Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/12/2001 7:41:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 7:43:01 AM EDT
F-14 Bombcat. Honest! Sherm
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 7:43:25 AM EDT
I wonder how they cost.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 7:56:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 8:01:40 AM EDT
May also have something to do with the retirement of the A-6 Intruders. Gave the carriers a few more mud movers.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 8:04:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: You won't ever see a Hornet slinging a Phoenix missle, and I'm at a loss for why the Navy feels compelled to sling guided munitions on the belly of a Tomcat. Especially when the potential for the Strike Hornet was proven so well by the Marine Corps. Just my two cents worth.
View Quote
Just stretching your tax $$$$$. Good for them.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 8:55:32 AM EDT
Hiram, The Tomcat -B and -Ds were fitted with the updated LANTIRN targetting pod a couple of years ago. This system is actually [b]more capable[/b] than the Hornet's NiteOwl precision weapons targetting system. Also the Tomcat's two-man crew, long range (not a Hornet strength) and significant bomb load capacity make it a killer PGM platform. This is not the first war this configuration has been used in as they were quite successful in Kosovo as well.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 11:07:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/12/2001 11:02:26 AM EDT by HiramRanger]
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 1:19:43 PM EDT
Hiram, The F-14 was originally developed with an attack variant back in `72. The democratically controlled congress killed it along with an engine upgrade that would have equalled the F-14D performance today. At the same time they killed the Mark 71 8" gun that would have replaced the 5" forward mount on the Spruance class DDs. That bad boy had the same range as the 16" guns on the Iowas! What a waste! [-=(_)=-]
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 1:37:33 PM EDT
With the retirement of the A-6 Intruder, the F-14's have been modifified to fill a similar role like that of the F-15E Strike Eagle. The old and new F-18's still have short legs and will never replace either the F-14 or A-6 in capability. My experience and opinions of course. Talyn
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 1:51:31 PM EDT
Tomcats are much faster, bomb and scoot. Tomcats are more manueverable. Better at avoiding AAA. Tomcats are have longer range. Afghanistan is pretty far away from water. Tomcats are much more intimidating. "Oh, don't worry, its just a fighter." I think its awesome that theyre extending the service life of our best fighter. Bombcat all the way. In fact, I bet they could tuck a tomahawk up between the engines,....hmmm [flame] [0j]Subvertz
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 2:13:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By subvertz: Tomcats are much faster, bomb and scoot. Tomcats are more manueverable. Better at avoiding AAA. Tomcats are have longer range. Afghanistan is pretty far away from water. Tomcats are much more intimidating. "Oh, don't worry, its just a fighter." I think its awesome that theyre extending the service life of our best fighter. Bombcat all the way. In fact, I bet they could tuck a tomahawk up between the engines,....hmmm [flame] [0j]Subvertz
View Quote
Tomcats are just plain beautiful! It was the first military aircraft i fell in love with. I've flown a few flight simulators....(Hornet: Korea) that I've made a few missions one on one with a tomcat, they are very effective in ACM and can usually out turn the hornet, get on my tail and it's hard to shake him after that.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 2:15:18 PM EDT
Do they still make Tomcats today? Or are we just maintaining what we've got?
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 2:24:07 PM EDT
Until the Super Hornet Squadons (F/A-18E & F Models) increase in numbers the F-14 will have to do this job. Although, there dosen't seem to be any planes to shoot down I'm sure they still have a few flying CAP. We'd be IDIOTS if we didn't.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 2:29:48 PM EDT
Hmmm. Fleet defense flyboys having to learn to do two things at once; air to air [b]and[/b] air to ground.[;)] Hope they have time to comb their hair and look real pretty for the women![:D] BTW, I wonder what ever happened to all the Iranian Tomcats. Probably a couple in Russian hangars somewhere. No doubt design inspiration for recent Soviet fighter designs up close and personal!
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 2:32:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/12/2001 2:28:16 PM EDT by madmortigan]
Originally Posted By tool: Do they still make Tomcats today? Or are we just maintaining what we've got?
View Quote
No, all production on F-14's has been stopped for sometime as I recall. There may still be some upgading going on, but, as for any new planes the answer is no. Madmortigan
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 3:16:26 PM EDT
The Shah of Iran ordered 40+ Tomcats in the early 80s. There was discussion where we would see them in action against us during Desert Storm. But most modern fighters are technically complex and need part replacement regularly. NO PARTS NO FLY. Last I heard they were taking up space at an airport. They canabilized what they could but finally they were unable to keep any in the air.
Link Posted: 10/20/2001 7:57:55 PM EDT
Are the A-10's still flying? I heard the USAF wanted to dump them. I think the Northern Alliance would love to see them strafe some Taliban posistions.
Link Posted: 10/20/2001 11:21:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 2:35:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 2:53:55 AM EDT by USNJoe]
Funny stuff.... A Tomcat can outfight an F-18....Not. An F-18 can turn inside of an F-14, just like the A-4's and the F-5's of the "old" Mirimar Top Gun School. I have too many flight hours over "the warning area" off the coast of San Diego and I have watched the TACTS range tapes. Sad but true, Top Gun was a movie after all... The F-14 and the AWG-9/AIM54 (original) were designed to kill the Mig-25 (which was designed to kill the SR-71 and the B-70, funny how that works). The AIM54 has never been used in war. There is "no need" for it. Grumman went tits-up, that's why Northrup is called Northrup-Grumman. The facility that built the F-14 and many other fine Grumman aircraft has been deserted for almost 8 years now. Davis-Monthan is full of F-14's. The last F-14D's have rolled off of the conversion line. That said, the F-14 is awsome at what it does and that is long range intercept / CAP patrol / dropping bombs / ACM engaments. As was mentioned here, had the F-14 been built with the engines and avionics that it was originaly designed with the US Navy would of had the F-14D a long time ago. There is also a BIG difference in the technologies between the F-14 and the F-18. Let's just say that from a maintainers point of view the F-14 should have been parked a long time ago. The F-18 is so maintainer friendly it's not funny. I'll hold judgement on the new McDonnall-Douglas...errr Boeing Super Hornet. The concept is sound, I just don't know about the execution. As far as the Bombcat goes I watched an actual live weapons bomb drop with 500 lb bombs. Care to guess what aircraft was closest to the target? Here kitty kitty kitty... [img]http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f14/images/tomcat1.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f14-mk83.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vx4-01l.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14-053.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:16:42 AM EDT
Strange.....Last I heard.....according to Bill "The Bubba" Klinton, while procecuting the "Air War" over Yugoslovia, something to the effect that "Aircraft Carriers" were obsolete, or some other reference to the "Navy" as being an unimportant part of our "Military" By the way, were is Bill?????
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:48:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DVDTracker: Heck yeah! Have you seen my other website, [url]www.a-10.org[/url]?
View Quote
Checked out the site...AWESOME! If I was cool enought to fly, that's what I'd be riding in!
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 6:05:06 AM EDT
I thought and have actually read that the F-14 at least until the late 80's had no Air-to-Ground capability. I guess they changed that. Ben
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 7:14:51 AM EDT
USNJoe, Thanks for the pic of the Bunny-Head F4J! I've always thought the F4 was one of the most incredible aircraft ever built, and I must have built every single 1:48 scale model of that thing when I was a kid [:D] Are they in service with ANY US forces? (reserves, ANG.)
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 10:13:50 AM EDT
Served with both F/A-18 and F-14 squadrons. The F-14 was designed from day one with ground-attack capabilities (remember, it replaced the F-4, a dual-role aircraft). I flew in the back seat and sure enough, there was the bombing computer just to the left of the center console. There's even a wing-sweep mode called "bomb" that puts the wings at 50 degrees (IIRC). When the A/G role was dropped, the Tomcat lost 1 G in it's flight certification. Originally planned as a 7.5 G aircraft, it's restricted to 6.5. The F-14D was a major avionic/engine upgrade that was only performed on one (maybe two) squadron of aircraft, the rest just received the engine upgrade and a title of F-14B. The Marines used the two seat Hornet, the F/A-18D, the Navy stuck with the F/A-18C single seat due to crew-space limits aboard the carriers. The Hornet eats the Tomcat in ACM.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 10:46:48 AM EDT
So does that mean we would have to re-designate them and add the "A" as in F/A-14
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:50:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Centauro97: ...When the A/G role was dropped, the Tomcat lost 1 G in it's flight certification. Originally planned as a 7.5 G aircraft, it's restricted to 6.5. ...
