SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On April 9, 1972, Iraq and the Soviet Union signed an historic agreement. The USSR committed to arming the Arab republic with the latest weaponry. In return for sending Baghdad guns, tanks and jet fighters, Moscow got just one thing — influence ... in a region that held most of the world's accessible oil.
[...] In neighboring Iran, news of Iraq's alliance with the Soviets exploded like a bomb.[...] The administration of U.S. president Richard Nixon was all too eager to grant the shah's wish in exchange for Iran's help balancing a rising Soviet Union. Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger visited Tehran in May 1972 — and promptly offered the shah a "blank check." Any weapons the king wanted and could pay for, he would get — regardless of the Pentagon's own reservations and the State Department's stringent export policies.
[...] That's how, starting in the mid-1970s, Iran became the only country besides the United States to operate arguably the most powerful interceptor jet ever built — the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, a swing-wing carrier fighter packing a sophisticated radar and long-range AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles.[...]Today Iran's 40 or so surviving F-14s remain some of the best fighters in the Middle East. And since the U.S. Navy retired its last Tomcats in 2006, the ayatollah's Tomcats are the only active Tomcats left in the world.
[...] The F-14 was a product of failure. In the 1960s, the Pentagon hoped to replace thousands of fighters in the U.S. Air Force and Navy with a single design capable of ground attack and air-to-air combat. The result was the General Dynamics F-111 — a two-person, twin-engine marvel of high technology that, in time, became an excellent long-range bomber in Air Force service.
[...] But as a naval fighter, the F-111 was a disaster. [...]In 1968, the Defense Department halted work on the F-111B. Scrambling for a replacement, Grumman took the swing-wing concept, TF-30 engines, AWG-9 radar and long-range AIM-54 missile from the F-111B design and packed them into a smaller, lighter, simpler airframe.
[...] Voila — the F-14.
TFA goes on in some depth both about the historical importance of the F-14 as it flew nearly 50 years ago, as well as the challenges Iran has faced in creating an entirely new supply chain, and eventually new upgrades, to keep a fleet of dedicated interceptors from the last century in service.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 10 2018, @01:14AM (19 children)
But the F-14's sucked anyway, just like the F-111's did. The more moving parts in an aircraft you have, the more of a maintenance-hog it is, and for obvious reasons.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @01:20AM (8 children)
Considering the lengths the US gov is going through to keep them out of Iran's hands shows what sort of plane it is. The Iranians at any time could have probably bought as many Migs as it wanted. Yet it has not. We only retired them because they are expensive. But the more expensive programs take more precedence.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:21AM (7 children)
What the hell are you talking about? We sold them to them in large numbers.
The US isn't going to any lengths at all.
Iran retired most of them because we wouldn't sell them parts any more and they had "parts" out way more than half the fleet trying to keep the other about a third of them flying. This in spite of having no combat activity other than training since the Iran/Iraq war ended. With a working supply chain they would still be flying them in Iran today.
They actually were a better ground based aircraft than carrier based. They weren't retired from our Navy due to service issues, the swing wing never had any significant issues. It had weight issues, and landing gear issues. With Tomcats aboard the carrier air wing was reduced in size because they are much bigger and heavier. They beat up the decks. Wing swing also limited hard point carrying capacity. Bomb/Missiles had to be mounted inboard of the pivot point. Compare that to an FA 18 with stores all the way to the wingtips.
The FA/18 is about 2/3rds of a Tomcat in terms of range and bomb load and weight. It is still a formidable opponent. But since we aren't making parts for them any more its days are numbered.
BTW, the submission by Arik is a reprint of a 2015 story [warisboring.com], which was old news then, and hasn't improved any with age.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:25AM
The Iranian gov't changed after the initial sale. The new gov't wants to blow US and Israel up.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:45AM
The US has gone to great lengths to prevent Iran from procuring replacement parts from us. Many of our old planes are maintained at the 'boneyard' and could still be resurrected if needed, while others have been sold off for other uses. F-14s are an exception. A few parts and pieces have made it to Iran, and the effort to prevent them from getting more led to the pentagon paying a contractor extra to, not salvage, but destroy all the old airframes that one would expect to see at the boneyard, and all the spare parts that could be located were destroyed as well.
Very expensive equipment the taxpayer purchased, maintained, and then paid extra to destroy.
No, we went to no lengths at all, clearly you are correct.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:29AM (1 child)
Perhaps you should re-read the submission and its linked article. They are also not flying them off aircraft carriers.
We pretty much tripped over ourselves to sell them in the first place. Now we spend decent amount of time and money making sure they can not fix them. As per the article and legend.
They were decent enough aircraft *for their time*. They have been pretty much been superseded in every way. Including the most important way. Making sure our aircraft companies make boatloads of tax payer money.
I would considering shredding the existing remaining fleet instead of leaving them to sit in the desert sun fairly extraordinary lengths. *very* few of our planes we do that with. Even the 'crappy' f111, f4s, and f18s. There are fleets of them in the desert sun waiting for 'maybe we will use them'.
