GTP Alternative Cool Wall: 1969-1991 Grumman F-14 Tomcat

1969-1991 Grumman F-14 Tomcat

  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .
Roger the Horse

Roger the Horse

5,551
Antarctica
Controls set for heart of sun
GTP_RogerTheHors
Nominated by @Wolfe

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

f14_tomcat-jpg.199636


Production: 1969–1991
Role: Interceptor, air superiority and multirole combat aircraft
Engines: 2x General Electric F110-GE-400 afterburning turbofans (F-14D)
Dry Thrust -- 13,810lb.f (61.4kN) each
Afterburner -- 27,800lb.f (123.7kN) each​
Top Speed: Mach 2.34 (1,544mph, 2,485km/h) at high altitude
"Curb Weight": 43,735lbs. (19,838kg)
Maximum Range: 1,600 nautical miles (1,840mi., 2,960km)
Service Ceiling: 50,000+ft. (15,200m)
Retired: 22 September 2006 (United States Navy)
Unit cost: $38 million USD (1998)​
 
If this were a product of anywhere other than the United States, it would be Sub Zero. As a product of the United States, I can't place it that high, but...

Look at it.

Gorgeous lines, incredibly evocative. Cool.
 
See those wings? They move.

See those AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. If this is carrying 6 of them, it can shoot down 6 planes simultaneously at a range of over 120 miles.

Sub-Zero.

And this is even allowing for it being the star of Top Gun.
 
Roger the Horse
If this were a product of anywhere other than the United States, it would be Sub Zero. As a product of the United States, I can't place it that high, but...

Look at it.

Gorgeous lines, incredibly evocative. Cool.
Click to expand...

What? seems like a ridiculous reason to mark something down...

It was a great plane for it's time even if it wasn't the fastest or most agile, but it averaged out to be one of the best planes in the end, even if other planes during the same era from the same nation ended up being better and living longer (e.g. F-15 and F-18)
 
Never liked the look of the F14. If you compare it to any other American fighter like the P51, F4, F15, F22, etc, the rest are much better looking. But it IS an American fighter jet so...

Meh.
 
Great looking aircraft, technically interesting in a number of ways, iconic also.

F-15 uncool, F-18 uncool.. F-14 Sub Zero.




TOPGUN was absolutely terrible by the way.

edit:

LMSCorvetteGT2
What? seems like a ridiculous reason to mark something down...
Click to expand...

Plenty of GTP Cool Wall nominations have been marked down based on where they originated from.
 
daan
See those wings? They move.
Click to expand...
Makes sense for a Navy plane, but sweep wings are heavy, and when you want to generally avoid low speeds. The wings are more of a compromise than anything.

I like Russia's solution. The Su-33 operated from smaller carriers than the F-14 did and it did it without swing wings.


See those AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. If this is carrying 6 of them, it can shoot down 6 planes simultaneously at a range of over 120 miles.
Click to expand...

Bombers, assuming it breaks through ECM. It's less likely to have that range on other fighters as the AIM-54 would need to cruise at extreme altitude to reach such long range. That altitude degrades maneuverability. Still, the F-14's with AIM-54 used by Iran apparently dismantled Iraq's air force by themselves.

LMSCorvetteGT2
What? seems like a ridiculous reason to mark something down...

It was a great plane for it's time even if it wasn't the fastest or most agile, but it averaged out to be one of the best planes in the end, even if other planes during the same era from the same nation ended up being better and living longer (e.g. F-15 and F-18)
Click to expand...

The F-14 was the best at what it did, its short coming was that it was the least necessary. The F-18 and F-15 are less specialized. The F-14 was designed specifically for Cold War gone hot, but that never happened. The F/A-18 is a cheaper and lighter strike fighter that's better suited to modern war and the F-15 is a better air superiority fighter than the F-14. It's also an air force aircraft so it's more likely to be needed for offensive air to air roles.

Grumman tried to adapt the F-14 more than once, both to try and match the F-15 and to be a multirole strike plane, but the people in charge decided to look elsewhere.

The Bman
For being introduced in 1969, it was a really advanced fighter jet for it's time.

Sub-Zero.
Click to expand...

You're not really wrong in saying that, but it's right about where it should be. It was still in the design phase in the 60's and didn't see service until the 70's, which is about the same time as the F-15 and a little ahead of the MiG-31 (a Russian equivalent to the F-14) that was based on the pre existing MiG-25. It was the first 4th generation fighter, buy not by any significant leap. And you could see it coming in the F-111B.

