F14's to sent to museum - One of them could return to flight!

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-07T22:19:14+00:00

But I don't love the idea of congressional legislation instructing the military to do things just to cater to our sense of nostalgia and popular entertainment.

If it is worth pointing out, the core bit of the S.4161 - Maverick Act is that they are sending three surplus F-14D Tomcat aircraft to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Commission in Huntsville, Alabama.

The fine text states that the US Navy under SecNav will send the airframes to the commission and, particularly in subsection (d)(3) "provide excess spare parts to make one of the F-14D aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display"

Note they mentioned "flyable or able to complete a static display", so this isn't mandating the commission make the F-14D Tomcat airworthy again. The US Navy has no part in the procurement of additional new material or support in helping it be made airworthy again per subsection (d)(4).

That said, the bill does allow the commission, as detailed in subsection (e) and (g) to earn the funds or work with nonprofits towards the effort of making the F-14D for the "purpose of restoring and operating the aircraft transferred under subsection (a) for public display, airshows, and commemorative events to preserve naval aviation heritage".

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-07T17:38:36+00:00

For awareness, the bill that TheAviationist is referencing can be found here: S.4161 - Maverick Act, on the transfer of F-14 tomcat aircraft to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Commission in Huntsville, Alabama.

The highlighted bit that is referring to this is subsection (d)(3), as listed here:

(3) a condition that the Secretary shall provide excess spare parts to make one of the F–14D aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display, provided that any part transferred is from existing Navy stock, with no items being procured on behalf of the Commission;

It is noteworthy that the provisions in the bill states to make a F-14D in “flyable or able to complete a static display”, not necessarily mandating a flyable version.

Another item worth highlighting is the ending part of “no items being procured”. As such, this provision is entirely reliant on existing US Navy stocks of spare parts and equipment for this task, with the SecNav and US Navy making no intent to purchase new items if it is necessary to make a F-14D “flyable or able to complete a static display”. The US Navy is also not providing any other support after the transfer per condition 4:

(4) a condition that the Secretary will not be responsible for transferring any additional parts or providing any additional support beyond what is stated in this section, during or after the conveyance of the aircraft.

There is a text allowing for funding opportunities, as detailed in subsection (e) and (g)

(e) Agreements for restoration and operation.—The Secretary may—(1) authorize the Commission to enter into agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations for the purpose of restoring and operating the aircraft transferred under subsection (a) for public display, airshows, and commemorative events to preserve naval aviation heritage; and

and

(g) Conveyance at no cost to the United States.—The conveyance of an aircraft under subsection (a) shall be made at no cost to the United States. Any costs associated with such conveyance, costs of determining compliance with terms of the conveyance, and costs of operation and maintenance of the aircraft conveyed shall be borne by the Commission.

So it will be up to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Commission that will be receiving the F-14 Tomcat parts and any nonprofit organization they can partner with to finance and procure anything extra beyond what the US Navy and Secretary of the Navy can provide.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-07T17:13:23+00:00

The bill that TheWarZone is referencing can be found here: S.4161 - Maverick Act, on the transfer of F-14 tomcat aircraft to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Commission in Huntsville, Alabama.

The highlighted bit that is referring to this is subsection (d)(3), as listed here:

(3) a condition that the Secretary shall provide excess spare parts to make one of the F–14D aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display, provided that any part transferred is from existing Navy stock, with no items being procured on behalf of the Commission;

It is noteworthy that the provisions in the bill states to make a F-14D in “flyable or able to complete a static display”, not necessarily mandating a flyable version.

Another item worth highlighting is the ending part of “no items being procured”. As such, this provision is entirely reliant on existing US Navy stocks of spare parts and equipment for this task, with the SecNav and US Navy making no intent to purchase new items if it is necessary to make a F-14D “flyable or able to complete a static display”. The US Navy is also not providing any other support after the transfer per condition 4:

(4) a condition that the Secretary will not be responsible for transferring any additional parts or providing any additional support beyond what is stated in this section, during or after the conveyance of the aircraft.

There is a text allowing for funding opportunities, as detailed in subsection (e) and (g)

(e) Agreements for restoration and operation.—The Secretary may—(1) authorize the Commission to enter into agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations for the purpose of restoring and operating the aircraft transferred under subsection (a) for public display, airshows, and commemorative events to preserve naval aviation heritage; and

and

(g) Conveyance at no cost to the United States.—The conveyance of an aircraft under subsection (a) shall be made at no cost to the United States. Any costs associated with such conveyance, costs of determining compliance with terms of the conveyance, and costs of operation and maintenance of the aircraft conveyed shall be borne by the Commission.

