StarDestroyer.Net BBS

F-14 Nearing End of Service

I was acutally a little surprised that they hadn't phased all of the F-14s out already since they were already doing it 10 years ago while I was still in the Navy. One thing said in this article made me want to bounce the info off the noggins of the people here that are more into aircraft than I am.

According to Waters, in the '90s, naval leadership made the decision to phase out the Tomcat and replace it with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. The F/A-18 E model of the Super Hornet is a single-seat aircraft, while the F/A-18 F’s two-person crew resembles the F-14’s crew more closely, with a pilot and a radar intercept officer.

"What you get with the Super Hornet is a brand new airplane, with upgraded avionics, with modern ergonomics, plus the fuel capacity and range and endurance you have in a Tomcat. All that, with a digital architecture," said Waters

The F/A-18E and F really have the range of the Tomcat? Is that comparing the Tomcat without external fuel tanks to the new Hornets with external fuel tanks? Seriously, does the new Superhornet actually have some legs to it because the original versions sure didn't?

Tsyroc wrote:
"What you get with the Super Hornet is a brand new airplane, with upgraded avionics, with modern ergonomics, plus the fuel capacity and range and endurance you have in a Tomcat. All that, with a digital architecture," said Waters

The F/A-18E and F really have the range of the Tomcat? Is that comparing the Tomcat without external fuel tanks to the new Hornets with external fuel tanks? Seriously, does the new Superhornet actually have some legs to it because the original versions sure didn't?

It's bullshit. The Super Bug doesn't have the fuel capacity/ range/ endurance of the Tomcat- they probably performed some such trick to make that statement not 'technically' a lie. Too bad the Tomcat tooling was scrapped.

Vympel wrote:

Tsyroc wrote:
"What you get with the Super Hornet is a brand new airplane, with upgraded avionics, with modern ergonomics, plus the fuel capacity and range and endurance you have in a Tomcat. All that, with a digital architecture," said Waters

The F/A-18E and F really have the range of the Tomcat? Is that comparing the Tomcat without external fuel tanks to the new Hornets with external fuel tanks? Seriously, does the new Superhornet actually have some legs to it because the original versions sure didn't?

It's bullshit. The Super Bug doesn't have the fuel capacity/ range/ endurance of the Tomcat- they probably performed some such trick to make that statement not 'technically' a lie. Too bad the Tomcat tooling was scrapped.

It's sad, the Tomcat is not only a damn fine bird, but for so long was a powerful symbol of the Navy, thanks to Top Gun. I'm sad to see them go. as opposed to when the Navy phased out the old F-4 Phantoms, which were pieces of shit and symbolic of the Vietnam clusterfuck.

They should have kept the Tomcat with its capability to fire the Pheonix AAM. Another good bird gone to the wayside...

Why did they phase out the Phoenix missile? Last I checked those missiles were extremely long range/powerful and crucial for Carrier air defense...

Strafe wrote:Why did they phase out the Phoenix missile? Last I checked those missiles were extremely long range/powerful and crucial for Carrier air defense...

If the threat (Tu-22M3 BACKFIRE-C) disappears, so does the defense. The Tomcat is a very expensive bird to fly, and it's powerful radar/ costly variable geometry wings just doesn't make it worth it. F/A-18E is cheaper to run.

Strafe wrote:Why did they phase out the Phoenix missile? Last I checked those missiles were extremely long range/powerful and crucial for Carrier air defense...

My guess is that the powers that be feel that carriers are no going to be threatened like they were during the cold war.

It's disappointing that the F-14s are getting dumped. My first ship had some of the first squadrons to fly the A+ version. Seeing them launch from the catapults without using afterburners was cool. It's too bad that the Navy didn't continue with the F-14D and then on to the Supertomcat. It could have kept all of the good aspects of the F-14 but leared by all the ergonomic improvement of the F/A-18, hopefully it would have become easier to maintain as well. To me it looked like the F-14 was finally approaching it's full potential with the D model, just in time to get dumped in a "savings" measure.

It just seems like the Navy went from having some of the best planes for the job, which I don't think they had all that often in the past, to a pretty decent trade off plane.

I'm thinking they could have used the improved A-6 as well.

Ahhhh A-6F ... what could've been ....

Vympel wrote:Ahhhh A-6F ... what could've been ....

edited becasue i'm a dumbass

Col. Crackpot wrote:

Vympel wrote:Ahhhh A-6F ... what could've been ....

A-6? The Skyhawk? wasn't that a small, single turbine circa 1950's airframe?

No. A-6 Intruder. Medium bomber.

DOH! I;m an idiot, A-6 Intruder. my bad. yeah that is a pretty good bird. wheew... *whistels and sheepishly walks away hoping no one notices my brainfart

Vympel wrote:Ahhhh A-6F ... what could've been ....

A-6F would have rocked.

Wasn't the oft-repeated party line that the A-6 was retired because improvements in air defences made it obsolescent? Seems pretty premature given that, in war after war, we see B-52s dropping unpowered munitions on targets in daylight.

