-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Pentagon will sell F-14 Tomcat parts to Iran
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
wirelessenabled
Platinum Member
Sounds like Reagan Republicanism all over again.
Funny/sad point is that if we would quit selling $25-50 billion worth of weapons every year around the world we could save much more than that in future threats. I guess when your value equation includes $several million worth of campaign donations each year what do several hundred/thousand lives and $100-150 billion per year in excess War Dept costs matter?
Except to those of us poor slobs who pay for the hypocrisy:disgust:
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
Once again proving that in government, following procedure is more important than actual results... AND... So long as you follow procedure the results are irrelevant as all you have to do to get out of trouble is say, "I followed procedure."
Eesh...
imported_Lothar
Diamond Member
They'll be on eBay soon enough.
Just like the many MiG's being sold on eBay every week.
DealMonkey
Lifer
Whatever cash the DoD is recouping from selling Tomcat parts, isn't worth the possibility of Iran getting ahold of them. Now if we could just sell Tomkat to the Iranians, that would be win-win.
imported_Lothar
Diamond Member
What he said.
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
Ummmmmm, yeah, ok....
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
You keep digging, the hole is getting deeper.
imported_Lothar
Diamond Member
What's missing in your analysis is fuel costs and maintainence cost of the Raptor to accomplish that mission.
AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles costs $386,000 a piece.
I doubt those "spare parts" are selling anywhere close to those prices.
TerryMathews
Lifer
MiG-29/Su-27 are far outside the typical attack profile the AIM-54 is designed for. The Phoenix is intended to engage inbound supersonic and subsonic Soviet bombers. Unless the pilot of the MiG-29 or Su-27 didn't notice the missile and take evasive action, the missile would miss. It's not powered through it's entire flight like an AIM-120 is, in the last quarter or so of it's flight, it's following a ballistic trajectory.
Bottom line: If the target altered his altitude by +/- 5,000 feet or so right before the missile hit, it would miss 90-100% of the time.
A later post listed a dogfighting tally. I only want to point out that in the hands of a skilled pilot (maybe not even American-level skilled), a high-thrust aircraft can maneuver to the detriment of a low-thrust aircraft. Using the greater thrust for a higher ROC would allow the higher-thrust aircraft to put the low-thrust aircraft in a position of climbing to attack, not a position you want to be in with an F-16.
For skilled pilots, my list would look like this:
1) SU-27
2) F-15
3) F-14
4) F-16/MiG-29
5) F-18
In the hands of moderately skilled pilots who only think of dogfights in two dimensions, I would agree with your original list.
ericlp
Diamond Member
I don't have a problem with it...
It's not like they are gonna fly over your house any time soon to bomb the crap out of you. If we can get some cash for selling our old junk. So be it...
as for the attacking the navy... Every see those white domes with big guns on it that can fire 50K rounds a minute? I'm sure that could bring down a few f14's that is if they could ever get close enough...
It's not like they are gonna fly over your house any time soon to bomb the crap out of you. If we can get some cash for selling our old junk. So be it...
as for the attacking the navy... Every see those white domes with big guns on it that can fire 50K rounds a minute? I'm sure that could bring down a few f14's that is if they could ever get close enough...
judasmachine
Diamond Member
we have to make sure the next fight is half-way interesting, sheesh.
still it's silly to be trading with a country that we're suggesting sanctioning. left hand, pay no attention to the right.
still it's silly to be trading with a country that we're suggesting sanctioning. left hand, pay no attention to the right.
LegendKiller
Lifer
The aircraft is larger and is aging, thus it takes more parts. Not to mention that to keep it going along the technological curve it'd cost more in the long-run. Some of the airframe were quite old, but they could have kept going for a long time.
Not to mention that Super Hornets only have one pilot (as opposed to a pilot and a WSO for the F-14) the Marines operate the F-18D which has a pilot and a WSO, but is an all-weather night strike craft, I don't believe the navy operates any (or many) D's. Thus, this results in a large decrease in cost from the removal of the WSO.
Overall, the F-18 is a smaller, cheaper, and less confined plane. Much like the JSF, it's a multi-role, "jack of all trades". Although many don't think it's nearly as capable as an interceptor and fleet defense as the F-14, which was a superior fighter in this role.
Considering that, the F-14 is awesome at area defense but not as great in projection, so Iran having these and even acquiring Phoenix missiles would be able to project decently in their airspace, presenting difficulties for any attackers, especially with the upgraded radars and such in the newest tomcats.
I am utterly amazed that you can't even get on wikipedia and get some of this info, instead you prattle on like an idiot thinking you know everything.
The hell with Wikipedia.
I get all my information from Military forums and there are numerous threads where the title is F-14 vs Mig-29 and many people have posted why a Mig-29 would win and why an F-14 would win.
I dont need to listen to your opinion that you got off of some website called wikipedia.
One thing many people agreed on was that the F-14 was expensive to maintain because it was stationed on a carrier.
You underestimate Russian tech and overestimate the Phoenix Missile way too much.
So unless you can make an accurate comparision ... S T F U?
If you think your opinion is so great and everyone else who thinks the Mig-29 would lose, go join every military forum with the nickname "I know it all and if you dont agree you are an idiot".
