It was also the choice of the Shah of Persia, who didn’t even have an aircraft carrier.
Not to mention being the fighter of choice among Tyrannosaurs.
See, just goes to show how stupid the US military is when it comes to picking and choosing platforms. By the way John, if you ever figure out how to make a real functioning Veritech Fighter from Robotech, please make me one. I have wanted one since 1985.
That was certainly SAC’s view of things. And after Dessert Storm, when they performed SO poorly, they disappeared.
Still, the AF is a collection of fighter jocks who revere the fighter - and the ethos of A pilot in single combat ag
The F-14 was a complex platform but with very good performance. It was not much good as air-to-mud. The Marine Corps needed such a platform, and the F-18 fit that bill. The Navy figured it could “standardize” its maintenance issues and give both sides what they needed.
Trouble is, the Navy needs carrier protection, as you noted. The Phoenix system was the best long range target-and-forget missile system - then and now. The F-15 isn’t bad, but in a general scrape, because of the Phoenix, the F-14 wins. Never has to even see the other bastard.
There were plans for a Super Tomcat but unfortunately the Navy scrapped them - one of the bigger shoot-yourself-in-the-foot exercises. Had they gone with the Super Tomcat, they now would have a far better fighter than the F-18, with a greater combat radius and better missile defense. F-18’s could still be used by the Marines effectively.
So we lost the greatest air combat platform in the world for Marines!! That’s like Alabama (yes the Navy is that good) losing a college bowl game because of the kicker.
The problem is proportion. Yes, the Navy needs a specific fighter, but so does the Marine Corps. They do not need to be the same aircraft, and in today’s specialization environment, one would expect significant differences. Would that some dip star would recognize that small fact.
I understand now a days that stars make military men stupid. I was an E-5, the rank where all the work in the military gets done.
Even without the Super Tomcat, just doing similar engine and avionics upgrades as with the F-15 would have made it generally better than the F-18. And, like the F-15E, those upgrades would have made it pretty good in the air to ground role.
Yeah, but the Super Tomcat wouldn’t have been too hard to do either. And a whole lot better. AND we could upgrade the F-14 engines and put them in the Reserves and Air Guard units. Be a nice back-up to line units.
F-14 would have been a maintenance nightmare for the Navy Reserve, let alone the ANG. Twice as many engines as an F-16.
Disagree. We had KC-135’s with the RR fans and our planes were immaculate - FAR BETTER than AF junk. Same with about any airframe. The trick was that the airframe had a permanent, full-time tech in charge, and that was his airplane. There was a lot of pride in ownership. Same with our O-2’s and later A-37’s, and then the F-16 and C-130’s.
The prime issue was pilots. They didn’t fly enough to be proficient with the more complex aircraft, BUT that wasn’t true of ALL Reserve units. SOME had darn good pilots. You know this because the unit up in Colorado won the air-to-mud contest about 5 years running, so the AF decided to assign AD pilots for a tour with the Guard unit - to learn what those pilots knew.
And not to totally disrupt this thread, but check this out.
Literally dropping shit on the enemy.
And just to keep it going: Designated Hitter is great!!
On your marks, set——-GO!
Meanwhile at Airbus:
?And the point. ?What happens to the damaged fighter that badly needs fuel just to get home.