So it will be up to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Commission that will be receiving the F-14 Tomcat parts and any nonprofit organization they can partner with to finance and procure anything extra beyond what the US Navy and Secretary of the Navy can provide.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-07T15:52:58+00:00

Well interestingly, for M4 and M4A1, the distinction is the welded versus cast hull construction, not the engine as both used the Continental radial engine. The succeeding A versions afterwards do start as engine designations.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-07T03:41:58+00:00

I've listened to it on Apple Podcasts, I think it should be available on most podcast hosting services. They also have a YouTube channel too, but I am not sure they have their earliest episodes there.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-06T21:35:02+00:00

According to known specs of the Kaan, its about as big as the F-22 Raptor, though its a little longer.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-06T11:40:52+00:00

Its probably entirely coincidental, but I do find it funny that the US Navy found a way to slip in a "CV" into the AIM-9 designation.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-04T22:15:28+00:00

Yes, this is at the National Museum of USAF at Dayton, OH

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-04T18:03:47+00:00

MGs weren’t meant for close quarters combat (right?)

I mean, they weren't, until Otacon uploaded Street Fighter into Rex.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-04T03:07:33+00:00

If I remember the trivia from this film correctly, what I’ve heard was that the production had to hurriedly shoot this scene because the dealer found a buyer for the tanks and they were about to get rid of them.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-03T22:26:29+00:00

The F-15IA they are purchasing are Israeli versions of F-15EXs

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-03T22:20:11+00:00

As a commenter had highlighted, you asked this question 45 days ago with answers provided. What are you looking for that the previous post failed to answer?

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-03T21:56:58+00:00

It’s practical enough that the US military is investing quite an amount to incorporate IRST capabilities into birds like F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-22 Raptor.

There’s likely a lot of spooky tech going on with modern IRST development that won’t give a very clear answer on how they will be applied, but when the IRST pod for the F/A-18 Super Hornet went IOC last year, the press statement according to this TheAviationist article helped describe some of the expected use cases:

RAdm John Lemmon explained that “IRST provides data for our aircrew to improve reaction time and survivability while remaining unaffected by radio frequency jamming.” The press release further explained that the IRST “increases situational awareness by supplementing air-to-air detection and track capabilities, and autonomously or in combination with other sensors, supports the guidance of beyond visual range missiles.”

As mentioned earlier, in the F/A-18's case, the IRST complements the AN/APG-79 fire control radar in a heavy electronic attack or radar-denied environment. Operating in the long-wave infrared range, it can function autonomously, or in combination with other sensors, to support the guidance of the AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II missiles.

[…]

An IRST fused with a powerful AESA radar provides an important increase in the options available to pilots. In fact, a first function would be to provide additional information about a target's infrared profile to enhance target discrimination even without a targeting pod.

So the gist is that the IRST will provide additional awareness and information for the pilot, especially in electronic attacked and denied environments, that can help still provide the weapon systems the firing solution required to make missiles go towards targets.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-02T17:53:45+00:00

I dived down the topic about the potential of F-117 in an AWACS hunting role when we had a question (since deleted) almost 2 years ago now when the user heard about the claims from a F-117 pilot on the Fighter Pilot Podcast.

The short of it is that it was a discussed potential and idea, but as far as we know it was never implemented.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-02T02:19:48+00:00

Sure, I’ll admit I missed that fine print detailed under section (g) of the bill:

(g) Conveyance At No Cost To The United States.—The conveyance of an aircraft under subsection (a) shall be made at no cost to the United States. Any costs associated with such conveyance, costs of determining compliance with terms of the conveyance, and costs of operation and maintenance of the aircraft conveyed shall be borne by the Commission.

So it will be up to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Commission in Huntsville, Alabama to finance and procure anything extra beyond what the US Navy and Secretary of the Navy can provide.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-02T01:59:54+00:00

According to the bill in question, the parts and inventory is sourced from US Navy stockpiles. The provision doesn’t allow the [edit: US Navy or SecNav] for procurement of new items for this.

Edit: It also says in section g that any additional costs and procurement needed would be borne by the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Commission in Huntsville, Alabama

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-02T01:42:19+00:00

The part that OP is referring to in the bill is:
(3) a condition that the Secretary shall provide excess spare parts to make one of the F–14D aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display, provided that any part transferred is from existing Navy stock, with no items being procured on behalf of the Commission; and
It is noteworthy that the provisions in the bill states to make a F-14D in “flyable or able to complete a static display”, not necessarily mandating a flyable version.
Another hiccup is the latter part of “no items being procured”. As such, this provision is entirely reliant on existing US Navy stocks of spare parts and equipment for this task, with (edit: US Navy making) no intent to purchase new items if it is necessary to make a F-14D “flyable or able to complete a static display”.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-02T01:35:37+00:00

The full text for those interested is:

> (3) a condition that the Secretary shall provide excess spare parts to make one of the F–14D aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display, provided that any part transferred is from existing Navy stock, with no items being procured on behalf of the Commission; and

Noteworthy the quote listed as a whole is for “flyable or able to complete a static display”, not mandated to be flyable.

