but the A-10 isnt really made for air to air combat though. it has a few air defence weapons, but it really is an air to ground aircraft

Quote:


There in lies my point. This commentater made it out to be the best every thing but it is only good at what it was designed to do.That is probably what this program was doing. The f-14 may be a good interceptor but could it do the rest of the things that an EFA, a very advanced multi role aircraft, could do?

P.S the EFA might be able to keep up with the turning circle of an A-10.

Well here's my philosophy with the F-14. If it can go faster, carry more weapons, longer range, and the one and only plane in the NATO inventory that carries one of the worlds farther range missles. Even though its thirty years old it still carries some of the most advanced weapons in the world, has the worlds most powerful radar suite and targeting package. Its still one of the worlds technological feats with its swing-wing design. Its heavy, its bulky, its old, but its still one of the most feared fighter interceptors in the world. With the new GE engines being installed in the fleet it gives it an extra 7,000 lbs of thrust, up to 27,000. But in comparison the F-14 is more like the F-15 while the Eurofighter is more like the F-16. Small, fast, agile, its a great aircraft, but I'm sticking to my Tomcat for the time being. One last thing, when you guys build a fighter dont ask other nations to chip in because you will only get half of what you want. The F-14 was a god send for the Navy, it may be expensive but to hell with that, if it does that job right politicians have no business telling people how it should be handled.

Addon to post above: Did I just hear that correctly, that the EFA has NO CANNON!?!? What the hell are these people thinking. There was a whole show on the other day on the importance of the cannon. Back in Vietnam the first F-4 Phantoms had no cannon, and they got their butts kicked by the NVAF MiG-21's, until the cannon was mounted on. For future of air combat there will always be the need for a cannon, no matter how technologically advanced we are. The US found that out by the bodies of dead pilots in Vietnam...  

as my dad explained to me.
the reason no cannon, on the EF is because of a few reasons,
1: it will save a huge amount of money.
2: it will save a large amount of weight.
3: they do not spend millions of £'s on a fighter for it to be put in a position where it can be shot down in close combat and since dogfighting is almost non exsistant there no reason for it there. and it isnt going to be used for strafing so it wont need one basically.
thats from his inner workings with the MOD.

like you guys i think it could be a big downfall in the long run.

Craig I do believe we've heard the arguement for not dogfighting before. The first F4s over 'Nam didn't have guns because all the clever eggs thought that dogfighting was dead in the advent of the missile age!
Dogfighting is always a possibility, and if you don't prepare for it your bottom will have a large boot come into contact with it!
Oh and nobody has mentioned the greatest carrier based fighter of all time yet......... The Seafire

Ozzy (one heavily biased Supermarine products fanatic)

Quote:


yah the f-14 is a reall b*tch to land.

there are many different ways to end up flying different aircraft (wow hope that came out so that someone can understand it  ) when i was in the navy. . .unless you were coming in from the academy. . .you would have to generally  prove yourself elegable for top gun school. . .and then after all the training and stuff you get to fly the f-14

. . .it could be different nowadays

It depends which F-14 model you are talking about. There is the F-14A/A+ and the F-14B/D. The B/D models have new engines and improved airframes and lots of other goodies. The A/A+ had the older engines that tended to seize in flight.

Yea the old P&W turbines would seize during violent flight tactics. So they were changed to GE engines that were safer and punched out 7,000 more lbs of thrust.