Why I hate Cheney! (Not a political thing)
Freeunitedstates
17-09-2005, 02:38
This is mainly a place for me to vent, but I just learned something interesting. I had planned on joining the Navy and flying the banging F-14 :cool: . My hopes were dashed when it was announced that they would be phased-out by fiscal year 2007 :( . All right, I could accept that. It would cost a billion dollars a year to keep a squadron up. All right, fine, whatever. But wait...didn't Grumman anticipate this? The answer is yes! They submitted plans before 1994 for a cheaper, lower maintenance F-14 variant. Only problem, they'd have to make new airframes because the originals were getting past their designed lifespans. So, what happened? Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney ordered all molds and tooling to be destroyed!! :eek: He placed the gun to the tomcat's head and pulled the trigger! :sniper:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
UUGGGHH! Venting done. I'm fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14
BTW: how does a guy who got deferments in 'Nam get to be Sec. of Defense?
Pepe Dominguez
17-09-2005, 02:46
If a cheaper alternative was offered in 1994, Cheney wasn't Secretary of Defense.. you mean before 1992, yes?
Freeunitedstates
17-09-2005, 03:17
oh, yes, that's what i meant. sorry. i knew it sounded weird when i was checking it...
Lachenburg
17-09-2005, 03:34
I guess you'll just have to make due with the F/A-18 Super Hornet then. :)
Freeunitedstates
17-09-2005, 03:53
yah, but even the E/F variant isn't as good. it's targeting suite can only track and lock three targets, as opposed to the F-14's seven, but it's better than an F-35C. thing looks like a suped up f-16, an aircrafft which has one of the worst operational records of any of its contemporaries. plus, it's like a harrier, and harriers have THE worst record, from what i've heard.
Lacadaemon
17-09-2005, 04:35
yah, but even the E/F variant isn't as good. it's targeting suite can only track and lock three targets, as opposed to the F-14's seven, but it's better than an F-35C. thing looks like a suped up f-16, an aircrafft which has one of the worst operational records of any of its contemporaries. plus, it's like a harrier, and harriers have THE worst record, from what i've heard.
Harriers work well - as long as americans aren't flying them. They are not really an air superiority plane though. Anyway, what do you want to fly an F-14 for, the thing's an ancient piece of junk.
Freeunitedstates
17-09-2005, 04:50
blasphemer! jking!
well, the harrier is operated by the marines, and they're not exactly the sharpest tools on the ship.
and, because, an F-14 is the closest thing to a VF-1 Valkyrie! :D
[NS]Antre_Travarious
17-09-2005, 04:52
Harriers work well - as long as americans aren't flying them.
Pathetic.
Ah come on, it isn't that bad. There are plenty of newer, better, cooler Fighters coming up to service soon.
Freeunitedstates
17-09-2005, 05:08
like what? i see a sad history for the F-35, and i guess i'll have to grudgely accept a hornet. i wonder if a CAG has enough pull to get a personal fighter?
Lacadaemon
17-09-2005, 05:13
Antre_Travarious']Pathetic.
Sadly, it's true though. It has an excellent operational history elsewhere.
Lacadaemon
17-09-2005, 05:15
blasphemer! jking!
well, the harrier is operated by the marines, and they're not exactly the sharpest tools on the ship.
and, because, an F-14 is the closest thing to a VF-1 Valkyrie! :D
Okay, well that is a good reason.
Sick Dreams
17-09-2005, 05:20
Behold the future! F/A-22 RAPTOR (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199)
The F/A-22 cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft.
Lacadaemon
17-09-2005, 05:24
Behold the future! F/A-22 RAPTOR (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199)
No naval variant.
Sick Dreams
17-09-2005, 05:29
I'm not knocking the Navy in ANY way. I love our sailors! Just one question. Why would one join the Navy to fly a jet? Just curious.
Freeunitedstates
17-09-2005, 05:29
why would i listen to a bunch a zoomies? Navy units have almost always placed higher when they where invited to Red Flag. besides, the f-22 has yet to prove itself in one-on-one turns and burns. it's only proven it can blow up stuff, which the f-14 could also do.
Lacadaemon
17-09-2005, 05:31
I'm not knocking the Navy in ANY way. I love our sailors! Just one question. Why would one join the Navy to fly a jet? Just curious.
Because you want to be an aviator, not a pilot.
Sick Dreams
17-09-2005, 05:32
No naval variant.
I guess the Hornet would be the nect best thing then.
Sick Dreams
17-09-2005, 05:32
Because you want to be an aviator, not a pilot.
I'm not sure what the difference is. ?
Its because Naval Air Power has been the key to naval victory since 1941? Just a guess.
Freeunitedstates
17-09-2005, 05:34
Because you want to be an aviator, not a pilot.
right-o! it's proven that naval aviators are better pilots. plus, then you don't get made fun of by the other branches. danged zoomies! jking :D
Lacadaemon
17-09-2005, 05:42
I'm not sure what the difference is. ?
Historically, naval aviators didn't like to be refered to as pilots. They felt is cheapened their skills. (Which are actually considerable considering the complexity of a carrier landing. I actually worked with a guy who washed out because he could do everything except stick a carrier landing).
Freeunitedstates
17-09-2005, 06:35
call me crazy, but i can't wait for my car-quals! trapping over and over, aiming for something the size of a postal stamp!
blue water navy truism: there are more planes in the ocean than submarines i nthe sky:)