Replies

But as to the statement I quote above, I recall no contract tiff at that time worth mentioning (early in the F-14 program is another matter entirely). And as to the destruction of the tools, which I can confirm, I ruefully note that whenever an aircraft program is cancelled its opponents will drive a stake through its heart it that way. They never are content to allow for the possibility that it might ever be prudent to change that decision in light of future events.

Cheney didn't do it to spite your company. A freeper a while back explained it that he did it to spite the Pentagon. It seems one of his pet programs the Pentagon had issue with {possibly the Osprey} had some funding for it used for other more pressing purposes and as a result or rather punishment he canceled production of F-14's. I wish I could find that thread and post if I do I'll ping you to it. Canceling the Tomcats has to be one of the worst planning moves in modern Naval Aviation. It was the best carrier based Navy fighter. Funding for Avionics upgrades and keeping the F-14 would have been a far better use of money and resources.

Losing the F-14 with its long legs, and the AIM-54 with its long legs, have in essence given enemy attack aircraft almost another 200 mile window to launch their missiles now that we use the Super-Hornet/AMRAAM combination. IMHO, that is foolish, terribly ill-advised, and very dangerous. We need another long range air superiority fighter for the carrier fleet, and we need the ALRAAM.

In addition, by retiring the entire S-3 ASW capability, we have given enemy submarines a much better chance to get in close to the carrier. With the S-3s ranging well in advance and to either side of the carrier group...with their speed, loiter capability, and ordinance load, our CSGs were much better protected on the ASW front. I keep hoping that an AV-22 variant for ASW will be developed to fill that gap. Another very foolish "peace dividend" in a very dangerous world.

Finally add to that the decomissioning and disposal (More than half by sinking) of the Spruance class destroyers when they had a good 10-15 year service life (or more) left in them, also weakened the prtotective umbrella around a CSG or a PHIBRON. THose vessels were quiet and very well suited to ASW roles which the BUrkes are now having to pick up...diluting their abilities in the AAW role for which they are most suited.

I might add, though I agree with the general prosecution of the WOT that this administration has done, all of these things have happened under the current administration. (BTW, it would have been MUCH worse under any adminstration on the other side of the aisl).

In the face of this draw down (in the last five years we have built 39 new major surface combatants but decomissioned and disposed of 45), we see the PLAN building and buying new modern major surface combatants like crazy. By comparison, in the last five years they have increased their own fleet by 80 major combatants...while we lost 6. They are still behind for sure...but with numbers like that, if they continue, they will catch up very quickly.

See THE RISING SEA DRAGON IN ASIA.

Funding for Avionics upgrades and keeping the F-14 would have been a far better use of money and resources.

. Funding for Avionics upgrades and keeping the F-14 in production would have obviated the point to development of the F-18E/F, which is (as you likely know) a look-alike to rather than a different model of the previous F-18 aircraft. Since the F-14 is a bigger and far more capable aircraft than anything which is called an F-18.
With the money spent on the F-18E/F you could likely have built all the F-14s the carriers needed until the F-14 was supplanted by a truly superior (stealthy) aircraft.
Always assuming you could ameliorate the maintenance/flight hour issue.