View Quote
Help me out here - Is the rationale that in ground attack mode you will pull more G's? It would seem like you'd want the lower G limit on the plane with the extra wing loading from munitions. Or is the idea that because of the extra load, the plane needs to be designed to handle 'extra' G's so that performance isn't too badly degraded. Are the G readings compensated by some factor(s)? 7.5 G's with lots of weight hanging seems different from 7.5 G's of 'pure' plane.
...The Marines used the two seat Hornet, the F/A-18D, the Navy stuck with the F/A-18C single seat due to crew-space limits aboard the carriers. ...
View Quote
Makes you wonder where they put all the A-6 Weapons Officers.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:10:52 PM EDT
The USN has a few F-4s still in service, although there are none in frontline squadrons. The Pacific Missle Test Center in Pt. Mugu has a few, and I am sure that the USN has a few at Pax River in Maryland where they do flight test. The USAF has a few at Edwards for flight test as well. The saddest use is the drone version of the F-4. That's a poor finale for such a fine aircraft.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:19:04 PM EDT
Ohh, I don't know if sure as hell beats getting put into the Airplane Mortuary in the Desert. I love the F-4 Phantom II, what a beautiful aircraft. The first fighter plane to bridge the gap between the Century Series (F-100 through 106) and Modern Fighter Design. They used Phantoms in the Gulf War SAD, WILD WEASELS. Loaded with HARMS. Now the F-22 Now that is a fighter pilots dream. Mach 1.5 @ sea level 80,000 pounds of thrust, Plenty of power , Thrust Vectoring, Synthetic Aperture Radar, Internal Weapons Bay's. Cryogenics for the computers. SHWING!!! Ben
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:47:01 PM EDT
I heard the Iranians tow their F-14/Phoenix combos to the coast with CUCVs and place them in a static air defense role. I'm dating my self (no, I'm NOT mastubating), but I went to NAS Millington for my A-school with Iranians. Jim
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:59:22 PM EDT
LT, the Hornet was the first F/A that I know about, and in the Navy it replaced the F-4 and the A-7. There's always infighting between the fighter and attack communities, so I guess they didn't want to snub either one. The Marines only transitioned F-4 pilots. The A-4 pilots were released. I've not been with the community since the Marines started fielding the D models. prk, I'm not sure why they dropped the 1 G on the load limit as it seemed higher G's are seen in ACM versus air-to-ground. The wings see the G-load regardless of its source, 20,000 lbs times 6Gs is getting heavy fast. One other thing, the F-14D added a modern HUD. Problem was, the F-14 already had a multi-piece windshield so the added brackets and glass made forward visibility unacceptably poor. Grumman wanted millions per aircraft to retrofit with a one-piece windscreen. NAVAIR basically said "F" Grumman and the rest is history.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:51:55 PM EDT
The F-4 Phantom is long retired from active duty with any US Military service. Point Mugu and China Lake operate QF-4S drone birds for the US Navy, civilian contract maintenance and pilots. Pax River has no F-4's. There is a guy who operates an F-4 bailed from the Air Force under contract, and there is another guy who spliced two crashed F-4's back together and flys it every every now and then. The G loading limit is an artifical limit probably set by some pointy head. Most of those limits are set for airframe fatigue life, so that they can get more life out of the airframe. The biggest problem with the F-14 right now is that the ones still flying are getting close to the service life period for a major structure of the airframe, and it just costs too much to fix them. The F-14 carries no ordnance on it's wings like the F-111 did. For the Navy the F-18 replaced the A-4, A-6 and the A-7. The F-14 replaced the F-4. The F-18 is going to replace the F-14. For the Marines the F-18 and the AV-8 replaced the A-4 and the F-4. For the Air Force the F-15 and F-16 replaced the F-4 and the A-7.
Link Posted: 10/22/2001 12:34:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By omar: I heard the Iranians tow their F-14/Phoenix combos to the coast with CUCVs and place them in a static air defense role. I'm dating my self (no, I'm NOT mastubating), but I went to NAS Millington for my A-school with Iranians. Jim
View Quote
Last word I heard was that they try to fit Hawk surface to air missle to F-14's
Top Top