View Full Version : Tomcat Retiring
I knew it was coming but I didn't realize it was coming so soon. The F-14 Tomcat has flown it's final combat sortie and returned from it's final deployment. The last two Tomcat squadrons will be switched to F/A-18s in September.
I suppose the fact that the final Tomcat combat sortie was a bombing mission and that USN Tomcats have only scored 5 air-to-air kills in 35 years may be proof that a high-maintenance Naval Interceptor is a relic of an different era. But I still hate to see it. I've always been a fan of the Grumman 'cats and the Tomcat was the sexiest jet of its day. Grumman is gone and soon, the last of their great Cats will be gone. The "highway to the danger zone" is now closed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7069648842128183770
http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/
http://www.anft.net/f-14/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat
http://www.alert5.com/2006/03/f-14d-flyover-video.html
http://www.mjgkramer.com/aircraft/F14-F6F_Hellcat_0396.jpg
indyfan31
03-21-06, 11:09 AM
I admit the plane is getting a bit long in the tooth, but what has there been to shoot at in the last 35 years?
Classic Apex
03-21-06, 12:50 PM
Total bummer.
The F-14 will always be my favorite bird. :thumbup:
devilmaster
03-21-06, 02:11 PM
I admit the plane is getting a bit long in the tooth, but what has there been to shoot at in the last 35 years?
Bingo. I know that if I ever had had the chance to serve on a US carrier, no offense to the f-18's, but having that air superiority fighter on CAP was a comforting feeling.
pfc_m_drake
03-21-06, 10:42 PM
For those that are interested, the F-14 is being featured on 'Modern Marvels' on The History Channel tonighs (03/21) at 10pm EST. If you miss that one, they re-run it again at 2am, so you can watch/Tivo if you miss the 10pm showing.
For those that are interested, the F-14 is being featured on 'Modern Marvels' on The History Channel tonighs (03/21) at 10pm EST. If you miss that one, they re-run it again at 2am, so you can watch/Tivo if you miss the 10pm showing.
Good program. We sold Iran 79 Tomcats? Whoops. :eek:
During one of the bumps to a commercial break they mentioned a fully loaded F-14 weighs 74,000 pounds. That's the weight of a semi doing Mach 2. Amazing.
devilmaster
03-22-06, 01:20 AM
Good program. We sold Iran 79 Tomcats? Whoops. :eek:
Don't worry, a tonne of stuff was also sold to Saddam and Iraq... Call it an interpretation of the Prime Directive.... ;)
Supposedly Iran used them quite effectively vs Iraq, rumored to be 100+ kills recorded. Iran supposedly took apart the Phoenix missiles and let Russia inspect them, but held onto the F-14 technology themselves.
Then again, Iran has a fleet of MiG-29s thanks to Saddam prior to Desert Storm. He actually thought Iran would return them :rofl:
I'll take Super Hornet over Tomcat. 1/10th the maintenance hours, and between modern BVR missile systems and Super Hornet's AN/APG-79 ASEA phased array radar it can more than hold its own air to air. Boeing's working on a quasi-stealth Super Hornet variant to offer as a cheap alternative to F-35 as well.
The FA-18 is an amazingly versatile aircraft. I worked for McDonnell Douglas for a short time in the late 70's on the rollout of the 18. I was mostly involved in the simulator. Mac had to roll out a working 18 along with the simulator for the Navy in late 1978. Pretty exciting times trying to meet the deadline. I was amazed how they took Northrups basically fighter jet and turned it into a versatile fighter capable of delivering a rather large assortment of armaments along with converting it to a carrier based Naval plane. Not that there weren't problems, especially as the Navy began adding more and more "things" to their wish list for the plane. I had friends in the vibe labs and working on stress engineering on the iron bird that put in many late hours keeping up with issues due to Naval directed engineering changes.
not only that but super hornet is basically a brand new weapons platform loosely based on F/A-18C/D (fooled congress into budgeting for a new weapons platform when they were trying to cut everything). bigger, stronger, faster, more agile, more capable, top of the line avionics shared only w/ F-22 & F-35...
Al Czervik
03-23-06, 08:03 PM
When I get back from vacation I'll post some F-14 photos from the flight deck of the USS Harry S Truman. (not to drop names or places or anything like that)
oddlycalm
03-24-06, 12:02 AM
Gerry Clarke has taken some of the best Tomcat shots I've seen and they can be found in hi rez on PhotoSig. Many of his photos appear on other sites like Alert5, but often at reduced resolution.