MatskiMonk
F-15 uncool
Click to expand...

[factual statement]

You spelled sub zero wrong.

[/factual statement]
 
Exorcet
The F-14 was the best at what it did, its short coming was that it was the least necessary. The F-18 and F-15 are less specialized. The F-14 was designed specifically for Cold War gone hot, but that never happened. The F/A-18 is a cheaper and lighter strike fighter that's better suited to modern war and the F-15 is a better air superiority fighter than the F-14. It's also an air force aircraft so it's more likely to be needed for offensive air to air roles.

Grumman tried to adapt the F-14 more than once, both to try and match the F-15 and to be a multirole strike plane, but the people in charge decided to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Because it was going to be too expensive, and they already have plenty to fulfill the role in the fourth gen era, it was these same people that decided not to allow the SeaEagle to take a shared role as a Navy fighter even though it had higher marks (supposedly based on what Aero Engineer Dennis Jenkins says in F-15 Eagle Warbird). As I said those two were better planes at the end of the day so was the F-16 but other than the Hornet the others didn't have a sea going capability and were all able to be modified to multi-purpose roles as you've said.

Also trying to transfer major roles like that tends to create issues, the best case is the the Spitfire and it's sea going variant that was a shell of what the Spitfire had been due to engineering reasons that tend to pop up. In the end the F-14 was ahead of the curve as a Naval plane goes and cut too soon to me, but due to it being so limited as a fourth gen to me it's not worth a Sub-Zero. I can respect those that think it is though and I can see how they come to that conclusion.
 
Ook ook... technical discussion... me no care... subzero... shiny plane have Lambo wings. Ooga ooga.

Roger the Horse
As a product of the United States, I can't place it that high
Click to expand...

Any particular reason why that would affect the coolness factor?

Because if it's due to the United States' politics or war record (you should see the other guy...), then there are no cool warplanes... except, perhaps, Saabs.
 
MatskiMonk
Great looking aircraft, technically interesting in a number of ways, iconic also.

F-15 uncool, F-18 uncool.. F-14 Sub Zero.




TOPGUN was absolutely terrible by the way.

edit:



Plenty of GTP Cool Wall nominations have been marked down based on where they originated from.
Click to expand...

And that makes it right how? Or even reasonable, when people do it towards other nations I say the same thing like certain American users bashing French cars for being french. Or German cars of now and the past for being German and associated at some point with a Nazi regime that every corp in that company had to be linked to by default...

I don't care if they dislike the nation or not, but going on a near xenophobe like explanation to dislike something is bigoted in nature.

Also why are the F-15 and F-18 uncool?
 
Roger the Horse
US Military vehicles (with a few, usually experimental, exceptions) lack the mystique of other countries military vehicles.
Click to expand...

Like? I mean I asked (which you didn't answer) and the only reason I asked is because it seemed like a general consensus from you that Americanized Military equipment is bad, not that it lacked some mystique or lore. If that is the case then I can understand and see how the F-14 isn't all that mythical since I too don't see it in that light.
 
Bopop4
They're just jealous that the F-15 is probably the best fighter in the world.


F-14 is subzero, it's an amazing aircraft and Navy icon.

Plus from the front it looks like it's going to eat your family.

F-14-Tomcat-Images-wallpaper.png

fighter_tomcat_f_14.jpg
Click to expand...
I always loved the rear of the F-14 and yes they are jealous they can't do the perfect eagle take off. :sly:
 
Roger the Horse
US Military vehicles (with a few, usually experimental, exceptions) lack the mystique of other countries military vehicles.
Click to expand...

Just because it's made in an exotic location...

iran+car+khodro.jpg

...doesn't mean it's any good.

By that logic, no American cars are subzero.
 
I have always always loved the squared-off air intakes in this thing, it's incredibly awesome. And I never watched Top Gun so it can't get ruined by Tom Cruise for me. Absolutely sub-zero.
 
Knew the plane before Top Gun, so that did not influence my opinion on how sub-zero this aircraft is.
 
Another 60s design that looked ahead of its time? Cool.

What's that? Tom Cruise mucked about in one in 1986? Whatever.

niky
Just because it's made in an exotic location...

iran+car+khodro.jpg

...doesn't mean it's any good.
Click to expand...

Dude. That's an LX model. Two letters that signify greatness in the automotive world. Of course it's gonna be good.
 

Latest Posts

Back