flying bucket of crap.

Eagle Keepers rule.

Only someone with limited knowledge of the F-14 would say that.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15841 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 11):
Only someone with limited knowledge of the F-14 would say that.

It was an overpriced piece of crap.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 15822 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
The P&W TF-30's were designed for the F-111 and not the F-14, and this plagued hte F-14 airframe for the majority of its life

Sounds like wrong engine selection by Grumman.

It was the only engine available since the SECDEF cut the funding that the USN was using in conjunction with the USAF on the F-15's new engine that would later power the F-15's.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The much better fighter and interceptor F-15 has a crew of 1.

It sure as hell was never a better interceptor with a less powerful radar (compared to both the AWG-9 and the APG-71) and Sparrow missle complement (AMRAAM down the road but the AIM-54 still had a longer range and given the funds the F-14D could very well have carried AMRAAMS , too.) As a fighter, with the GE engines giving it not only the thrust it wanted but most importantly the cure to the compressor stalls that plagued the F-14A's and the TF30 P&W engines, an F-14B/D was every bit a worthy adversary to ANY Eagle.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The F-15 had a much better radar,

I'm not sure where you get your information but that has just never even been the case on up until the last flight of a USN F-14D.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10):
Quoting MigFan (Reply 9):
Soviet pilots were told to just "run from it and not engage" (Belenko, 1986)

Pilots of what? This naval heap of junk?

Oh some Su-22 and MiG-23 pilots for starters. An F-14B/D with a competent crew could hold it's own against anything the Soviets threw up to include Flankers.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 11):
Only someone with limited knowledge of the F-14 would say that.

It was an overpriced piece of crap.

Are you talking about the F-22? Their still programming that things computers and it surely fits the criteria for being expensive and thereby arguably "overpriced."


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15786 times:

Mig-25 pilots were briefed about the F-14 when it came out by the Soviet GRU. The GRU grossly exaggerated the account of the F-14's capability, stating it could go Mach 4 at 120,000' ceiling. Why they did this, I still do not know. It is one thing to respect and never under-estimate your opponent, but the direct instillment of fear destroys morale. I guess the GRU was not in the morale business. The Mig-31 was developed as a direct result of the F-14.

Look at the similarities; 2-man crew, large BVR missile system, Mig-31 is faster though. The Russians wanted the Mig-31 to be capable of making a shot off a the SR-71.

/M


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 15757 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
It was an overpriced piece of crap

Do you have any supporting evidence to support your claim. Supporting evicdence besides what you think.

Here's a a bit of trivia for you. When then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheaney is his infinite wisdom cancelled the F-14D program it was on schedule and under budget.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 15751 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
Sounds like wrong engine selection by Grumman.

I'm not suree where you are getting your information but it's a bit off. First of all the DOD selects what engine is going into an aircraft. The TF-30 was originally selected becasue it was the only engine avaliable in it's class. The original plan was to have the TF-30 until the Navy version of the F100 became avaliable. However back in the early 70's the defense budgets were a bit slim. So as the program costs increased the Navy F100 program fell to the budget cutters axe.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15730 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 15):
Here's a a bit of trivia for you. When then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheaney is his infinite wisdom cancelled the F-14D program it was on schedule and under budget.

On budget, on time, and not only wanted by the USN but Congressionally APPROVED for the funds. If you remember, the Super Hornet platform was always toted as an upgrade program of which it never turned out to be anything remotely similar to - it was an all new platform that just happened to resemble a legacy Hornet. Because of this, Congress never had a say in the Super Hornet program - that is how Cheney and the Hornet Mafia bypassed not only the best interests of the taxpayers and the entire USN, but they also trumped the entire US Congress. Like it or not, that's just BS.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15722 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
The P&W TF-30's were designed for the F-111 and not the F-14, and this plagued hte F-14 airframe for the majority of its life.

The re-engine project was always on the USN's "to do" list throughout the '80s, but it kept getting deferred.

Quoting MigFan (Reply 14):
Why they did this, I still do not know. It is one thing to respect and never under-estimate your opponent, but the direct instillment of fear destroys morale. I guess the GRU was not in the morale business. The Mig-31 was developed as a direct result of the F-14.

