QF-14

[Bob Urz]

Why did not the US turn the F14 into QF14 drones rather than just cut
them up? How many F14's are left in the bone yard?

I see there are plans for QF-16's when the F4 supply runs low.

bob

[jkochko68]

We can't secure F-14 Tomcats on a military base? I'm sure its not that
simple but to scrap a Mach 2+?
aircraft seems kind of dumb. Why not turn them into very high
performance cruise missiles or piloted
UCAVs for very high risk missions? I just see it as a waste of a great
aircraft.

JK

>
> > Why did not the US turn the F14 into QF14 drones rather than just cut
> > them up? How many F14's are left in the bone yard?
>
> > I see there are plans for QF-16's when the F4 supply runs low.
>
> > bob
>
> *Too much chance of Iran getting hold of some parts...
>
>

[Dave Kearton[_3_]]

> >
> >
> > Too much chance of Iran getting hold of some parts...
> >
> >



"jkochko68" > wrote in message
...
> We can't secure F-14 Tomcats on a military base? I'm sure its not that
> simple but to scrap a Mach 2+?
> aircraft seems kind of dumb. Why not turn them into very high
> performance cruise missiles or piloted
> UCAVs for very high risk missions? I just see it as a waste of a great
> aircraft.

> JK


The Iran question probably wouldn't involve completed aircraft, as you point
out, they're counted and locked up at night..


While the Iranians can fabricate their own simple parts like carbies, tail
lights and bumpers, the warehouses of computer systems that are Tomcat
exclusive or no longer available commercially, would be the real issue.

If a USN storeman is tempted with a million dollars for a box of parts that
will get a few planes airborne, that could change the dynamic in the region.
It wouldn't necessarily change the balance of power, but it'll cause more
angst than it's worth.





--


Cheers

Dave Kearton

[jkochko68]

Wow how is scrapping a plane going to get rid of a warehouse of parts?
The government must not have heard
of a semi-truck and a empty hanger that could maybe just maybe store
something other than aircraft. This is such
an infantile attitude the U.S. took about this F-14 parts situation,
as if another country has never wanted something
we have that they want and we are acting like its the 1st time
somebody might try to steal or buy it through obscure
channels.

Is any amount of upgrading the Iranians are capable of going to make
them a threat to a Super Hornet, JSF,
or F-22? Iran probably keeps the F-14s flying just to thumb their nose
at us. Everybody talks about the "hot new S-300, S-400"
SAMS...not 30 plus year old Iranian F-14s.

JK

> If a USN storeman is tempted with a million dollars for a box of parts that
> will get a few planes airborne, that could change the dynamic in the region.
> It wouldn't necessarily change the balance of power, but it'll cause more
> angst than it's worth.
>
> --
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave Kearton

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:09:34 -0600, bob urz >
wrote:

>Why did not the US turn the F14 into QF14 drones rather than just cut
>them up? How many F14's are left in the bone yard?
>
>I see there are plans for QF-16's when the F4 supply runs low.

There were some postings a while back when the F-14 was retired that
the decision was largely based upon costs (dollars and maintenance
hours per flight hour). I don't remember all the details but my
impression is that those costs are so high that a Q version would be
just too expensive.

[John Szalay]

jkochko68 > wrote in
:

> Wow how is scrapping a plane going to get rid of a warehouse of parts?
> The government must not have heard
> of a semi-truck and a empty hanger that could maybe just maybe store
> something other than aircraft. This is such
> an infantile attitude the U.S. took about this F-14 parts situation,
> as if another country has never wanted something
> we have that they want and we are acting like its the 1st time
> somebody might try to steal or buy it through obscure
> channels.
>


SUPPOSEDLY all critical F-14 parts are being accounted for..both off the
airframe and in the parts inventory..

YEA I know it ain't going to happen, BUT they do not want ANY F-14 parts to
get to Iran.. The F-14 is an obsolete aircraft, difficult to maintain
and expensive to fly.. the Navy brass wants them out of the inventory
and to not become a threat again.. the F-14s even went to a special
scrapping unit to insure the parts headcount...

