Can we please show some love for the Tornado next? Due to retire very soon.

Experience as an adversary and instructor pilot? Actually flying (mock) air to air combat missions against the F-14? In fact the worst criticism he has for it is that it was big. But it was pretty agile for its size. Surprisingly so.

Of course two can play that game, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. Transitioning from steam gauges to fully electronic readouts and FBW is a huge step, and makes life easier for the pilot. The preference of those you know who flew the 14 may not be for the performance of the airframe, but the fact that their workload was significantly reduced by the Rhino's better systems.

Remember that the F-14 made its debut in 1971. It was built around 50s and 60s technology. It suffered severe engine and electrical problems right through to the 90s when the engines used in the D started being put in, and was the largest and arguably most complex airplane ever to land on a carrier. Oh yeah, and also it had to land on a carrier, so that complicated things.

The design was fundamentally outstanding, all one has to do is look at the performance numbers to see that. But the tech wasn't there to take advantage of the design. You have variable sweep wings, good design for the challenges at the time. You have 1960s computers calculating the sweep. Bad implementation. When some semblance of good software and good electronics finally started being put into the airplane with the D model, the benefits were readily apparent. The F-14 was easily adapted to roles other than carrying the Phoenix (or other air to air applications + TARPS), such as bombing and ground attack. And it was pretty good at bombing based on the numbers I've seen.

If the F-14 had been given "the super hornet treatment", it would have been an outstanding aircraft. New engines, total rewiring, aerodynamic refinement, new Fly by Wire electronics suite, etc. would have created a large, versatile airplane akin to, as another person mentions, the strike eagle.

Also, I'm not sure calling the F-14 a gen 4 is entirely fair. I'd contend more like gen 3+. If you're categorizing it as a 4, you should do so with recognition that the design then would be at the veryyyy leading edge of 4. So it's logical that successors in the same category would be improvements on lessons learned in earlier airplanes even in their own generation. IMO the D could be separated out and classified as a 4 fairly, but then I don't think that the D was the worst 4th generation fighter.

Two final thoughts: first, I think that the United States does itself a disservice by not fully developing airframes to their maximum potential. The basics of what flies nicely and what doesn't haven't changed. Yes, fly by wire has opened the door to some pretty cutting edge shit. But a Mach 2+, high performance airplane in the early 70s will still fly Mach 2 and be high performance in the present day. Many very good designs are abandoned without seeing full potential because the powers that be decide to go for something new and shiny as opposed to applying technological advances to already solid airframe designs. The super Hornet, which I think has been a fantastic purchase and value, has been sort of an exception to that rule. Also, technology continues to shrink. More space= more tech?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Second and less important, you definitely have the best job in the world. If you ever want to trade places and live life as a grad student, let me know. I'll give you my football season tickets as consideration.

/r/aviation Thread Parent Link - i.redd.it