User Panel
I'm sure the maintainers on the ground/deck aren't crying that it going to take 1/4 of the man hours to keep the new aircraft flying.
|
|
Hell, I still wanna cry every time I think of the F-4 and how I wish some of them were still around. But as sad as it may be, there is better stuff coming along. The F-18 can fly circles around the Tomcat, has more advanced avionics and is easier and cheaper to maintain and operate. Soon there will be something that can fly circles around the F-18. It's just the way things are. The important thing to remember is that as long as we stay ahead of the badguys, that's all that matters. The F-14 may soon be gone but we have lots of great memories of it. And it did it's job well in the many years of service it gave us. Just ask the Libyans, they'll tell ya!
-CH |
|
I'm sure if they didn't have budget cuts in the first place, and they got the parts that they were originally designed for, AND if we were not wasting money on things like the XM-8, then we would be able to run them longer.
One error in that article - there is no F-14C. |
|
Ahhhh...Memories of living under NAS Miramar's Flight Path. Got the see some bitchin jets and the yearly airshow. I'll miss the F-14's. "Anytime Baby"
|
|
I think we are in for a rude surprise if we ever get into it with China over Taiwan and they send a bunch of bombers to take out a carrier. Aren't we putting our carriers at risk without the Phoenix missle and the means to deliver it? I sure hope not.
|
|
If the Chinese had any bombers.....
|
|
|
The big problem is the Sunburn missile... That thing is BAD. |
|
|
I know a couple -14 maintainers who would curse the plane up and down, but are downright in love with it. They'll cry too. |
|
|
When some of the F-14D's were converted to "Bomb-cats", did they lose their status as "fighter squadrons"? If not, why should this be different for the F/A-18?
|
|
The "bombcat" idea was a way to extend the life of the F-14. They just added the capability to drop some bombs, especially LGBs. No, they remained VF squadrons. The F-14 doesn't have the ground attack capability of a F/A-18... never heard of Tomcats practicing hitting tanks with rockets... |
|
|
I have. They have been armed with Zuni rockets before - have been armed with GBUs, JDAMS, and even HARMS at one point, and nearly everything in between. |
||
|
All of the (now retired) F-14B's and the F-14D's were upgraded to "Bombcat" specs.
They still need a LANTIRN pod in order to use LGB's. TARPS-capable F-14s cannot carry the LANTIRN pod, although the F-18's have taken over the photo roll from the F-14 with the new SHARPS pod. |
|
An F-14 with Zunis and HARMs? You can confirm this? Very interesting, considering I have a Tomcat RIO here saying you're on crack. GBU, JDAM, yes yes, all the guided goodies. |
|||
|
Know if the Navy Hornets will get the LIGHTNING II pod? I'm not in the loop for that info.. yet. |
|
|
Zunis, nothing special. If you really want I can dig for a source or photos, but it is really no big deal.
The F-14 has been tested with HARMs before - and there are photos to prove it. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-zuni.htm http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-agm88.htm Enjoy! |
|
Interesting, gonna confer with my RIO friend. Thanks for the links. |
|
|
Ok, this is what was said from RIO buddy:
They tried it, and either didn't work with the software too well or just was never implemented. You'd never see it in the Fleet. Notice those birds are test aircraft from NWS. |
|
Just as sad as the day when they retired the last A6 Intruder. I loved those slow, ugly birds. I wonder if the fleet air arm is as well armed as it used to be - I read that the F/A18 family gives up alot compared to the A6 in strike range and payload and the F14 in air-to-air capability.
|
|
Could you please edit your post so it is not 40 feet wide?
I'd like to read it. Thanks! |
|
Talking to guys in the fleet (I'm not there yet and won't be for a while)... the Hornet does not and never will compare to the Intruder in that role... |
|
|
The LITENING II pod is now fitted to the Marines AV-8B's.
The LITENING AT has been tested with F-18D's, however, the Navy has not bought any. The Marines have.
|
|
|
Hmm ok, any news about the Super Bugs? I hear that pod is pretty frickin bad ass. |
||
|
Maintenance woes are nothing unique to the Tomcat, the Hornet will have them in 20 years when its replacement is being phased in.
The fact is the Navy is giving up capabilities and not replacing the Tomcat with an all around better plane. Had politics and bureaucrats not been involved, the Tomcat would have all the parts it needs and it would have been continually upgraded like other planes in the AF, MC, and Navy and could have served another 10 years. Of course, lack of interference is wishful thinking when it comes to anything with the government. It will be a black day when the last F-14 is retired. |
|
Heck, the F-18's are already having maintenance woes.
