F-14D Felix 101 comes home.
- Thread starter Malo83
- Start date
Brickmania made a custom Lego set of this for a while.
What's up with the paint job? It's too clean. They should look like they've lived life at sea for over a decade.
GIve it a couple years out in the elements. Lol.
It does look kinda like a mortician put the makeup on it. Too perfect.
The Space Shuttles on public display have that lived in look. I understand that they can’t really be cleaned, although some of the tiles have been replaced over time where some look darker. But the white parts include various shades of brown.
Awesome! Thanks for posting.
I still believe the main reason why the F-14 got the axe was not because it was obsolete, it was because its excellence stood in the way of government writing huge, essentially blank checks to the aerospace companies. My perception, my reality
I still believe the main reason why the F-14 got the axe was not because it was obsolete, it was because its excellence stood in the way of government writing huge, essentially blank checks to the aerospace companies. My perception, my reality
They were a huge maintenance sink. I saw something from a former maintainer saying that “if it wasn’t leaking, it was empty”. I used to think that the wing sweep mechanism was the big issue, but it was apparently hydraulic fluid leaking everywhere. That, and the sheer amount of fuel it used.
But there hasn’t been quite as photogenic a fighter jet anywhere.
I’m not sure I can agree with either of those statements.
First, the airplane carried about 6000 pounds more internal fuel than the F/A-18. The fuel burn per hour was similar. Except that the F 14 was carrying more ordnance. In the landing pattern, the F-14 would actually use slightly less fuel per trip around the landing pattern than the F 18.
I used to manage the entire fuel budget for CVW-8, and in terms of fuel per hour, the F-14 in the F/A-18 were similar cost. The Hornet burns a lot more gas than you would think for its size. One major disadvantage of having the F/A–18 in your Airwing was the increased requirement for tanker fuel.
The maintenance on the F-14 was higher per flight hour than the F/A-18. The maintenance man hours were higher as well. But again it’s not a fair comparison, because the Hornet was a lot newer. Newer cars breakdown less often than high mileage, hard driven older cars. I was flying 15-year-old Tomcats, and three-month-old Hornets.
In the late 1980s, the Navy knew that in the late 1990s there was going to be a “fighter gap” - that they would not have enough air frames with service life left on them to fill every carrier deck. The plan was to re-engine and re-manufacture the F-14s into the D model. The A model airplanes still had a lot of life left.
But lobbyists got involved, Congress got involved, and ultimately the secretary of defense got involved and in 1990 made the decision to buy the hornet over the tomcat. There was a bit of animosity between the secretary, and the New York delegation.
Part of the decision was the “low cost” of the F/A-18, which didn’t turn out to be true. And the idea that a new “super hornet” would fix all the problems of the A through D models, while being a low risk alternative.
Same airplane, right?
So, Mcdonald Douglas was awarded the contract for the new “super hornet”. The new airplane had new engines, a new fuselage, new landing gear, new wings, new weapon system, new cockpit, new support systems, new tails, new horizontal stabilizers… In fact, the only common parts between the old hornet, and the new hornet, was the ARC-182 radio and the ejection seat.
The cost of this new airplane went up rapidly, as it costs a lot of money to develop an entirely new airplane, even if you call it the same name.
As the F 14 fleet was downsized and replaced by the Super Hornet, all of the costs of maintaining a fleet type, all of the intermediate maintenance, where engines are reworked, and avionics repaired, as well as technician training and flight crew training, was amortized over fewer, and fewer, airplanes, and those airplanes weren’t getting any newer.
So, yes, by the early 2000s, 25 year old F-14 airplanes were taking a lot of maintenance, and each flight hour was going up in cost as the fleet kept getting smaller.
Ultimately, the decision to terminate Tomcat production was a political one, not an operational one. There are planners today, looking at various scenarios around the world, wishing that they had the Tomcat’s speed, range, and payload.
Because, despite all the promises, the “super hornet“ didn’t deliver on any of those goals.
The Super Hornet performed well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where they only had to fly a short distance until they hit an Air Force tanker, were they operated in a permissive environment. These are somewhat ideal conditions, and there are scenarios in which the Navy will not operate in ideal conditions, where big tankers won’t be able to fly, and in those scenarios, speed, range, and payload are critical.
The Navy has retired all of its original F/A-18 Hornets.
Know why?