It had weight issues, and landing gear issues
The f18 and its sister plane the f16 were the f35 of their day. Clunky and bug ridden until years of upgrades and fixes made them worth using. The F-14 was no exception.
Bomb/Missiles had to be mounted inboard of the pivot point.
The f-14 was basically designed around delivering the AIM-54 missile and decent dog fighting capabilities. Thats it. A general one size fits all plane that they have been trying to come up with for years (and still have not) The AIM-54 was a lesson from the Vietnam war where the armed forces no longer wanted to dog fight. They wanted over the horizon shots basically blow them up before they even see you. It was an interesting strategy that we use even today.
The f-18 made a much better air craft carrier plan due to its smaller size and lighter weight and shorter range missile platforms. But as you pointed out the f-14s were not exactly good planes for being near the water. They were however decent air base strike craft which Iran uses them for. The MIGs however eventually outstripped them and the F-15/F-16/F-18 filled in that gap.
Iran retired most of them
If you read the article you will realize they have about half of them still flying. Up from the dozen or so they had about 20 years ago. They are still formidable craft. You should not dismiss it out of hand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:02AM
Thank goodiness that the USofA has the F-35, designed to go head to head and toe to toe and penis to penis, with a Soviet MiG! Problem, a F-14 could kick the F-35's ass. Even if, or perhaps especially if, Tome Cruz was flying it. Don't get me started on the "pilot-killer" other US plane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @10:23AM
Compare with the replacement:
33720 kg for the F-14 D
29937 kg for the F/A-18 E/F
That's about 10% less. It's nothing to get excited about.
Note that the F-35 is not the replacement. That one replaces the F/A-18 A/B/C.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:07PM (1 child)
What are you talking about? The FA/18 is still in production. You can still buy a brand spanking new one. It'll be flying for decades yet (though perhaps not for the US though). As a matter of fact, Canada is pissed off at us at the moment because we won't sell them new FA/18's anymore after they committed to buying the F-35.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @11:06PM
You can still buy a brand spanking new [F/A-18]
Well, I don't know about that particular weapons system, but here's photographic evidence that you're on the right track.
The Right To Bear Arms [militaryhumor.net]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @01:23AM (3 children)
Don't worry, the new F-35s will replace everything with a sleek, unibody design. Inferior moving parts, like service hatches will be a thing of the past. And it will replace all airframes in all branches-- one design to rule them all! Think of the savings we will have with only one supple chain for all and everyone.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:11AM
Exactly what they said about the F-111.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:03AM
Of course you realize, a supple chain is only as strong as its most supple link.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @10:59PM
inferior moving parts, like service hatches will be a thing of the past
Eliminating edges is a big thing with "stealth" designs.
We previously discussed this aspect of plastic airplanes.
The F-35: A Gold-Plated Turkey [soylentnews.org]
To do something as rudimentary as replace a fuse, you have to cut a hole in the aircraft, do the required maintenance, then patch the hole with some nasty chemicals.
After that, you have to wait a few days for the glue to cure before you can fly the aircraft again.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @01:29AM (2 children)
So by your reasoning, a folded-paper glider is the optimal combat aircraft design.
Or perhaps a helium balloon?
Wizard! The World's Greatest Expert has done it again!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:06AM (1 child)
The optimal combat design is the Jew-bomber.
Napalm bombs with hooknose-seeing missiles. The Pope calls it the "peacemaker," but if the Jews found peace how would they convince the rest of the world to do their bidding?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:14AM
Well if the pederast-in-chief is against you must be doing *something* right.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:05AM (1 child)
The F-14 was a damn good plane. It wasn't perfect.
Today we make a different choice regarding the wing, but it wasn't unreasonable. Spreading the swing wing greatly improves the ability to carry a high load at low speeds, which is important for carrier operations. Folding the wing in allows easy below-deck storage, which matters for carrier operations, and of course allows more speed. Disadvantages are that a heavy mechanism is taking up space and will require maintenance. Overall, it isn't bad.
The plane give the navy some serious capability. It had range, speed, good radar, and lots of deadly weapons. It was the only plane that had the cooling supply lines needed to carry the Phoenix missile, which was a damn fine missile.
The F-14 wasn't quite the maintenance hog that the FB-111 was. The FB-111 had hard glassy steel around the swing wing joint. This was compact and lightweight and generally quite strong... but prone to crack propagation. The F-14 didn't have that issue.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:19AM
Still to this day unequaled, at least in terms of effective range.
Of course at this point I expect they are all clones, the originals would be too old to be reliable even if they survived. Clones with some minor improvements, in fact. So no one really knows for sure how they would perform. But it's a very large, sophisticated missile, designed to be fired from extremely long range and to turn into a gigantic cone of shrapnel at the end, and it would probably still hold up reasonably well.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:09AM
We all saw the plane sucked: By the time you raise the seat to the max to accommodate Tom Cruise, the guy behind, who is at least 7 inches taller, ends up with his head in the canopy.