RadiO wrote:Wasn't the oft-repeated party line that the A-6 was retired because improvements in air defences made it obsolescent? Seems pretty premature given that, in war after war, we see B-52s dropping unpowered munitions on targets in daylight.

The real reason were (1) budget cuts, (2) budget cuts and (3) WJC decided to turn all of the refurbished ones into coral reefs.

phongn wrote: The real reason were (1) budget cuts, (2) budget cuts and (3) WJC decided to turn all of the refurbished ones into coral reefs.

That must rank as one of the most misguided budgetary decisions in military history.

Would it have been better to making new and improved F-14s and A-6 if the tooling wasn't scrapped?

RadiO wrote:That must rank as one of the most misguided budgetary decisions in military history.

That and plus the mandatory early retirement which forced a lot of older experienced soldiers to abruptly retired, and tainted the views of the younger inexperienced soldiers.

Rubberanvil wrote:Would it have been better to making new and improved F-14s and A-6 if the tooling wasn't scrapped?

Yes. Not as much the A-6s but both would have been more than worth it.

They really ought to have kept the A-6 in service until the F-35 enters service. The F-14 also should stay in service until a proper replacement could have been designed.

Rubberanvil wrote:Would it have been better to making new and improved F-14s and A-6 if the tooling wasn't scrapped?

Yes, by far, but it was really a no-go in the cash-strapped Clinton years.

There was a proposed Quickstrike Tomcat (think Strike Eagle) that was essentially an F-14D with some relatively minor changes to add on enhanced strike capabilities. The Super Tomcat 21 and Attack Super Tomcat 21 would have been massively revamped versions in all areas: better radar, thrust-vectoring, more powerful engines allowing supercruise with a load of 4 AAMs, nearly double the combat radius, more weapons variety and several other major improvements. The Attack ST21 would have a further-strengthed airframe and the avionics intended for the A-12. (I'm tenatively designating them the F-14E, F-14F and F/A-14G)

All of those three were superior to the Super Hornet, but also more expensive and more maintenance-intensive. They also required a crew of two, as opposed to the base F/A-18E, which only needs a crew of one.

The A-6F Intruder was to have new engines, new avionics, new EW systems, new composite wings, more weapons stations and the ability to use the AMRAAM for self-defense. In the strike role, it completely outclassed the Super Hornet, but again, also required a crew of two.

The ideal carrier group would have the F-14F, F/A-18E (replaces the A-7), A-6F, "KA-6F" (uses the A-6F airframe), EA-6B, ES-3 (opt.) and S-3 along with the SH-60 helicopters and have full flight wings up ~80-90 aircraft. Alas, we can't quite get that.

Alyeska wrote:They really ought to have kept the A-6 in service until the F-35 enters service. The F-14 also should stay in service until a proper replacement could have been designed.

In the Navy's eyes thay already had a replacement , the F/A-18. With the demise of the Soviet Union the threat to the Carrier Battlegroups of swarms of Heavy Bombers armed with massive shipkiller missiles ended the need for a dedicated long range interceptor. Add in that the Navy can cram in two F/A-18's in the space it takes to store one F-14.

The A-6 , with even its massive bombload, was seen as being 'vunerable' to modern AAA, as it was far slower than the F/A-18. Also, a majority of the A-6 Fleet was in need of replacement or upgrade in order to use the latest precision guided munitions(the latest and greatest fad in military hardware). F/A-18's with their integrated FLIR and laser designators covers the bill as far as the Navy is concerned.

Col. Crackpot wrote:
It's sad, the Tomcat is not only a damn fine bird, but for so long was a powerful symbol of the Navy, thanks to Top Gun. I'm sad to see them go. as opposed to when the Navy phased out the old F-4 Phantoms, which were pieces of shit and symbolic of the Vietnam clusterfuck.

Now that's a load of bullshit. The Phantom is one of the greatest fighters ever flown, outclassing all comers for more then 15 years, and remains an effective combat aircraft to this day.

Alyeska wrote:They really ought to have kept the A-6 in service until the F-35 enters service. The F-14 also should stay in service until a proper replacement could have been designed.

Klinton was a fucking moron, not only did the A-6's go the bone yard under him but he also had them thrown into the ocean as reefs, preventing them from being brought back.

Vympel wrote:

Strafe wrote:Why did they phase out the Phoenix missile? Last I checked those missiles were extremely long range/powerful and crucial for Carrier air defense...

If the threat (Tu-22M3 BACKFIRE-C) disappears, so does the defense. The Tomcat is a very expensive bird to fly, and it's powerful radar/ costly variable geometry wings just doesn't make it worth it. F/A-18E is cheaper to run.

In reality most of the threat never existed. As it turns out the Soviets never had more then two regiments of Backfires assigned to anti shipping, NATO and US intelligence thought they had more like six, but as it turned out most only had training and equipment for nuclear strikes against shore targets.