I think you answered your own question WRT the MiG-31.

The F-14 was truly optimized for fleet air defense. The USN back then pursued a strategy against Soviet bombers and missles of "defense in depth" the F-14/Phoenix combination was the linchpin of the outer layer. It's ability as a dogfighter, despite being underpowered, was a plus.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15718 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 17):
On budget, on time, and not only wanted by the USN but Congressionally APPROVED for the funds. If you remember, the Super Hornet platform was always toted as an upgrade program of which it never turned out to be anything remotely similar to - it was an all new platform that just happened to resemble a legacy Hornet. Because of this, Congress never had a say in the Super Hornet program - that is how Cheney and the Hornet Mafia bypassed not only the best interests of the taxpayers and the entire USN, but they also trumped the entire US Congress. Like it or not, that's just BS.

When I was in the Navy it seemed like Sec of Defense Cheney had it in for Naval Aviation. Not only did he kill the F-14D program but also the A-12 and P-21. Maybe he caught his wife in bed with a Navy fighter pilot.  Wink


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3926 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 15707 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 16):
I'm not suree where you are getting your information but it's a bit off.

AirRyan seems to indicate the TF30 was never really suitable for the F-14. If so, either Grumman or the DOD made wrong choices. No suitable engine being available is not a valid excuse as far as the DOD is concerned - if you're building a multibilllion fighter you obviously need to plan a suitable engine for it.

But maybe the TF30 was OK on paper but just disappointing in practice.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 15709 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 20):
AirRyan seems to indicate the TF30 was never really suitable for the F-14. If so, either Grumman or the DOD made wrong choices. No suitable engine being available is not a valid excuse as far as the DOD is concerned - if you're building a multibilllion fighter you obviously need to plan a suitable engine for it.

Trust me, I know from personal experince that the TF-30 was not suitable for the F-14. The point I was trying to get across is that the DOD is to blame for the TF-30 being on the F-14 for so long, not Grumman.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3926 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 15697 times:

I trust you.
What made the TF30 unsuitable? Kinda bomber engine somehow?



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 15694 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 22):
I trust you.
What made the TF30 unsuitable? Kinda bomber engine somehow?

Main reason, it's tendancy to stall during hard manuvering. Not a good trait for a fighter. Also the engine did not produce enough thrust for a fighter the size of the F-14.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3926 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 15686 times:

Thanks.
It seems obvious that the F-14 really should have shifted to the F100 as soon as it was available. If the budget was tight, something else should have been sacrified.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
25 Post contains images Boeing Nut : Which is probably why it was cancelled.
26 Sprout5199 : So true. Start hammering them 200+miles out. Naval warfare is so different than land warfare. You dont care if you kill them as long as they go away.
27 Boeing7E7 : With technology and mission need completely trumping it's viability.
28 KC135TopBoom : No, the F-14 radar was optumized for over water intersepts. The F-15 radar works better over ground clutter, and it had a true "look down, shoot down
29 F14D4ever : I'm not sure what you mean. In fact, flight of the first production F-14D was February 1990, so they were 'pushing' for the -D well before that. Are
30 MigFan : I'm sorry, what's a P-21? Googling that term only leads to confusion. /M
31 LMP737 : False. Grumman had several proposals regarding the F-14 that trumped the "Super Hornet". This was true with the AWG-9. However the APG-71 on the F-14
32 Boeing7E7 : No stealth component. Deal over.
33 LMP737 : I'm sorry, it was called the P-7. My mistake. Go to globalsecurity.org and type in P-7.[Edited 2006-05-12 19:46:05]
34 Post contains images Ghostbase : I know this is a bit OTT for this thread but I was lucky enough to get a tour of most of the buildings left at RAF Bentwaters long after the 81st TFW
35 Post contains links LMP737 : Put the Kool-Aid down. There's nothing stealthy about the "Super Hornet". The Navy has only deluded itself into believing that. Nothing stealthy abou
36 Post contains links and images Catball : I don't know much about the intricate details of fighter aircraft, (although I enjoyed reading everyone's post) but I do believe one thing. The F-14 i
37 Boeing7E7 : You put the kool-aid down. Why do you think the F-18 is going to turn toaster parts ahead of it's time?
38 LMP737 : Still waiting for your "information" to back up your previous claim. If you don't have it please say so. Here's what I know, every pilot in my squadr
39 Boeing7E7 : It is not the air superiority fighter for the world, thus worthless regardless how much of a hard on you have for it. No Navy aircraft are - thus not
40 LMP737 : There you go again saying things without any supporting evidence but your opinion. How many Navy fighter squadrons have you been in? It's obvious to
41 MigFan : The F-14/F-15s were good for their respective roles. If I were shopping for an air force I would choose the F-15E. It is a great mult-mission aircraft
42 Boeing7E7 : Obviously I was smart enough to join the Air Force and didn't have to concern myself with being in a Belly Button Fighter Squadron.
43 LMP737 : So basically what you know about Naval Avaition you can fit on the head of a pin. Do you realize how foolish you look lecturing me about Naval Avaiti
44 Post contains images Dl757md : Sure it is. 4000 30MM depleted uranium projectiles a minute.
45 MigFan : I am sure the A-10 could deliver a nuke, but the mission would not turn out well for the pilot! /M
46 Boeing7E7 : The Lawn dart? The F-4 was a cheap stop-gap Air Force alternative to the in development F-15. So basically you don't beleive in the train, deploy and
47 LMP737 : Really? The USAF ordered the F-4 in 1962 and started taking deliviery in 1963. The F-X program which eventually became the F-15 was launched in 1965.
48 Post contains images 747400sp : Boeing7E7 Please do not comments against the Navy. Also the F-14D in my opinion the best fighter the Navy ever had. There's also prof that two Navy F-
49 Boeing7E7 : Hence the stop gap. Never given the wall the DoN manages to put up around itself from the other forces. Whatever Scotty.[Edited 2006-05-15 22:47:52]
50 747400sp : Boeing 7E7 For man who is between 46 and 55 years old you should really grow up!
51 LMP737 : Sorry but your original statement "The F-4 was a cheap stop-gap Air Force alternative to the in development F-15." was wrong. The F-15 was not in dev
52 Boeing7E7 : They understood the technology needed to get to the F-15 when they opted for the F-4's, but getting to it was still out of reach by a few years. They
53 RedFlyer : I don't even think it was on anyone's wish list at that time. If I recall correctly, the F-15 was a reactionary aircraft program, developed when word
54 LMP737 : You're trying very hard to get out of that hole you dug for yourself. What you originally said was that the F-4 was a stop gap for the "in developmen
55 Boeing7E7 : 1960. It is, in terms of duplicated services. How about you look around and see what the BRAC did to Navy/Marine support and training functions.[Edit
56 Sprout5199 : And they will tell you they are not part of the navy(but they are). However, every marine is a combat soldier, thats why there are no Corpsmen,Doctor
57 Boeing7E7 : What? Become a big giant bloated, bureaucratic, territorial disaster like the Navy? Sounds spiffy.
58 Post contains images HaveBlue : The A-12 was CIA developed and flown, the YF-12 and SR-71 were Air Force.
59 RedFlyer : That is true, but that was the reconnaissance version of the Mig-25. With the SR-71 coming on line, the two sides would have had (perceived) parity.