The center barrel is cracking apart, center wing box cracking, landing gear problems....
|
|
|
They should sell F-14s to us civilians!Yeah,thats the ticket! Seriosly,I remember seeing F-14s in the landing pattern while playing Army Nat'l Guard at Camp Elliot. BTW,this is about as bad as seeing the B-727 retiring.
|
|
Boeing 727... another gorgeous plane... I have a thing for that bird, I don't know what it is. Classic lines I guess. |
|
|
Not sure on that one… ANdy |
|
|
I am!
|
||
|
Each aircraft has its strength and weakness. The Hornet is known for its slow speed turning ability at lower-medium altitudes. Don't get low and slow with a Hornet.
Don't outrun a Tomcat. In fact, don't get within 80 miles of it. |
|
Are we talking the lean 'n' mean F/A-18A or the fat E model? ANdy |
|||
|
F/A-18A... little plane... little engine.... Yuck.
F/A-18A+... little plane... big engine... mmm. |
|
Yawn. Ever heard of Aegis? |
|
|
Not the bombers, it's the SSMs that are a problem. Sunburn BAD. |
||
|
Sunburn is impressive on paper. Of course, you have to use it properly, and you have to have the chance to launch it. There are ways of defeating the missile, which I won't get into on the internet. The best thing about Sunburn is China doesn't have that many platforms capable of launching them. |
|||
|
Yes, please don't get into it. OPSEC and security issues of course. Yes, very thankful China doesn't have too many platforms for it.. yet. |
||
|
Damn shame. I read that the A6E was one hell of a bird when it came to nighttime precision bombing. I always liked the planes like the A6 and A10 - unglamorous but hell-on-wheels when it came to putting ordinance on a target. I've heard the F/A18 has problems with range once you load it up with bombs - can't carry a payload over a distance like the ugly old A6. What has taken over the old KA6 tanker role? |
||
|
Hornet = No Legs. S-3B and F/A-18E are doing the buddy tanking right now. |
|
|
Everyone crys for the great ones when the last cycle is over. They cried for the Corsair when the Skyraider came, But they mourned the Skyraider too. Ask any Vietnam era pilot that was shot down and waited for rescue under the protection of an A-1. The F-4 was an icon, and always will be, and it took both the F-15 and F-16 to fill its shoes. The OH-6 is still king, even if the OH-58 (5.8, not quite a 6) now has its job. The UH-1 is the most reconizeable symbol of the Vietnam war (along with the M-16) but it too had to make way for the Blackhawk. The F-14 was my dream as a child, even before that twit Tom Cruise befouled her. But I went Army because my eyes would never let me fly. The fact that people notice her absence, and pause to miss her speaks of the service she gave. Thanks KA3B for the reminder. I may drive to Tuscon to see if I can visit and revel in the excitement of my childhood when I see her again.
Someday our kids will mourn the passing of the F/A-18. I only hope that, for the sake of those that fly her, she does her job well. |
|
Both the F-14 and A-6 were and could still be fantastic machines. But newer technologies have really made both unnecessary. What I mean by that is that it's no longer necessary to have a plane with a tremendous payload. Let's remember that during Vietnam and even as late as the Gulf War (just before the A-6 was retired), most of the bombs dropped were conventional free fall bombs. Therefore having a tremendous payload to unleash on a target was a good thing. The bombing wasn't as precise but with such a huge number being dropped all at once, the chance of taking out the target were pretty high. Now, contrast that with the latest war against Iraq. Most of the munitions dropped were of a precision nature, be they laser guided or GPS. What might have taken 2 aircraft with 30 dumb bombs to destroy 15 or 20 years ago, today we can do with one aircraft and 2 bombs. Therefore payload is no big huge issue. And range? Well, we haven't really had any issues yet that I've noticed. The F-18A/C may not have the range of the Intruder, but we have plenty of tankers on hand if that becomes an issue. They can stay close enough to the fight but out of danger to fuel a thirsty bird if needed. Besides, the new Super Hornet has a much increased range and payload. Considering the technology advances over the older birds, I feel what little we lose with range and payload is more than made up for in capability.