Gerry Clarke gallery (http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=63864)
For non-members my apologies, I'm not a premium member so I can't generate membership invitations. Great photography site.
oc
Here's the final launch:
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_200672923350.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/last_tomcat_launch.jpg
:(
-Kevin
Interesting. They were supposed to have already had their final fly-in. Quick check of the Tomcat forums finds nothing about why this one was back on deck.
ferrarigod
08-08-06, 05:05 PM
I saw one of the last air shows it was at in Ft. Lauderdale. Also talked to the crew in our VIP area, was a bunch of fun, and really nice guys. They all said they would miss the F-14, but after some time in the Super Hornet, they said they were ready to move up.
F-14 was a great plane :thumbup:
F-14 was a great plane :thumbup:
Compared to what? The F15, F16 & F18 shot down more enemy fighters than the Tomcat did. Heck, even the Royal Navy's Harrier shot down more. From what I can find out the Tomcat only shot down 2 Lybian Migs and 2 Iraqi Migs. The A-10 Warthog also shot down 2 Iraqi aircraft during the first Gulf War. The much hyped Phoenix missle system was a dud. Don't get me wrong. The Tomcat is a beautiful plane. But way overhyped. If it wasn't for Top Gun it would be just another fighter in the US inventory.
B3RACER1a
08-08-06, 06:43 PM
Someone just crapped on your thread.
indyfan31
08-08-06, 06:45 PM
Compared to what? The F15, F16 & F18 shot down more enemy fighters than the Tomcat did. Heck, even the Royal Navy's Harrier shot down more. From what I can find out the Tomcat only shot down 2 Lybian Migs and 2 Iraqi Migs. The A-10 Warthog also shot down 2 Iraqi aircraft during the first Gulf War. The much hyped Phoenix missle system was a dud. Don't get me wrong. The Tomcat is a beautiful plane. But way overhyped. If it wasn't for Top Gun it would be just another fighter in the US inventory.
We went over that a couple of posts ago. What was there to shoot at during it's time in service?
We went over that a couple of posts ago. What was there to shoot at during it's time in service?
During the first Gulf War the totals were:
EF-111A - 1
F-15 - 35
F/A18 - 3
A6 - 1
A10 - 2
F14 - 2
During the Falklands conflict RN Sea Harriers downed over 2 dozen Argentinian aircraft.
ferrarigod
08-08-06, 07:18 PM
mapguy, what was the role of the F-14, and how did it perform?
not telling why it never flew in combat capability has to do with its role, more than its prowess as a fighter. The F-4 was a pig of a plane, handled horrible, and wasn't made for air to air missions yet was used for ground attack and air to air against MiGs during Vietnam. It performed poorly to say the least. But knowing that its original intention was high altitude supersonic bomber interceptor makes you realize that what the plane was meant to do it did very well, and thank goodness never had to shoot down advancing soviet bombers during a mutually assured destruction war.
ferrarigod
08-08-06, 07:20 PM
During the first Gulf War the totals were:
EF-111A - 1
F-15 - 35
F/A18 - 3
A6 - 1
A10 - 2
F14 - 2
The F-15 had more kills due to more action over Iraq/Kuwait, not because the F-14 couldn't perform those kills.
The bolded entries are USAF machinery, there is a reason the Navy didn't see much action.
Since the early 1980s F-14s have had provision for the attachment of the Tactical Air Reconnaissance Pod System (TARPS), carrying optical and infrared cameras and permitting the aircraft to perform the photo reconnaissance role without degrading its performance in other roles. The only modifications required are wiring changes and cockpit readouts. In 1989, the Navy decided to phase out the F-14's reconnaissance mission in favor of using F/A-18 Hornets. During Operation Desert Storm in January-February 1991, however, F-14s flew 781 TARPS missions.
Between TARPS missions and carrier/fleet protection, there is a reason it didn't see as much action as the USAF using ground bases.
It also like the F-4 was to be used for bomber interdiction should a full out Nuke war begin, such it was made as a high speed fighter, but more refined and capible than the F-4.
The F-4 Phantom II is my favorite plane, but the F-14 is better, and performed its role as expected.
During the Falklands conflict RN Sea Harriers downed over 2 dozen Argentinian aircraft.
Shooting fish in a barrel? ;) I believe the nature of the missions may show this to be an apple and an orange comparison.
-Kevin
The F-15 had more kills due to more action over Iraq/Kuwait, not because the F-14 couldn't perform those kills.
The bolded entries are USAF machinery, there is a reason the Navy didn't see much action.
Between TARPS missions and carrier/fleet protection, there is a reason it didn't see as much action as the USAF using ground bases.
Gimme a break. There were as many F14s as there were F15s. Not only that, the other Navy fighter, the F/A18 got more than the F14 did. Plus the A-10 bagged 2 while it is not designed to be a fighter. If the Tomcat was so good then why did the Navy decide to use the Super Hornet instead of a Super Tomcat?
mapguy, what was the role of the F-14, and how did it perform?
not telling why it never flew in combat capability has to do with its role, more than its prowess as a fighter. The F-4 was a pig of a plane, handled horrible, and wasn't made for air to air missions yet was used for ground attack and air to air against MiGs during Vietnam. It performed poorly to say the least. But knowing that its original intention was high altitude supersonic bomber interceptor makes you realize that what the plane was meant to do it did very well, and thank goodness never had to shoot down advancing soviet bombers during a mutually assured destruction war.
My point is that the F14 was designed as a weapons platform much like the F15. As I mentioned before, the main system of the Tomcat was the Phoenix missle system. Consisting of 4 hypersonic missles that can target 15 aircraft beyond visual range and engage 4 simutaniously. It never was able to work as designed. All Tomcat kills came from Sidewinders.
Shooting fish in a barrel? ;) I believe the nature of the missions may show this to be an apple and an orange comparison.
-Kevin
Nope. The Harrier was up against Mirage F3's and F1's plus others. On a side note. I was talking to a NH ANG F16 pilot a few years ago who had some experience against 'friendly' combat against RN Harriers. He was in an F16 and the Harriers smoked them. One telling quote from him was "You'd get behind them and then, bam, where did the hell they go?" Next minute he was 'shot down'.
ferrarigod
08-08-06, 07:42 PM
Gimme a break. There were as many F14s as there were F15s.
The F-15C's have zero to do with the F-14's. The role is different, the area of defense is different.
Not only that, the other Navy fighter, the F/A18 got more than the F14 did.
Cause the F-18's were also ground attack, placing them in areas with high value targets and planes. The F-14 is NOT used for that.
Plus the A-10 bagged 2 while it is not designed to be a fighter.
Same story as the F-18, similar role, similar result.
If the Tomcat was so good then why did the Navy decide to use the Super Hornet instead of a Super Tomcat?
Unlike what you are trying to say, there are a few simple reasons. First because the F-14 'Super Tomcat' was not going to be a new plane. It was merely a variant of the original F-14a. The F-14D Super Tomcat is not a new plane, and is just as expensive per hour to fly as the original F-14.
The Super Hornet, is not really even an F-18. It is larger(doesn't utilize the same frame), faster(different engines) and really is a complete NEW design.
The initial acquisiton cost of an F-14 is quoted by the US Navy at around $38 million. However, the primary disadvantage of the aircraft is not its purchase cost but maintenance expenses. As discussed previously, the life-cycle costs of operating and maintaining an aircraft far exceed the initial acquisition cost. These costs only grow as planes age and require increasingly more maintenance hours per flight hour. This trend has hit the F-14 harder than most of its contemporaries because of its complex airframe (including the variable-geometry wings) and harsh salt-air environment at sea. The F-14 is currently the most expensive aircraft to operate in the Navy inventory, requiring 40 to 60 maintenance manhours per flight hour. For comparison, the F-18 Hornet requires only 20 hours of maintenance and the latest F-18E/F Super Hornet requires just 10 to 15 hours. These high maintenance costs played a large role in the Navy's decision to move the retirement of the F-14 up from 2010 to 2006
The F-18 Super Hornet is cheaper to fly per hour, gets more hours of life on the airframes, has extended speeds and capabilities, can perform all F-14 rolls and more, and is not just a mere update of the past F-18's.
That is the reason why. The F-14 was leagues ahead of the F-4 and every plane it was meant to replace. It performed perfectly as it was supposed to, but times have changed, and it is time to retire. Its too much money for an hour of flight time, and needed to happen.
That has no reflection on itself as a defense utility and figther, when it arrived on the scene, it was years ahead for maintanence and such costs just as the new Super Hornet is in relation to the F-14's.
"The F-15C's have zero to do with the F-14's. The role is different, the area of defense is different."
Not in this case. It was a turkey shoot.
"Cause the F-18's were also ground attack, placing them in areas with high value targets and planes. The F-14 is NOT used for that."
The F14's escorted them into the combat zone. So they were exposed to the same situation.
"Same story as the F-18, similar role, similar result."
See above.
"Unlike what you are trying to say, there are a few simple reasons. First because the F-14 'Super Tomcat' was not going to be a new plane. It was merely a variant of the original F-14a. The F-14D Super Tomcat is not a new plane, and is just as expensive per hour to fly as the original F-14.
The Super Hornet, is not really even an F-18. It is larger(doesn't utilize the same frame), faster(different engines) and really is a complete NEW design."
Just like the 'Super Tomcat' would be. Your statement is like saying if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
My statement about the F14 is that it did not live up to it's expectations. That is it. I love the aircraft but it is more hype than substance.
ferrarigod
08-08-06, 08:00 PM
Not in this case. It was a turkey shoot.
The F14's escorted them into the combat zone. So they were exposed to the same situation.
My statement about the F14 is that it did not live up to it's expectations. That is it. I love the aircraft but it is more hype than substance.
