Author Topic: Tomcats End WestPac Era (Read 737 times)

Nilsen · « **on:** November 02, 2004, 05:05:28 PM »

I bet alot of you love this plane... its all over soon.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15777

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:18:21 PM »

I am sad to see it go, fantastic looking bird and I am not convinced the hornet can do the job.

ASTAC · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:35:00 PM »

The "Super" Hornet CAN'T..it's junk

Nilsen · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:41:13 PM »

Kinda agree with you, but the airframes are prolly getting tired after all those landings.

Beacause of the retirement of its main weapon (Phoenix) it makes little sense to upgrade the electronics and gizmos on such an old and expencive airframe to current and future standards...

Basicly its not economical to revive the production line of such an old plane when new planes have been designed since its introduction 30 years ago that can do the same job and more for less. The range is basicly all that is better with the tomcat now that the phoenix missile is gone.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:47:14 PM »

The F-14D was not very much like the A, they only had what like 60 or 70% comanality? It was very much updated.

I read in a book about the tomcat that Chenney, killed the program to stop the F18 and F14 admirals from fighting, and ordered grumman to destroy the tooling?

The seemed shocking at the time. Anyone else hear that?

Nilsen · « **Reply #5 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:52:28 PM »

Oh yes the A and D are very different indeed, but it does not change the fact that it is an old and big plane that lost its biggest "fangs" when the missile that was designed for it got trashed.

Can the F18E do all the F14 with phoenix missiles could?....no, but remember that the phoenix was designed to destroy bombers at very long ranges and is not agile enough to handle smaller fighters in the same way the the amraam can. At some point you have to retire a plane, and on a carrier today you prolly need the F18E more for todays warfare.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:59:54 PM »

From what I understand, the Superhornet is only going to barely be able to cover the current F-14 misson and its bring home weight is very low.

Could the f-14 not use the Amraam? Also the D with the bigger engines could give most modern fighters a run for the money. I think.

The old engines were crap, the list of fixes prat and witney(i think, this is all from memory) did and charged for was nutty!

Dnil · « **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2004, 06:06:39 PM »

look up the gao reports on the super hornet, believe there are 3 in total. It doesnt paint a pretty picture on the plane. It has the DoD respones in the report to.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 02, 2004, 06:07:26 PM »

Dnil
Whats is a GAO report and where can I find it?

Nilsen · « **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2004, 06:14:13 PM »

Im sure the tomcat could carry the amraam well, but is it worth keeping when the biggest reason for having the plane in the first place is gone?

When you replace one plane with another there will always be tradeoffs but if what you are giving up is no longer as important then its an easyer call to make.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 02, 2004, 06:17:06 PM »

But if the old plane can do the new job just as well or better then were do you go.

Tomcats had other missions then just fleet defense like fighterbomber and recon roles. I do not think the F-18 can do the recon stuff.

Nilsen · « **Reply #11 on:** November 02, 2004, 06:27:08 PM »

Sure the F18 can do the recon job, and very soon it will replace the prowler as EW aircraft too.

Overall cost when you reduce the number of plane types will prolly be alot lower from the days of having hornet, tomcats, corsairs, prowlers and intruders on the deck at the same time to having the f18 do all these jobs.

In the not to distant future the JSF, helos and hawkeye variants + the F18E will be the last of the manned planes on cv's. When the JSF takes over completly then the ranges and payloads of carrier planes will go down even more than they will when you now go from F14's to F18's

Sandman · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2004, 07:23:18 PM »

There's a name from the past... Doug Waters. His first squadron was VF-191 and he was in the operations department with me.

He, Bill McMasters (CO of VF-143) and I all went through Top Gun together when they were lieutenants and I was their AIC.

EDIT:
Oops... I found another article with a similar picture on top and thought it was the same... here's the one I was reading:

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=6477

Suave · « **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2004, 07:27:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I am sad to see it go, fantastic looking bird and I am not convinced the hornet can do the job.

It can do the job, it's job is to shoot down poorly trained, poorly motivated pilots flying obsolette export (monkey model) fighters.

The f14's job was to shoot down competent european pilots flying non export mig29s and su27s.

Chairboy · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2004, 07:32:49 PM »

Also, the F-14 has range advantages over the bumblebee.

It's unfortunate that the Phoenix is being retired without a roughly capable replacement. Just because we don't have soviet bombers coming over the pole doesn't mean we don't need long range A/A weapons. Planning for the future using current threats is limiting.

Look at the Patriot system, for example. It's an example of an anti-aircraft weapon that was succesfully used against Scud missiles. Same with the Aegis system being used to engage ICBM warheads, that's forward thinking.

Retiring a weapon without being able to replicate its functionality isn't.