The mismatch between frame and engine in the F-14 probably accounts for the video of one disintegrating when going supersonic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_1s4epa1Vk

Looking at the Martin Baker flyby site ( http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/A..._Type/f-14.htm ) has a long list, but I think a fair bit of that is the standard risk in carrier ops.

Actually, just found that particular incident on the site, and here's the pilots view:

Both pilot and RIO survived, but with burns to their upper body.

Wasn't a choice or it woulda been my pick, but the F-22 pwn's all these.

Pwns your wallet too... :hmmm:

And that of every other person in the US, too. "What's in your wallet?" Not much, thanks.

Who cares as long as one will kill ten of them others. The best has never been cheap, invisibility does come with a pricetag.

I care, when the four aircraft the poll is about can do the same job for half the price.

When the enemy starts to have 11 of the others for each F-22 we got, I get nervous.

LOL, 3 of the 4 are EOL.
..well maybe not the F-16, she's still got some life left in her.

Exactly,

Also, considering an aircraft can only carry so many missiles, who cares if the F-22 can take down 10? If theres 20 of them what's the aircraft going to do when all 20 of those fighters shoot their missiles at 1(2 F-22 with wingman)?

Edit: Forgive my ignorance but what is EOL?

Ah, the Fulda debate: Quality vs. Quantity.

I think it was David Drake who commented in the notes for the Team Yankee comic adaptation in the 80's: "I think of those excellent Panthers - and the waves of T-34s that rolled over them."

EOL: End Of Life

EOL-end of life.

What good are 30 y/o aircraft against modern S/A missles ? Visible aircraft get shot down, invisible ones don't (ask a F-117 driver). This is why I think the F-22 project would save money in the long run, ya can't hit what you can't find.

Aah thank you Growler :)

I do agree that Quality will get you somewhere.

But as someone (for the life of me I'm bad at remembering names) stated: Quantity has a Quality of its own.

I do agree the f-22 may be the best out of all of them in a 1v1 fight (the same as a Panther might decimate a T-34, etc) BUT in the real world, you're never going to get a fair and equal 1v1 fight.

Is there AWACS involved? Who's side is it on? Do both sides haveAWACS and instead attempt to negate that bird first? Too many variables.

Edit: All aircraft are vulnerable to SAMs/Radar, it is only a matter of time before Radar burns through jamming, etc. It is impossible (to my knowledge) to be completely undetectable from Radar/IR detectors

Don't forget that the T-34, besides being (eventually) reliable, cheap and simple to produce, was also a highly effective tank. A Panther was in no way guaranteed to win one on one if the crew was good.

Cheaper equipment doesn't necessarily mean it will only win with numbers.

Yup, ask the pilot of 82-0806...

There enters another variable, is the crew adequately trained? Is equipment being maintained?

Don't forget that tiny squishy human being operating the machine is as integral to the weapons systems or engines.

True, true. Drake was making the comparison, in this case, between the already excellent 1st Gen M1 Abrams (105mm) versus the then-believed-to-be Soviet front line tanks, the T-80 and, secondarily, the T-72, asserting the the US doctrine of a high-quality, high-maintenance, expensive MBT that could knock out 10 lower-quality, cheaper Threat armor would be undone by that 11th OPFOR tank.

Taken another way, if there's thirteen hundred guys charging your position who will be there in seconds, even a 1200 rpm machine gun won't help you.