The US Navy Says Goodbye to the Tomcat

jonerik writes "Though it's not being widely reported, this week marks the end of the line for the F-14 Tomcat in US Navy service. First flown in 1970, the Grumman F-14 Tomcat was easily one of the world's most powerful, advanced, and deadly aircraft for many years, capable of flying at Mach 2.3 and firing its half-dozen Mach 5 AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles at targets as much as 100 miles away. Having been gradually replaced during the last several years by the newer F/A-18E/F, the last of the aircraft in US service will be officially retired on Friday, September 22nd in a ceremony at Virginia's Oceana Naval Air Station. However, at least a few F-14s will continue to fly for a few more years: Iran — which took delivery of 79 aircraft before the overthrow of the Shah — still flies the plane, though only a small number (perhaps ten or twenty) are believed to still be in service due to a lack of spare parts and attrition."

Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause!

[grommit]

Yes! All none of them!

Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause!

[Anonymous Coward]

I quote from Carrier by Tom Clancy, page 74, footnote at the bottom: "the F-14 [Fleet Readiness Squadron] at NAS Oceana, Virginia, managed to hang a modified LANTIRN laser targeting pod onto a Tomcat, so that it could deliver laser-guided bombs".

I've read elsewhere that Tomcats were used as strike aircraft during Shrub's crusade.

Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause!

[dukeisgod]

Well you're half right. They weren't designed with air-to-ground in mind, but it was modified to perform in a limited strike role later on. They did pretty well over Libya, and I believe they dropped some bombs in Iraq and maybe Afghanistan as well. From http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=14 &bg=8 [airtoaircombat.com] The F-14A can carry up to 14,500 pounds of bombs and rockets, although it was not originally assigned a ground-attack mission. The under-fuselage pallets which ordinarily carry Phoenix missiles can also mount bomb racks for 1000-pound Mk 83 or 2000-pound Mk 84 bombs or other free-fall weaponry. As early as 1972, a Tomcat flew with 18 Mk 82 bombs, plus a complement of missiles. VF-122 dropped the first bombs from a Fleet Tomcat on August 8, 1990. Although the F/A-18 Hornet is the primary air-to-ground aircraft of the Navy fleet squadrons, the F/A-18 is felt to lack a sufficient range/payload capacity, and the air-to-ground capable F-14 Tomcat was felt to be essential to permit a carrier-based air wing to retain its full capacity. However, there were initially some shortages of bomb racks, and it was often true that only one F-14 squadron on each carrier was equipped to carry out a secondary ground attack role, with the other squadron being TARPS-equipped. Software for a ground attack mission has now been installed on all F-14Bs and Ds, as well on some F-14As. Today, the training syllabus includes some emphasis on air-to-ground strike, although such missions would only be carried out in a relatively permissible combat environment because of the high cost of the Tomcat.

Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause!

[ross.w]

...and a rousing cheer for the guy who can't tell an F14 from a C123.

Re:And so marches on the....

[ergo98]

new planes, new weapons, new profits...

One of the biggest problems with those old jets is the massive number of ground service hours required for every hour of air time. The F-14 was one of the worst. Not to mention that maintaining a certain level of air superiority might require X of an older type of jet, versus 1/4X of a newer type of jet [strategypage.com].

Often you can save money buy spending money.

And those old F-14s aren't immediately ground up into Bender sandwiches -- They usually go to a graveyard [google.com] to sit around in a state of somewhat possibly potentially close to readiness, just in case a really big war breaks out.

Re:Worse is better

[Anonymous Coward]

All true of the F/A-18A through D. The ones that are replacing the Tomcats are fortunately more capable. The Super Hornet (E and F model) is 20% larger, has two extra weapon stations, and quite a bit more capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornet [wikipedia.org]

Its no Tomcat but its not the regular Hornet either.

Re:Reading between the lines...

[Duhavid]

"Foldy wings". :-)

Most carrier aircraft have wings that fold. Usually
they fold *up* and not back. Storage is at a premium.

Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause!

[Duhavid]

A nerdy fact for you [microcomputerhistory.com]

History and stats on the F-14 [att.net]

Re:Worse is better

[kin_korn_karn]

The F-14 was a very interesting plane. It was a dedicated interceptor, built for pure speed - not really made for dogfighting, no matter what Top Gun claimed. It also carried the most powerful air intercept radar in either the Navy or the Air Force inventory. The backseat guy was the Radar Intercept Officer - it took a dedicated crewman just to work the damn thing. It was kind of like a flying SAM platform, almost.

It had two main roles. First was the BARCAP role. The USA kept carrier groups on patrol in case the Soviets launched bomber strikes, and the F-14 was the first line of defense against them. The idea was that it could catch up with a Soviet bomber group before they reached launch range, lock onto the big bombers, fire its AIM-54s, and get out once the missiles went terminal. It wasn't supposed to mix it up with the escorting fighters, that was the job of escorting F-14s or the F-15s from the USAF. Once the USSR collapsed, BARCAP wasn't such a big deal, so that's when they decided to give it ground attack capability.

It was also tasked with Fleet Air Defense, meaning to protect the carrier air group from airborne threats - bombers dedicated to anti-ship strikes, cruise missiles, fighters scrambled to attack Navy bombers. In this role, it was obseleted by the AEGIS cruiser as much as the F/A-18.