The AirForce beancounters wants to do the same thing to the U-2 as they did
to the SR-71, since they cost too much to maintain and "don,t fit the
gunfighter hotshot pilot image
but the end-users need the output of the Elint U-2 so it stays in the
invetory for 2 more years, until one of the UAV gets the Elint upgrade.
the battle for money goes on..

[John[_1_]]

On Jan 20, 11:25*am, John Szalay >
wrote:
> jkochko68 > wrote :
>
> > Wow how is scrapping a plane going to get rid of a warehouse of parts?
> > The government must not have heard
> > of a semi-truck and a empty hanger that could maybe just maybe store
> > something other than aircraft. *This is such
> > an infantile attitude the U.S. took about this F-14 parts situation,
> > as if another country has never wanted something
> > we have that they want and we are acting like its the 1st time
> > somebody might try to steal or buy it through obscure
> > channels.
>
> SUPPOSEDLY all critical F-14 parts are being accounted for..both off the
> airframe and in the parts inventory..
>
> YEA I know it ain't going to happen, BUT they do not want ANY F-14 parts to
> get to Iran.. *The F-14 is an obsolete aircraft, difficult to maintain
> and expensive to fly.. the Navy brass wants them out of the inventory
> and to not become a threat again.. the F-14s even went to a special
> scrapping unit to insure the parts headcount...
>
> The AirForce beancounters wants to do the same thing to the U-2 as they did
> to the SR-71, since they cost too much to maintain and "don,t fit the
> gunfighter hotshot pilot image
> but the end-users need the output of the Elint U-2 so it stays in the
> invetory for 2 more years, until one of the UAV gets the Elint upgrade.
> the battle for money goes on..

The F-14 was hard to maintain and costly, as well. Part of that cost
is probably a reflection of systems reliability. I recall reading
that unlike other two-seater aircraft, press people who flew the
airplane needed to be trained on certain systems (beyond ejection
seats) because the backseater had things to do in order for the plane
to ready to fly. I suspect it was more than just sensors because you
don't need to run the radar to demo the plane to a VIP or a
journalist.

If the plane's reliability is dicey, then how willing are you to shoot
the thing off over the Gulf of Mexico and hope it will make it to the
range. The real answer is probably that despite the amount of
hardware just sitting somewhere, it would cost more than other
alternatives without offering anything particularly unique.

Take care all . . .

John

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:15:47 -0800 (PST), jkochko68
> wrote:

>We can't secure F-14 Tomcats on a military base? I'm sure its not that
>simple but to scrap a Mach 2+?
>aircraft seems kind of dumb. Why not turn them into very high
>performance cruise missiles or piloted
>UCAVs for very high risk missions? I just see it as a waste of a great
>aircraft.
>
>JK
>
>>
>> > Why did not the US turn the F14 into QF14 drones rather than just cut
>> > them up? How many F14's are left in the bone yard?
>>
>> > I see there are plans for QF-16's when the F4 supply runs low.
>>
>> > bob
>>
>> *Too much chance of Iran getting hold of some parts...
>>
>>

I wonder about the Navy sometimes. Capabilities don't seem to matter
anymore. They retired the F-14 and still don't have anything that
would match an F-14 upgraded to todays standards. Quantity seems to
overide quality. An equal to the F-15, some would say it was better,
they both had equal records, neither was shot down in air-to-air
combat and both suffered two combat losses each, from sams or ground
fire.

The same with the A-6. The Navy still doesn't have one aircraft that
would match it's capabilities.

[John Szalay]

wrote in :

>
>
> I wonder about the Navy sometimes. Capabilities don't seem to matter
> anymore. They retired the F-14 and still don't have anything that
> would match an F-14 upgraded to todays standards.
>
> The same with the A-6. The Navy still doesn't have one aircraft that
> would match it's capabilities.
>


Nor do they have the money to maintain what they have..plus get new stuff.

The budget reality strikes hard..


going back some years, I remember living on C's for weeks in garrison
to help free money for the war in Nam.
But then they found enough money to fly all of us over there...the whole
damned division, a short time later....