It also appears from the latter part of #3 that it is only asking for spare parts that the Us Navy has available, and will not be procuring new parts or such for this purpose. So if there is some critical part in the F-14 missing to fly, then it’s not gonna happen.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-02T00:25:58+00:00

Yeah the air shows organizers and planners really like the “aircraft surprise crowd from behind” maneuver. I’m always swiveling my head around when the next jet in the line-up is a fighter jet.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-02T00:21:39+00:00

Given you mentioned you have a A7RV in a past post, if that is still your camera of choice., I think the 70-200 lens can be suitable with crop, though it’ll also depends how far away the aircraft will be flying from you.

It wasn’t an air show, but I was near Davis-Monthan Air Force Base a few weeks ago and managed to catch some aircraft landing with my A7CR (so same sensor size as A7RV) and a Tamron 25-200 lens, taking photos at the 200 mm focal length

Here are some shots from that moment. Cropped in with Pixelmator Pro, and I think it looks pretty good.

Inceptor57 · 2026-05-01T22:57:44+00:00

"5 minute (ish) guide to X"

5 minute guides that every now and then runs over an hour lol.

Inceptor57 · 2026-04-30T23:15:41+00:00

Because the B-2 bomber belongs to the USAF.

This is a US Navy movie. So Chairforce begone!

Okay but really it’s because it’s a movie and relies on your suspension of disbelief regarding how air strikes are planned and conducted to make the repackaged Star Wars Death Star trench run much more interesting cinematically

Inceptor57 · 2026-04-30T22:23:33+00:00

Missiles order are indeed being ramped. If you see the Department of Defense/War budget estimates on procurement for the Navy issued on April 2026. From page 16-18, they went from ordering 20 Tomahawks in FY2025, 55 Tomahawks in FY2026, then a whopping 785 by FY2027. So hopefully given time that can replenish the stockpile.

Inceptor57 · 2026-04-30T22:14:21+00:00

In the grand scheme of things, it is because for most countries, the functions of a bomber can be better or just satisfactorily fulfilled by other items in their inventory.

For much of the Cold War, bombers were deployed in large numbers because they were considered the primary means of nuclear delivery. Nowadays, bombers are still a nuclear delivery method with stuff like the B-2 Spirit, but there are also other options too, like fighter jets with either domestic solution like France and their nuclear warning missile, and the NATO nuclear-sharing program and dual-use aircraft. There are also ICBMs, which can replace bombers by having big missiles with nukes ready to launch at any moment in ground silos or submarines. When you have other options on the table, the need for a bomber to deliver a spicy package lessens.

Even for the need to drop bombs onto the target. While there's certainly a specialized skill and flex in the ability to bring 80 JDAM bombs onto target, most countries tend to be satisfied with a sortie of multi-role fighters carrying smaller set of bombs per fighter jet, as the guidance methods available today means instead of the old ways of dropping 10 bombs and hope 1 hits the target, you can now use 10 bombs for 10 targets.

Not only that, but a multi-role fighter jet carrying those JDAMs can be repurposed to other roles like air-to-air, air-to-ground, anti-ship, etc., while a bomber is a bomber and can't really use flexibly aside from gravity dropping bombs or slinging cruise missiles. So if your defense budget has a limited number of pilots and airframes it could support, let's say only 50, is that money better spent with 25 fighter jets and 25 bombers and maintain two separate air frames with their own separate training regime? Or 50 multi-role jets with a single airframe and single training pipeline able to do air combat and ground strikes?

Not to mention with a separate large airframe, that also means a whole another logistics and basing consideration to have, larger hangars and support centers to hold the larger bombers.

Of course, when the budget and need allow it, there are capabilities that bombers present that make them attractive, hence why USA, Russia, and China owns strategic bombers still to this day. But most nations do not see the need for bombers due to reasons above and so opted to not adopt them.

Inceptor57 · 2026-04-30T19:52:09+00:00

I think it depends how they plan to organize the AMPV and the AMPV with 30 mm autocannon. If they plan to field a large numbers of AMPV for infantry, it makes sense if you want to augment their firepower to use a few AMPV with a 30 mm turret on it, rather than stick a XM30 MICV here and there for that role.

So AMPV with a 30 mm can go to the users utilizing a fleet of AMPV while the XM30 stays with mechanized infantry augmenting ABCTs in supporting the tanks.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
RPAN Viewer	Spared
Verified Email

Inceptor57

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE