--- F-14 Tomcat ---

[AZ Snake Fan]

--- The US Navy's F-14 Tomcat fighter jet flew it's last mission 8 February 2006 ---

--- All F-14s are going into moth balls, and will be replaced by the F-18 Hornet ---

--- The F-14 was the fighter jet featured in the movie "Top Gun" ---

--- Also scheduled to be placed at Davis-Monthan are the USAF's F-17a Nighthawk

--- The Nighthawk is a stealth strike fighter jet due to go out of service in 2008 ---

--- Davis-Monthan Air Force Base is located in Tucson, AZ, is the final resting place for thousands of vintage aircraft from all branches of the military ---

--- It is truly quite a site to see !!!

--- Just ask top ! ---


http://www.sarimage.com/Aviation/DavisMonthan/

--- .

[y2cragie]

And what a sad and stupid mistake they are making.
The Navy are putting far to much faith in the F18 super Hornet, faith that wont be repaid. The F18 cant do the things the Tomcat did. has a lower service range, slower.

[JWinn]

I kinda like the F/A 18. The Tomcat is an aging platform. MD made a fine product, and certainly was the backbone for the carrier protection, but I like how the Hornet is multi-mission capable.

I've been to Tuscon, and seen the boneyard there. You drive right thru parts of it.

Interestingly, when I was there we went to the museum at that base. I forget what it was called. One thing really struck me there. Outside the museum, they have this half-size model of an F-22 pionting up to the sky. Very cool, except for one small detail;

It's the LOSER of the F-22 competition!

Anyway, it's long past time the Navy replace it aging fleet of fighters. Great in their time, but much like the F-15, it's day in the sun is fading.

However, they sure have a way of making those platforms that have been a success live long past their expectancies. The B-52. Need I say more?

I just love watching the Blue Angels in their Hornets do their stuff. My favorite aircraft. Be fun to take a ride in one of those. I'd make a terrible mess all over the cockpit, , but I'd still go for a ride.

[y2cragie]

Jwinn, I think you mean the F23, as the F22 won the competition. The F23 was actually the better plane, it however was slightly more expensive at the time. The irony is the F23 would have ended up being the cheaper plane overall. Also Grumman made the tomcat not MD. M/D and Boeing make the Hornet. Which is pretty much set to be replaced by the JSF in 5 years time. Assuming its not cancelled, which is still the most likely scenario right now.

[Big Buck 1981]

I like the Hornet, it's capability make it the ultimate multi-purpose fighter right now, though it will be interesting to see what happens with the JSF.

As far as the F-23 goes, I haven't heard or read much about it...but I will say that the F-15 was the golden standard for a long time, basically superior to any other fighter out there...and if the F-22 can take on 5 of them and win...then we've got a heck of a weapon. As an aside, I also think the F-22 is a better looking aircraft than the F-23.

[JWinn]

Jwinn, I think you mean the F23, as the F22 won the competition. The F23 was actually the better plane, it however was slightly more expensive at the time. The irony is the F23 would have ended up being the cheaper plane overall. Also Grumman made the tomcat not MD. M/D and Boeing make the Hornet. Which is pretty much set to be replaced by the JSF in 5 years time. Assuming its not cancelled, which is still the most likely scenario right now.

Corrected on both counts!! I forgot it was Grumman. Thanks!

Yeah, I remember that the F-23 was thought to be the better plane. I just found it odd they put the loser of the competition outside the musuem for all to gaze upon. If I remember right, only a few were built for the competition, and it will never see service. Just kinda makes more sense to me to put up something that serves instead of a plane that didnt make it.

The JSF seems pretty cool, but costs are out of control, at least in my opinion. The manufacturers have to find a way to keep these toys affordable if they expect to be able to continue on. As I alluded to, the services will find a way to keep their current platforms going long after their life expectancies. The manufacturers dont seem to notice that minor detail......................

I think the JSF is a great idea! But I also see the services bickering also over it. it's need to be this, that, whatever. Yeah, it would be nice to have a mach 3 fighter, capable of an attack role as well, that could be ship- born, and come equipped with a Latte machine, but it's getting to where nothing is good enough for someone.

I say leave the Air Force with it's new F-22 toy, find a replacement for CVBG protection, the Tommcat's main role, and leave the Hornet alone, or at least continue on with that program. That plane seems to offer the navy the most variety, and bang for the buck.

Heck, I say all this as just an observer. I dont fly - not a pilot, never served a day, and dont know any details of how they powers that be in the service, or the industry do what they do.

I just love watching them soar above. And I know I pay for it all, so I am interested. I like cool toys! Love walking the museums................

[AZ Snake Fan]

--- a squadron of F-22s is stationed in Guam right now and N. Korea knows it !!!

--- it is no longer cost effective to maintain the F-14 ---


--- here's the F-18 and F-22


http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/7899/f224yg.jpg

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9317/fa18es5tq.jpg


---

[y2cragie]

--- it is no longer cost effective to maintain the F-14 ---

And thats the only reason its gone. I dont remember the exact figure, but a tomcat needs something like 24 hours of maintenance for every hour it is in the air. Might have been more.
RE: The JSF is not that expensive, its being specifically designed for the export market. It will be a cheap STOVL aircraft which can go supersonic. Basically to replace the harrier. However, this aircraft might be cancelled because of politics. The British are supplying the Americans with alot of information and designs because we have the expertise with the harrier designed here and also various other systems. However when the MOD (our version of the DOD) requests the information back they are told that they cant have it without full security clearance and background checks. Its alot of stupid red tape that is basically annoying alot of people in the MOD. To the point now they have said to BAE systems that they want a carrier version of the Eurofighter typhoon, They want it designed to the Tranche 3 version that is planned and they want it to be ready by 2012. Right now its still only a design request as they want to work this JSF out. Add in the JSF is right now too heavy to take off from an aircraft carrier fully loaded (far too complicated to go into) its close to being scrapped. If the UK pull out the US will have to scrap their side of the program and then you'll see a new version of the F18 and probably an updated harrier.
Personally I would rather see the Typhoon T3 as it will be the most manueverable fighter jet ever built.

just love watching them soar above. And I know I pay for it all, so I am interested. I like cool toys! Love walking the museums

You and me both

[JWinn]

--- it is no longer cost effective to maintain the F-14 ---

That may be true, but is it still "cost effective" to maintain a fleet of B-52's? Planes that have been around far, far longer?

The Air Force seems to think so.

I know, apples to oranges. The B-52 has proved itself in a wide variety of roles. From nuclear deterent to carpet bomber. Where the F-14 is a single purpose, fleet defensive intrument, which really only plays one role, to protect the carrier and it's battle group.

But is it really cheaper to scrap the program and start over? Or to just switch over to a multi capable jet (the F/A-18) to serve it's role? Again, I like the Hornet, I thinks it's the coolest thing in the air, but as y2c said, it isnt as fast, and it seems clear to me the Tomcat serves that role it plays better. I have to assume the brass agrees, or it would have retired the Tomcats when the Hornets first hit the scene. Especially as newer versions came online.

I guess the brass feels the Hornet can protect the fleets as well as the Tomcat, or they wouldnt drop them. Cost may play a part. Possibly as a result of other nations not having much to offer in the way competition? I dont see anyone else coming out with anything new. Although I havent really paid all THAT much attention.

I guess we are lucky that our manufacturers have created such good platforms. In the case of the Hornet, a platform that lends itself to constant improvement. To be able to be faster, more capable, and more maneuverable.

Like the Phantom and Skyhawk before that, the Blue's have always chosen the most maneuverable jet in inventory for thier toys.

Perhaps thats the bottom line here. The F/A-18 can run circles around almost anything else in the sky that an enemy could throw against a CVBG.

[y2cragie]

Dont get me wrong, I love the F-18, infact in my opinion there isn't a better multi-role plane in the air right now.