60 Ptrjong : First MiG-25 prototype, Ye-155R, only took flight on 6 March 1964.
61 RedFlyer : Yes, but the design started around 1960, which was Boeing7E7's point, or so I assumed. But your point is well taken.
62 Ptrjong : Hi, Well, I thought the question was when the US became aware of the MiG-25's existence. I can't answer that, but I don't think it was long, if at all
63 RedFlyer : Hi Ptrjong: If you Google on the F-15's history, you'll see that the U.S. wanted a replacement for the F-4 by 1966 when it issued an RFP for the "FX"
64 Ptrjong : Hi Redflyer, That may have been the US perception (relevant here of course), but in fact, both the MiG25P interceptor and the MiG-25R recce a/c were o
65 RedFlyer : I can't answer that. My first inclination, based on pure speculation, would be that reconnaissance doesn't pose near the threat that combat aircraft
66 Ptrjong : According to British writers Green/Swanborough the MiG-25 was developed to intercept the Blackbird and not the B-70, but Bill Gunston says it was for
67 Post contains images RedFlyer : Yes. I was saying (suggesting, actually, since no one will ever know the truth) that for many years the USAF thought the Mig-25 threat was actually r
68 MigFan : The U.S. took the Mig-25 as a serious threat when three were observed briefly at the 1967 Tushino air show. They onlt made a couple of passes, but pro
69 Ptrjong : As for the fighter role, the USAF was aware by 1967 that speed wasn't everything.
70 Par13del : Amazing how we all see things differently, I thought the USAF did get the TFX, except they called it the F-111, way I read it both were derivatives of
71 Checksixx : Okay I need to comment. First off, I thought the "piece of crap" comment made near the top of this thread was refrencing the F-16N...am I wrong? Seco
72 747400sp : Checksixx Your right! There should not be any more USN vs USAF comment. I apology if I offended anybody serving in the USAF. I type that comment out o
73 EBJ1248650 : The USAF also bought the A-7 Corsair II and deployed it in active duty and ANG squadrons.
74 Ptrjong :
75 Pikky02 : Well MiGfan, The Army has advanced rotor wing aircrafts like the Apache and Black Hawk. Even though they don't have Jets. The AF is a direct result of
76 LMP737 : No it was refrencing the F-14. Therefore you need to be getting on Boeing7E7's case.[Edited 2006-05-23 15:14:33]
77 Socal : Listen up Boeing7E7, the Tomcat is a great fighter plane and will always be. Am currently an Air Force Reservist and plan to retire. But what sickens
78 MigFan : Thanks, I know... Fly Army
79 Checksixx : It was a question, thats all. I don't troll like some people who are always looking for a fight. Thanks, Check
80 Halls120 : My brother was a Hornet pilot, and even he would agree with the above statement.
81 Boeing7E7 : Don't leave the world of "Yes Sir!" "Right away Sir!" "Whatever you say Sir!" and join the branch of service where participation in decision making t
82 DeltaDC9 : Actually the Navy and the Air Force were looking for a joint fighter and the F-18 and F-16 were evaluated. The F-16 pretty much won the day and was c
83 CX747 : The Air Force did not buy the F-14 because it was designed for the Navy. The F-4 (another Navy design) was forced on them a decade earlier. Many in th
84 Lt-AWACS : Is English not your first language (Just curious)? Seriously "Ware"??? What is the "prof" that two F-14B made two AF F-15 run? What was the scenario?
85 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Probably because Louis Gosset Jr. would make it look like the pussy-wagon... Sorry, but Tom was Navy. Therein lies your answer.  [Edited 2006-06-29
86 Post contains images Lt-AWACS : And Tom is gay, how interesting... Shouldn't it have been called Iron Viper? LOL Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns, Capt-AWACS, Dutch RVs and German Autobahns
87 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Hahaha! Wrong choice of words.....Gosset Jr. would have made it look like a bad movie poster.....oh wait.
88 AirRyan : Marvelous idea the Super Hornet is, eh? Take the lose of the lightweight fighter (LWF) contest, blow it up on a copy machine 30% and than let Boeing/
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why The USAF Never Bought F-14 Tomcat?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why The Usaf Cancel The YC-14 & YC-15 posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:19:19 by 747400sp
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp
Why The Usaf Did Not Rengine The C-141 Starlifter posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:21:58 by 747400sp
Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5? posted Sun May 7 2006 00:31:24 by 747400sp
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
The F-14 Tomcat posted Mon Dec 19 2005 04:44:27 by Socal
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp
Should The USAF Build A B-2B? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 10:33:17 by KC135TopBoom
Question About The Usaf 744 ABL posted Fri Jun 9 2006 16:17:33 by Na
IAF Trainer - Why The Delay posted Thu Mar 30 2006 17:07:48 by HAWK21M

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format