Because, as they got older, their cost per flight hour went way up. The maintenance cost on them went way up. The maintenance man hours per flight hour also went up.
Funny how that seems to happen to older airplanes.
Last edited:
Thanks Astro for the amazing history & insight, and of course for validating my opinion. The F-14 really was the “Top Cat” where naval flight ops are concerned.
You’d think it would be fairly simple to begin making new airframes and parts, and using upgraded electronics where available. Politics ruin everything good….
You’d think it would be fairly simple to begin making new airframes and parts, and using upgraded electronics where available. Politics ruin everything good….
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
I've Sundowned three aircraft during my career in the puzzle palace.
Sundowning isn't about getting rid of the aircraft and the junk that goes with it. It is about sustaining an aging platform until the last plane is parked for good.
It should surprise no one that Airframes are designed for just so many thousands of flight hours. You get to a point that new wings and restricting G's, Cats, and Traps isn't going to buy you a deployable, combat worthy aircraft anymore. Old aircraft are down more because old stuff fails more. All mechanical parts reach a point that they are too worn to rebuild.
A major factor (that also leads to increasing maintenance costs as well as administrative management costs) is Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS).
Parts just aren't made anymore. No company keeps a production line open when the orders cease for years at a time and those employees and equipment can be producing new stuff that sells in the tens of thousands.
Redesign and putting new, replacement stuff in production is cost prohibitive and requires a lot of lead time; usually years of lead time.
Despite nostalgia and daydreams, outdated stuff is outdated stuff.
Gramp's Model A was great for him from the 1930s until the end of WWII. It just won't cut it as my daily driver. It's outclassed as a pickup as well as being problematic to maintain.
Sundowning isn't about getting rid of the aircraft and the junk that goes with it. It is about sustaining an aging platform until the last plane is parked for good.
It should surprise no one that Airframes are designed for just so many thousands of flight hours. You get to a point that new wings and restricting G's, Cats, and Traps isn't going to buy you a deployable, combat worthy aircraft anymore. Old aircraft are down more because old stuff fails more. All mechanical parts reach a point that they are too worn to rebuild.
A major factor (that also leads to increasing maintenance costs as well as administrative management costs) is Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS).
Parts just aren't made anymore. No company keeps a production line open when the orders cease for years at a time and those employees and equipment can be producing new stuff that sells in the tens of thousands.
Redesign and putting new, replacement stuff in production is cost prohibitive and requires a lot of lead time; usually years of lead time.
Despite nostalgia and daydreams, outdated stuff is outdated stuff.
Gramp's Model A was great for him from the 1930s until the end of WWII. It just won't cut it as my daily driver. It's outclassed as a pickup as well as being problematic to maintain.
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
The whole squadron.
Felix the Cat has been in use by VF-31 since the 1930s.
No argument with anything you said. The Navy needed new airplanes, and lots of them, to fill the fighter gap. The Super Hornet did that. It filled the gap.
But newer is not always better. It depends on the times, the contract, the specifications, everything.
The 1980 Chevette was much newer than the 1969 L88 Corvette. It was way better on gas mileage. Was better on maintenance and cost.
Didn’t make it a better car.
We went to Memorial Day activities a few years back and one of the groups there was a Model A club. I've got a picture of my kid standing on the running board. Really nice group of guys. I suppose it would tough keeping them running, although I suspect that there were a lot of new parts made of materials unavailable at the time they were originally assembled.
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Agreed. That's a whole different thread that's full of politics and religion.
.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
There is a lot of rethinking going right as we speak about these things.
COIN is here to stay, but add the return of third-generation warfare too.
It really depends on the nature of the fight. If we go against a near-peer adversary, and the Navy has to stay, well, let’s call it a reasonable distance from their shoreline, then range becomes critical.
Further, in such a conflict, that adversary will kill any big wing/USAF tanker that comes close, so…all of the super hornets will need to be tanked by other super hornets from the carrier.
Not an ideal situation.
The F-35, for all its faults, has some pretty good range. The Navy version in particular has more range then either the Marine Corps or Air Force version.
In a counterinsurgency, where there are ample Air Force tankers overhead, the Super Hornet is great…but long range is really needed for some scenarios…
Let me add that in that high end fight, in that near peer scenario, stealth will be a requirement for the early stages of conflict if we want those airplanes to survive.
Similar threads
