4 ms·

Because the F-14 was based on the epitome of 1960s tech, while the newer planes were based on 70s/80s tech. There was no slack for upgrades and even maintenance

by yyyk 4y ago

Because the F-14 was based on the epitome of 1960s tech, while the newer planes were based on 70s/80s tech. There was no slack for upgrades and even maintenance was difficult.

V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
This is a very underappreciated aspect. The systems (i.e., avionics and portions attached to the avionics) would have also needed significant updates ($$$) to keep the aircraft relevant into the 21st century. It's not just the engines that needed modernizing.
- izacus 4y ago
  That update existed (F-14D) but the upgrades of 40+ year old airframes were deemed to be a pretty big waste of money when they could be spent on fully modernized designs that could be stealthy and require less maintenance and pilots.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    Idk, the B52 is still flying and that airframe was designed like in to 50s I think.
    - izacus 4y ago
      The B52 isn't rated (and regularly) used for high-G manouvers, splashed with sea salt and crashed into a ship deck. Carrier life is rough on planes.
      - chasd00 4y ago
        Valid point. I wasn’t thinking about carrier aircraft.
    - mr_toad 4y ago
      The avionics and weapons systems have all been replaced, and the engines soon will be. Also, the B52 is no longer considered suitable for the role it was designed for - dropping strategic nuclear weapons. In this role has been supplanted by the B2.
      - chasd00 4y ago
        Isn’t it still the best platform for lazy figure 8s over the battlefield packed to the brim with jdams though? Like you can almost consider it a close air support platform. /not an expert, I knew more about this stuff when I was 12 than I do now heh
guestbest 4y ago
No one is mentioning airframes, but the technology put in the composites of the F18 airframe was worlds cheaper and more flexible to repair in a fleet than the pre composites airframe of a F14
- jabl 4y ago
  "Pre composites", doesn't that mean, well, aluminum? That's not particularly hard to work with, no? With composites, well, you can slap together some repair relatively easily, but for more complicated stuff, well you're not carrying around a large autoclave on a carrier are you? (Unless the above doesn't make it abundantly clear, I have little knowledge of aircraft repair procedures)
Qtips87 4y ago
I read that the F-14 is still stick and rudder and not Fly-by-wire.

by yyyk 4y ago

Because the F-14 was based on the epitome of 1960s tech, while the newer planes were based on 70s/80s tech. There was no slack for upgrades and even maintenance was difficult.

V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago

This is a very underappreciated aspect. The systems (i.e., avionics and portions attached to the avionics) would have also needed significant updates ($$$) to keep the aircraft relevant into the 21st century. It's not just the engines that needed modernizing.

izacus 4y ago
That update existed (F-14D) but the upgrades of 40+ year old airframes were deemed to be a pretty big waste of money when they could be spent on fully modernized designs that could be stealthy and require less maintenance and pilots.
- chasd00 4y ago
  Idk, the B52 is still flying and that airframe was designed like in to 50s I think.
  - izacus 4y ago
    The B52 isn't rated (and regularly) used for high-G manouvers, splashed with sea salt and crashed into a ship deck. Carrier life is rough on planes.
    - chasd00 4y ago
      Valid point. I wasn’t thinking about carrier aircraft.
  - mr_toad 4y ago
    The avionics and weapons systems have all been replaced, and the engines soon will be. Also, the B52 is no longer considered suitable for the role it was designed for - dropping strategic nuclear weapons. In this role has been supplanted by the B2.
    - chasd00 4y ago
      Isn’t it still the best platform for lazy figure 8s over the battlefield packed to the brim with jdams though? Like you can almost consider it a close air support platform. /not an expert, I knew more about this stuff when I was 12 than I do now heh

guestbest 4y ago

No one is mentioning airframes, but the technology put in the composites of the F18 airframe was worlds cheaper and more flexible to repair in a fleet than the pre composites airframe of a F14

jabl 4y ago
"Pre composites", doesn't that mean, well, aluminum? That's not particularly hard to work with, no? With composites, well, you can slap together some repair relatively easily, but for more complicated stuff, well you're not carrying around a large autoclave on a carrier are you? (Unless the above doesn't make it abundantly clear, I have little knowledge of aircraft repair procedures)

Qtips87 4y ago

I read that the F-14 is still stick and rudder and not Fly-by-wire.