The Military Thread

6 iconic weapons with baffling design flaws Cross posted in the cracked thread

Hang on, they mentioned that instead of the F-14A's engines being extremely underpowered? Sherman stereotype again, and no mention of the original M-16?

I think the idea behind the F-14A was to use it as a sort-of EMD model^note  In case the program got cancelled again — the F-14 program was half-sneaked behind Congress' back before it would be replaced after a small production run with the original F-14B which would have used the P&W F401, a variant of the Pratt & Whitney F100. Unfortunately, that was cancelled in 1974.

edited 29th Aug '15 9:04:05 AM by Greenmantle

The F-14A was the Navy's attempt to finally get the fighter-interceptor-missile boat they wanted. The AIM-54 was supposed to down those ruskie bombers and bitch slap MIGs from many miles away.

To get the thing to fly, the engines from the aborted Naval F-111B were used. The same engines that were underpowered on the growing F-111B. As the Navy was developing, then fielding the F-14, the USAF tested it and the new F-15. They adopted the F-15 instead.

The cost was so high that the F-14 was stuck with the TF 30 engine that was a decade behind the times and not designed for the role. The F-14B was an attempt to upgrade the F-14 with newer systems and break from the F-111B past with a better engine.

Alas, the cost of the upgrade meant that only "a total of 38 new aircraft were manufactured and 48 F-14A were upgraded into B variants." according to The Other Wiki. In The '80s, the F-14D was proposed to finally get the F-14 away from two decades of bad decisions, but again cost was a factor and the F-14D hit the fleet in limited numbers.

So while the F-14A was still trying to kill it's pilots and the upgrades bogged down in cost spirals and horse trading, the F-18 was gaining steam.

Since the F-14/F-15 were too costly, the F-16 was the lightweight low cost fighter the DOD needed. The Navy, wanting an aircraft with two enigines picked the YF-17. It became the F-18 and soon blossomed into the role. Execpt for the fact that the fuel fraction wasn't changed from the YF-17 prototype to the F-18 production model.

So the Super Hornet comes along, the F-18E and F models have: the proper fuel fraction, lower RCS, more power and it's easy to transition to the Super Hornet.

So after two decades of kludged and messed with, the F-14 finally get to drop bombs, the D models even can fire the AIM-120....Just in time for the Super Hornet to make them obsolete. The F-14 is retired and soon scrapped to prevent spares from heading to Iran, another bad decision that scared the F-14. Hence the only survivors are static displays.

All because of the F-111B....

edited 29th Aug '15 10:50:58 AM by TairaMai

@Jack O Lantern 1337: Wow, that article is BAD. Like on every single point. The F-14 thing they chose is something that can happen to literally any jet, the P-51 was a case of form following function, the Sherman thing is based on categorically false myths (the truth is basically the opposite of what the article is saying), the ME-262 thing overlooks bigger problems like the engines only lasting 10 hours or so and being prone to violent failure, and the F-4U getting its landing issues worked out.

So yeah, thanks for reminding me why I don't read Cracked anymore.

It's not so bad when it's trying to be funny rather than factual.

Except its claiming to be factual.

Well it is not Jaques writing the history articles, this one was horrible, perpetuating old WWII myths and not knowing jack shit about weapons.

Cracked.com's article is correct in that the F-14A's engines do suck, but only the A model. The author just googled it and I suspect saw the trivia entry on This Very Wiki.

Hey I didn't write this thing!

Then please refrain from posting articles from Cracked and the National Interest - the kind of sources that one posts also, intentionally or not, tend to highlight the kinds that they read and rely upon. Those two have proven not to be exactly the most academic compared to others.

edited 30th Aug '15 7:32:26 AM by FluffyMcChicken

Cracked I know, I wasn't sure if it was true or not, if it was not true you guys would at least have some bullshit to tear to shreds? But the national interest isn't academic? That's news to me.

Edit: Can I at least post Polandball?

edited 30th Aug '15 2:52:11 PM by JackOLantern1337

Polandballs is of always welcome.

Cracked articles, usually, are fun to read but some of their historical articles are parroting spouted by amateur historians and journalists that didn't do the research.

For their badasses on war are usually better but that one was an egregious case of poor research.

Polandball is fine because it doesn't pretend to be anything other then stupid jokes with no facts behind them.

Special Forces◊

I thought DEVGRU stuffed their last hostage rescue and put a frag grenade into the room where the hostage was being held rather than a flashbang.

Bope should be: Terrorists mag dumped and suspects asphyxiated with a plastic bag.

Lol That whole thing was great.

DEVGRU screw up? No way.

BOPE welcomes you to Rio

So I take it Linda Norgrove blew herself up then.

It was an accident, made worse by the SEAL not giving all the information. As every drill sergeant says, "bad news doesn't get better with time."

Speaking of SEAL, an official answer to the question: Ninja vs SEAL◊

Apples and oranges.

Ya, well, I would trust the SEA Ls to kill Bin Laden.