I based most of my statements with a ? at the end of it. Therefore stop assuming you think I know everything. Do you know what a ? is? ?????????
my entire point is you cannot guarantee an F-14 beating a Mig29 or even an Su-27.
You can guarantee an F-22 beating anything.
therefore F-14 is pointless. Give them all to Iran and play target practice with them later.
I never said F-14 wasnt great. It isnt great in 2007 when we have aircraft like the F-22.
F-22 makes everything else look like crap.
You can guarantee an F-22 beating anything.
therefore F-14 is pointless. Give them all to Iran and play target practice with them later.
I never said F-14 wasnt great. It isnt great in 2007 when we have aircraft like the F-22.
F-22 makes everything else look like crap.
LegendKiller
Lifer
I never said you have to use wikipedia, I merely stated you should know your facts and a couple minutes on therem ight give you some, because from your previous *STATEMENTS* (not questions), you really sounded pretty foolish and most people agree.
Whether or not a F-14 could fight a Mig-29 is moot. If Israel invaded Iran airspace the 14 wouldn't be facing 29s. If your point was that they shouldn't bother upgrading or acquiring more 14's, then that is also a moot point since the 14 is probably cheaper for them to acquire than the 29, or upgrade.
I dispute the assertion that the 14 is more expensive because it operated on a carrier. The carrier would add more stress through landings and take-off, but all that aside it was still an aged, large, and expensive airframe. To put why it was retired in bullets it'd look something like this.
* The airframe is old and maintenance on an old aircraft is expensive
* It is large, much larger than the F-18 and is heavier, requiring more fuel, more maintenance, more deck space (this goes away once on land)
* It requires two people to operate, adding another 20 or so people to the carrier
*It requires upgrades to keep it on-par with everything else in the fleet
* Even with upgrades it has a huge radar cross section and isn't stealthy, unlike the Super Hornet
* It is a single-role aircraft, although it can do strike now, it's still largely an interceptor
* It was built with the Phoenix in mind
* You are maintaining knowledge, crew, parts, munitions, people, for TWO airframes rather than 1. It's obvious from the JSF movement that the armed forces are realizing (much like Southwest) that fewer frames are better and that "omni" units which are more versitile across forces are much easier to maintain, arm, and fly
You take ALL of those reasons and combine them and compare them to the fact you have a smaller, cheaper, stealthy multi-roll plane that does almost everything the 14 does (but not quite as well) and you see the obvious choice, retire the 14 and go with ONE plane that can do pretty much everything with a ton of reduced cost and "synergies" with current airframes. Once JSF comes around you'll see more reduction as we go with a more modular aircraft capable of switching.
That would actually be the apex of military application, a "base" plane that is unified across all forces but then "podded" to add in modular capabilities without having to modify the chasis. This results in easily swapped our parts for specific missions, resulting in greatly reduced costs and more flexability.
The downside to that is that you never truly design a niche fighter that can take on other niche fighters, so you can be out manuvered in certain situations. However, a combined unit that unifies the chain and covers weakness, making the whole greater than the sum of the parts, results in a much more effective, cheaper, and versitile system.
Obviously, with your immense knowledge of military tech, knew all of this despite not asking one single question around it, nor did you even make the logical leap into this area, instead, you denegrated a fighter which is superior in many aspects, saying that insinuiating it's pointless to upgrade or keep because there are better fighters out there. The statement itself is laughable and only highlights your lack of integrative thinking. You can tell me to STFU all you want but it doesn't hide, dismiss, or even prevent the fact that your statements are laughable and many are wrong.
LegendKiller
Lifer
There are no guarantees in air combat. The F-22 would be effective, but not utterly dominating. Many thought the F-117 was infallable 10 years ago, but one was shot down, and by an older system IIRC.
What happens when Iran tries to project air power into Iraq when we aren't there? What happens to SA, UAE, or Israel? This isn't just about F-14 vs F-22, it's about arming people who can (and would) project power if they wanted to and letting them augment that power with our own weapons.
That's like saying "Heck, lets arm insurgents with old WW2 russian tanks, the M1A2 can take them on!". That is such a stupid argument that it's pointless to debate, but that's what you are saying. A WW2 tank could still do damage, if not to an M1A2, then to something else when the M1A2 isn't around.
If your POV was valid, then why not just sell them our whole bone yard full of military tech? We could make trillions off of it!
LegendKiller
Lifer
I am pointing out that the F-14 wasn't retired because it was an inferior aircraft, but was retired due to a multitude of other reasons which made it a foregone conclusion.
Furthermore, the whole thread isn't about a battle between the F-14 and an F-22, it's about arming somebody who could do harm with our own weapons. You trying to denegrate the F-14 is utterly foolish and your continued dolt-ish-ness regarding my points is humorous.
Are you seriously taking what I said to the heart? you honestly think I meant arming Iran with F-14s? Seriously calm the hell down and rethink things over.
The U.S is going to attack Iran in a few months. Might as well sell them the F-14s and use them as target practice when we taken out Iran's air force. & Iran would never buy F-14s from the U.S even if they had the chance.
The entire thing was to say that it makes no difference if Iran upgrades their F-14s because they stand no chance against a U.S attack. U.S is going to use F-22s to attack Iran's air force and cruise misssiles to knock out air bases
Iran's air force is going to be destroyed in 6 months - 12 months. It makes ZERO difference what they have.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