Now as far as the Tomcat being the fleet interceptor, yeah, it was great in that role. And the range of the Phoenix missile sounds impressive, at least on paper. But the Phoenix was never really battle proven. Besides, it was really intending for large bomber aircraft and not so much for the more smaller, highly agile fighter aircraft. From everything I've heard, the Phoenix's probability of a kill against such aircraft is not all that great anyway. And it's extremely expensive. So much so that only limited testing was done on it, compared to the Sidewinder or Sparrow. And in all it's years of service, as far as I know the missile never acheived one single kill in combat. So where really is the need for it? But for those who worry over things such as range, there is good news. Newer versions of the AIM-120 AMRAAM are being developed that will dramatically boost it's range and performance. The new AMRAAM will rival the Phoenix in range, pushing the envelope out toward 100 miles while offering a much higher probability of a kill against a maneuvering target. This missile will be one badass mofo, as it can really maneuver against a target. It will be far superior to the Phoenix in every aspect besides range and warhead size. But it certainly is no slouch in either of those two departments either. The F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet are just newer, more capable aircraft. The Super Hornet will be no Tomcat, but it will be better suited going up against the latest the enemy has to offer. Remember, for much of the Tomcat's life, it's major adversary in the sky was likely aircraft such as the MiG-21 and MiG-23. It held most of the advantages over both planes and with well-trained pilots, had little trouble with either. But with more modern adversaries such as the MiG-29, SU-27, SU-30, SU-33, etc, the Tomcat was giving up a lot of things, especially in the maneuverability department. The Hornet's tight turning, high thrust to weight ratio and more advanced avionics and weapons systems make it a much better match against the latest threat aircraft. Think of the "buddy radar" tactics for example, where another aircraft can transmit radar data to another aircraft allowing targeting, without that aircraft ever having to turn on it's own radar. This gives this aircraft a limited stealth ability, even though it isn't really a stealthy plane. But if you can keep your radar off, that makes you very hard for the badguy to locate. That's a very important ability to have. See the bad guy first, kill him before he can kill you, or even know you are there for that matter. Everybody has shit-hot fighters these days and with G-load limitations on pilots, maneuvering is as about as advanced as the human body can take. Therefore the way to win in the modern air battle is to see the enemy first while remaining undetected and getting off the first shot with superior weapons. In these regards, the Super Hornet will have a big advantage over the Tomcat. Even so, I'll still miss the Tomcat. It's been protecting me as long as I've been alive. For that, I think it and it's crews for their service and wonderful job. But it's time to give the ol' Cat some much needed rest and let the younger fellas carry on the fight. I get sentimental about aircraft as well, and you can bet many people felt the same way when the Phanton was phased out and the Tomcat replaced it. But it seems that worked out well and we ended up with a more cpable aircraft. That will be the case this time around as well. -CH |
|
LOL, the A-6 was JUNK!
Wings cracking, engines worn out, maintenance nightmare, no parts.....
|
|
|
|
|
The hornet can smoke the tomcat AtoA. No contest.
|
|||
|
I don't know...
The A-6 was 30 something years old. The airframes had been heavily used and abused. I would say that wings cracking and engines wearing out are unavoidable when an airplane is used a bomb truck. The A-6 did have a nearly unmatched payload and weapons delivery system for its class. Superb at night time bombing, could carry 16,000 of bombs, and very good avionics to allow it to fly at night and drop all those bombs with reasonable precision (for its time). The lack of parts could be attributed to its age and the fact that it was being retired - the Hornet will face the same problems in 10-15 years. Now about not "needing" to carry so much ordinance because of guided munitions, remember that more "ammo" is always better. Having an extra couple of bombs per plane means less missions and being able to engage sudden targets of opportunity. |
|
You're right; been there, done that. Pretty insightful of you. |
|
|
My great uncle worked for Grumman as an engineer, up at the Iron Works I believe, and worked on the F-14. My grandmother has his project mug, I've got the Tomcat patch. To us, that plane isn't just an airplane, it's family. We didn't go and watch Top Gun for anything or anybody but the Tomcat. That's really the last part of my uncle up there, and when they retire them it'll be gone. And they won't even let civilians get them. My nephew can go and see the F4U's that flew cover for my grandfather in the air thanks to some dedicated folks, but in a year he won't be able to see the plane his great great uncle built fly. Just in a museum, which is a sad existance for a fighter. I'm really afraid that we've seen the last of the Grumman (Northrop Grumman) " -cats". Although NG worked on the F-35. There's just gotta be a "cat" in the Navy. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.