You couldn't be more wrong:
In the Gulf War conflict, U.S. F-14s were used primarily for strike package escort and reconnaissance due to the way the Air Tasking Orders were set up. The emissions from the AWG-9/APG-71 are instantly recognizable, due to its very powerful transmitter. When Iraqi fighters were detected inbound, as soon as the Tomcats "lit up" the Iraqis would immediately abandon the attack while well out of range, perhaps indicating their familiarity with both the Tomcat and the AIM-54.
Just like the 'Super Tomcat' would be(NEW). Your statement is like saying if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
The Super Tomcat was NOT a new plane. The Super Tomcat was the F-14D, it was bought in a high number then was lowered during the first Bush and Clinton administrations due to the high maintence costs that occured with all F-14's.
The F-14D Super Tomcat was NOT a new plane like what you are saying. They simply replaced the engines, and put in an all glass cockpit for the RIO and Pilot.
The Super Hornet is 100% new plane. The F/A-18 and Super Hornet look alike, but there is not one dimension of similarity, and the hours to work on per flight hour are also decreased from the original, lowering costs and increasing available frame hours.
I'm sorry, but the F-14 was TARPS and Carrier Defense. It performed those rolls to perfection.
It should also be noted that secretly some military historians and writers have talked about upwards of 150 planes being shot down with little or no media knowledge due to covert and secret missions using its TARPS system.
RacinM3
08-08-06, 08:35 PM
It should also be noted that secretly some military historians and writers have talked about upwards of 150 planes being shot down with little or no media knowledge due to covert and secret missions using its TARPS system.
Thanks for saying that...after all the talk about number of kills published, I was sitting here thinking "that's like trying to argue based on the number of assassinations the CIA has publicized taking part in".
My statement about the F14 is that it did not live up to it's expectations. That is it. I love the aircraft but it is more hype than substance.
The F14 did everything ever asked of it successfully.
During desert storm the air force handled most of the CAP duties over Iraq where they had a relatively target rich environment. The Navy handled CAP over the gulf, southern Iraq and Kuwait where there were few air-to-air threats.
The difference in air-to-air kills is purely due to opportunity, not capability.
You seem to be ignoring my point about the Tomcat's primary system, the Phoenix, being a failure. The Tomcat, compared to the Eagle, Falcon and the Hornet, was a failure.
"The F14 did everything ever asked of it successfully."
If it's Phoenix system worked as designed then I would agree with you.
B3RACER1a
08-08-06, 08:42 PM
"Too close for missles, I'm switching to guns!" :D
Lizzerd
08-08-06, 09:14 PM
Slightly off topic, but I recall hearing that the A-10 kills were with Hellfire (?) air to ground missiles (intended for tanks) against hovering or slow moving Iraqi helicopters. "Hey, y'all, think I can hit that thing with this?"
Regarding the Tomcat, I think it was a great plane, costs aside. Not a single carrier was lost during its service. :rolleyes: As it was sent on bombing missions during Gulf War II with nothing out there to shoot down, it was affectionately renamed the Bombcat.
You seem to be ignoring my point about the Tomcat's primary system, the Phoenix, being a failure. The Tomcat, compared to the Eagle, Falcon and the Hornet, was a failure.
Rubbish. The Poenix was designed for a threat that never materialized. It was in service for over 30 years but it was a failure? That's simply nonsense. The AIM 54C gave the Tomcat a capability that no other fighter had. Take away that capability and it was still as capable as any other aircraft of its era.
ferrarigod
08-08-06, 09:50 PM
Rubbish. The Poenix was designed for a threat that never materialized. It was in service for over 30 years but it was a failure? That's simply nonsense. The AIM 54C gave the Tomcat a capability that no other fighter had. Take away that capability and it was still as capable as any other aircraft of its era.
Also, the principle that the heat signature of the plane might have warded off enemy fighters reaching into the 100 mile radius is also not something to ignore.
Top Gun may have played a part in its popularity, but it didn't play a part in how the plan is viewed militarilly.
B3RACER1a
08-08-06, 10:47 PM
"That is right, but I held something back. I see some real genius in your flying, Maverick, but I can't say that in there. I was afraid that everyone in the tax trailer would see right through me, and I just don't want anyone to know that I've fallen for you. "
That coming from Kelly, it was a good plane. :D
what mappy said.
Bugfan.
http://patchquestinc.com/product/image/474/More_Hornets_By_Mandate_Tomcats_By_Choice-medium.JPG
ferrarigod
08-09-06, 12:43 AM
Tomcats:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0696234/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0756171/M/
Super Hornets:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0398872/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0935106/M/
can't get the links to show up as pics, so there you go. click and have phun. :thumbup:
edit: oh i see what i did wrong, p.o.s.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.