4 ms·

Why is it that the Navy never replaced the F-14 with a fighter with similar characteristics - speed, range, weapon range etc ?

btilly 16y ago
I assume because we're preparing for different threats. The F-14 was designed for creating air superiority in direct confrontations with the Soviet Union. Now our likely opponents will concede that territory to us and respond with suicide bombs.
- kiujhyghjkl 16y ago
  The F14 was, like almost all weapon systems, built ot fight the previous war. It's exactly what a WWII carrier pilot flying would have wanted and as soon as they got promoted high enough - it's what they bought.
- gaius 16y ago
  I don't think the Chinese or the Norks would adopt that strategy. Nor would India or Pakistan if an intervention was required there. In fact nor would Russia if they decided to step up their activities in Chchnya or Georgia. Who's to say what the geopolitical situation will be in 10, 20, 50 years? Aircraft flying now will see it...
philwelch 16y ago
The entire US Navy F-14 fleet's entire combat record shows 5 kills, four Libyan ("freedom of the seas" operations in the Gulf of Sidra) and 1 Iraqi helicopter (Desert Storm). Other operations include menacing an Egyptian airliner and diverting it to land at a NATO base in Sicily to arrest a few terrorists. The F-14 occasionally dropped bombs on the Balkans and Iraq as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat_operational_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat_operational_history) Clearly, in retrospect you can do just as much--some things even more effectively--with more versatile F/A-18 Hornet or F-35 Lightning II aircraft. And then you have fewer different airframes to service, which is always a logistics boon. The F-14 was designed to protect US carriers from air attack. They would have been really fucking useful in WWII but since then that job hasn't been necessary. Less flippantly, they may have helped the British in the Falklands, since the Phoenix missile was designed to shoot down cruise missiles like the Exocets which the Argentines used to some success (as well as the planes they were launched from). Of course, the British at the time did not have carriers capable of launching or landing the F-14, only smaller carriers designed to maintain a fleet of Harriers. Aegis cruisers came out a couple years after the F-14, and do most of the same job with surface to air missiles, and even they are overkill. It's exceedingly rare we will get into a shooting war with a country capable of matching even the F/A-18's performance in the hands of American naval aviators, much less on the high seas. (Off the high seas, it might be useful to have an overpowered air superiority fighter, but that's the F-22's job. Of course, judging from the Iraq war it helps to have as much as your air fleet as possible launching from carriers, just in case you manage to piss off all the countries where the Air Force could base their planes in the region.)
- therockhead 16y ago
  Great answer, thanks.

btilly 16y ago

I assume because we're preparing for different threats. The F-14 was designed for creating air superiority in direct confrontations with the Soviet Union. Now our likely opponents will concede that territory to us and respond with suicide bombs.

kiujhyghjkl 16y ago
The F14 was, like almost all weapon systems, built ot fight the previous war. It's exactly what a WWII carrier pilot flying would have wanted and as soon as they got promoted high enough - it's what they bought.
gaius 16y ago
I don't think the Chinese or the Norks would adopt that strategy. Nor would India or Pakistan if an intervention was required there. In fact nor would Russia if they decided to step up their activities in Chchnya or Georgia. Who's to say what the geopolitical situation will be in 10, 20, 50 years? Aircraft flying now will see it...

philwelch 16y ago

The entire US Navy F-14 fleet's entire combat record shows 5 kills, four Libyan ("freedom of the seas" operations in the Gulf of Sidra) and 1 Iraqi helicopter (Desert Storm). Other operations include menacing an Egyptian airliner and diverting it to land at a NATO base in Sicily to arrest a few terrorists. The F-14 occasionally dropped bombs on the Balkans and Iraq as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat_operational_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat_operational_history) Clearly, in retrospect you can do just as much--some things even more effectively--with more versatile F/A-18 Hornet or F-35 Lightning II aircraft. And then you have fewer different airframes to service, which is always a logistics boon. The F-14 was designed to protect US carriers from air attack. They would have been really fucking useful in WWII but since then that job hasn't been necessary. Less flippantly, they may have helped the British in the Falklands, since the Phoenix missile was designed to shoot down cruise missiles like the Exocets which the Argentines used to some success (as well as the planes they were launched from). Of course, the British at the time did not have carriers capable of launching or landing the F-14, only smaller carriers designed to maintain a fleet of Harriers. Aegis cruisers came out a couple years after the F-14, and do most of the same job with surface to air missiles, and even they are overkill. It's exceedingly rare we will get into a shooting war with a country capable of matching even the F/A-18's performance in the hands of American naval aviators, much less on the high seas. (Off the high seas, it might be useful to have an overpowered air superiority fighter, but that's the F-22's job. Of course, judging from the Iraq war it helps to have as much as your air fleet as possible launching from carriers, just in case you manage to piss off all the countries where the Air Force could base their planes in the region.)

therockhead 16y ago
Great answer, thanks.