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:00:12 -0600, John Szalay
> wrote:

wrote in :
>
>>
>>
>> I wonder about the Navy sometimes. Capabilities don't seem to matter
>> anymore. They retired the F-14 and still don't have anything that
>> would match an F-14 upgraded to todays standards.
>>
>> The same with the A-6. The Navy still doesn't have one aircraft that
>> would match it's capabilities.
>>
>
>
> Nor do they have the money to maintain what they have..plus get new stuff.
>
>The budget reality strikes hard..
>
>
>going back some years, I remember living on C's for weeks in garrison
>to help free money for the war in Nam.
>But then they found enough money to fly all of us over there...the whole
>damned division, a short time later....
>

It's goes back even further that that. In 1964 the USMC would run out
of money and serve K (or was it C) rations in the mess hall. This was
before the Kaneohe Maraines were sent to Nam.

However, it seems the Navy has enough money to keep buying FA-18s.
Quantity, not quality. In the Navys defence it does make sense in a
way. The F-14 was designed and produced as a fleet defense fighter
with the capabilitu of shooting down multiple targets, aircraft and
cruise missiles, with the Phoenix missile. With the fall of the Soviet
Union they no longer needed that capability.

[jkochko68]

On Jan 23, 11:36*am, wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:00:12 -0600, John Szalay
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> >> I wonder about the Navy sometimes. Capabilities don't seem to matter
> >> anymore. They retired the F-14 and still don't have anything that
> >> would match an F-14 upgraded to todays standards.
>
> >> The same with the A-6. The Navy still doesn't have one aircraft that
> >> would match it's capabilities.
>
> > Nor do they have the money to maintain what they have..plus get new stuff.
>
> >The budget reality strikes hard..
>
> >going back some years, I remember living on C's for weeks in garrison
> >to help free money for the war in Nam.
> >But then they found enough money to fly all of us over there...the whole
> >damned division, a short time later....
>
> It's goes back even further that that. In 1964 the USMC would run out
> of money and serve *K (or was it C) rations in the mess hall. This was
> before the Kaneohe Maraines were sent to Nam.
>
> However, it seems the Navy has enough money to keep buying FA-18s.
> Quantity, not quality. In the Navys defence it does make sense in a
> way. The F-14 was designed and produced as a fleet defense fighter
> with the capabilitu of shooting down multiple targets, aircraft and
> cruise missiles, with the Phoenix missile. With the fall of the Soviet
> Union they no longer needed that capability. *

AEGIS took lead in mass air attack defense. Bears and cruise missiles.
At least
until China gets wise and builds heavy bombers based inland where to
strike would
require a major esclatation of the conflict between nuclear powers.
Anything they put on/in the
water would be fair game.

JK

JK

[theref]

"bob urz" > wrote in message
...
> Why did not the US turn the F14 into QF14 drones rather than just cut them
> up? How many F14's are left in the bone yard?
>
> I see there are plans for QF-16's when the F4 supply runs low.
>
> bob

In 1969, we shot Sparrows at QF-9s (Panther)at Pt. Mugu from F-4B and Js
(Phantoms) as well as Sidewinders from F-8s. Later they used F-14s to shoot
Phoenix missiles at QF-4s-as well as Sparrows and Sidewinders. Now I see
all 3 of them at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. The beat goes on. No
aircraft looked more menacing than an F-4.

[jkochko68]

On Jan 26, 11:40*pm, "theref" > wrote:
> "bob urz" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Why did not the US turn the F14 into QF14 drones rather than just cut them
> > up? How many F14's are left in the bone yard?
>
> > I see there are plans for QF-16's when the F4 supply runs low.
>
> > bob
>
> In 1969, we shot Sparrows at QF-9s (Panther)at Pt. Mugu from F-4B and Js
> (Phantoms) as well as Sidewinders from F-8s. *Later they used F-14s to shoot
> Phoenix missiles at QF-4s-as well as Sparrows and Sidewinders. *Now I see
> all 3 of them at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. *The beat goes on. *No
> aircraft looked more menacing than an F-4.

Yeah and it probably has a huge RCS for a fighter. :-) I imagine the
return you would get from the
section where the swept wing and airframe meet is huge.