I have to assume the brass agrees, or it would have retired the Tomcats when the Hornets first hit the scene

AZ may know more on this than I, but I think that was the intention to start with, then the F-18 A's started having serious problems. The Tomcat was then modified to serve a fighter bomber role until the F/A18'C I believe it is was introduced.
The B52's are still perfect for the airforce. They are pretty cheap to run, they have 10 to 20 more years left in them if not more. And there really should be no need to replace them. Future bombing missions will all be done with cruise missiles launched by the Typhoons, F18's and JSF's/ whatever should be its replacement if cancelled. Its alot like the Canberra in the RAF, its almost as old as the B52 and actually based off a 1940's jet. Its still inservice today simply because nothing could be designed to be any better.

[Den21-Bal19]

The real trick of the 14 though wasn't the plane itself, but the radar/missile combination......I've not really been paying any attention to aviation like I used to , but can either the JSF or the Super Hornet carry the Phoenix?

Because that was the thing that made the Tomcat great. It could stay in the air forever and hit the badguys earlier than they could hit you.

As the Royal Navy found out in the Falklands when they used the Harrier/Sidewinder combo, if you let the enemy get over your decks, then you've already lost half the battle.

[y2cragie]

The real trick of the 14 though wasn't the plane itself, but the radar/missile combination......I've not really been paying any attention to aviation like I used to , but can either the JSF or the Super Hornet carry the Phoenix?

Because that was the thing that made the Tomcat great. It could stay in the air forever and hit the badguys earlier than they could hit you.

As the Royal Navy found out in the Falklands when they used the Harrier/Sidewinder combo, if you let the enemy get over your decks, then you've already lost half the battle.

No and the Phoenix hasn't been used in a long time, It was a cold war weapon, and really quite inaccurate. But yes it could hit targets upto 100 miles away IIRC. Or it could track at a 100 miles and strike at 60. The other trick the F-14 had was it could track and target and attack 6 targets at once. This meant a squadron of Tomcats could absolutly wipe out a bomber formation in one barrage before they were ever seen.
The Harrier in the Falklands was probably the most impressive display by an aircraft in any aerial warfare. It was outnumber 20 to 1, it was going up against aircraft almost 3 times faster and supposedly much better in combat. By the end of the warit had lost only a couple included a number to accidents and one I think to friendly fire.

[Bronco-Holic]

Tomcat was a good plane, but the Hornet has superior maneuverability and is the future of naval aviation.

The Tomcat was long due for retirement.

[JWinn]

The real trick of the 14 though wasn't the plane itself, but the radar/missile combination......I've not really been paying any attention to aviation like I used to , but can either the JSF or the Super Hornet carry the Phoenix?

Because that was the thing that made the Tomcat great. It could stay in the air forever and hit the badguys earlier than they could hit you.

As the Royal Navy found out in the Falklands when they used the Harrier/Sidewinder combo, if you let the enemy get over your decks, then you've already lost half the battle.

Great point!!

Wasnt the Tomcat developed specifically to carry the Phoenix missile?

Are the newer Super Hornets able to carry that? Can they prevent targets from even getting in range of a battle group like the Tomcat has all these years?

Could improvment in the fleets UNDERWATER assets have something to do with all of this? Cant an LA boat shoot down a plane with a tomahawk?

Maybe I read too much Patrick Robinson.

[y2cragie]

Wasnt the Tomcat developed specifically to carry the Phoenix missile?

Correct, and as I said above, no other plane can carry the phoenix.
It has also been retired from service. The F/A18 super hornet can do the CAP role and fleet defence but it has a much shorter time in the air without refueling thus it can't go out as far as the tomcat.

As for maneuverability. I know I personally play up Typhoons super agility but it's nothing more than an airshow trick today. Any self respecting fighter pilot will never be in a position to have to find out just how well it can turn in a fight. You fire your missles and run away as quickly as possible. Thats why the F-22 is designed how it is. I sure wouldn't want to get into a dogfight with it, up against some of the newer Migs and SU's. Those things are able to turn on a dime. Add in the Russians super manuverable A2A missile, the last thing you want is to get into that situation.