I apologize in advance if I got any of the facts wrong - this is just as I remember it as a plane geek.

Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause!

[Babbster]

Considering that all F-14's were pure fighter, as in no strike capability, until after I got out of the military in '91, I sort of doubt that they dropped any other type of bomb on vietnam, either.

While its true that the F-14's [wikipedia.org] primary role throughout its length of service has been as an air-to-air interceptor, it could indeed drop bombs. I don't know that the F-14 did any bombing in Vietnam (the US Navy had several aircraft to fill this role, most notably the A-6 Intruder which was in service well into the 1990s), but at the very least it did drop laser-guided bombs (with laser designation by other aircraft, presumably F-18s) in Bosnia in 1995.

Re:Hey, you've got to spend income taxes somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the numbers, but the poster you're responding to is talking about military spending as a proportion of federal income tax revenues, not as a proportion of GDP.

Re:Hey, you've got to spend income taxes somehow

[ROFLcoptor]

What better way than spending 64% of American's income tax on new weapons?

The 2007 Federal budget allocates about 20% of its funds for defense spending [wikipedia.org] not 64%.

Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause!

[Dun Malg]

They weren't designed with air-to-ground in mind, but it was modified to perform in a limited strike role later on. They did pretty well over Libya, and I believe they dropped some bombs in Iraq and maybe Afghanistan as well

The modified Tomcat capable of ground attack (F-14D) was first delivered in 1990. They did indeed see service in southwest asia, but definitely not in Libya. You're conflating the numerous air-to-air faceoffs between Libyan forces (including shooting down a Libyan Su-22 in 1981) and US Navy F-14A's, and the US Air Force bombing Libya with F-111's in 1986. No bomb off an F-14 has ever fallen on Libya.

Re:Reading between the lines...

[fahrbot-bot]

The wings on the F-14 don't fold like other planes. The wings sweep back for supersonic flight and "oversweep" (to about 75 degrees) for storage. I believe the wingtips can also double fold up (like an "S") on the later F-14D models to save even more space. (There is no "C" model, a designation usually for single-seat fighters).

I live in Virginia Beach and F-14s have flown here for many, many years. They are cool planes, more so than the F-18s, and will be missed.

Re:Wither, Aim-54 Phoenix?

[Dun Malg]

Though why you'd want Phoenix when you've got Aegis cruisers defending the fleet remains an open question. So unless you want to shoot down enemy targets somewhere not over your fleet, Phoenix doesn't seem that neat anymore....

My father was an engineer at Hughes Aircraft Company, and spent the lion's share of his career working on the Phoenix program. The original design was for a 100% cold-war-turns-hot weapon. The AIM-54A was initially designed for shooting down big planes, like the Tu-95 Bear bomber, before they could get in range of the fleet to launch anti-ship cruise missiles. Later, as cruise missile standoff range increased, the Phoenix was improved to shoot down the missiles themselves. In modern small scale warfare where visual ID is nearly always required before pilots are allowed to fire, there's just no place for the Phoenix. Its only potential use was fleet defense when the Navy could be sure that anything flying in from "thataway" was definitely Soviet and hostile, i.e. World War Three. Amazing missile, and the stories I heard about how those engineers managed to wring every last bit of processing resources out of its tiny little 8-bit computer were astounding. I used to have hours of videotape of missile tests at China Lake where they'd shoot down F-86 drones. With the exception of one shot where the rocket motor didn't ignite*, every shot was a kill-- and they tried every evasive maneuver they could with those F-86's. Just no escape.

* second-sourced motor safety made incorrectly by the morons at Raytheon at fault there. I have almost as many stories about dumbfuck engineers from Raytheon "reinterpreting" design drawings to save money on manufacture and thereby delivering unusable missile parts. Now Raytheon has bought up all the US missile designers/manufacturers, Hughes included. One wonders how a company that's run so badly ends up owning the whole show, but I'll save rants about congressional lobbyists for another time...

Tribute video

[snooga]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-706964884 2128183770 [google.com]

Weapons

[Mark_MF-WN]

I don't know if you've noticed, but there are still well-armed enemies out there. From asian warlords (which have made a resurgence) to respectably armed organized crime groups, to dictatorships like Pakistan and Iran, to any old jackass militia that decides it doesn't like taxation and wants to overthrow the government.

Ultimately, there is no escape from the fact that the government must always have the greatest capacity for violence. It is the basis of orderly society. Otherwise, how could the government enforce the law or prevent itself from being replaced by a group with greater force at their disposal? And as weaponry evolves, populations grow, the government has to stay out ahead. And that means researching, developing, and buying new weapons and technology for the part of the government responsible for violence: the military and the police force(s).

It sucks. It sucks BAD. Militaries are the most contemptible organizations on the planet, followed shortly thereafter by police. But they're necessary, at least until we can develop a virus that exlusively kills jackasses.

Re:Next, the F-35. Maybe.

[vishbar]

Actually, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet is a COMPLETELY different jet than the F/A-18 C/D. The only reason they kept the F18 designation was for funding purposes.

Uh...the tomcat is a Navy plane...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great that the US Air force can handle that many planes. Too bad few if any of them are Tomcats being that it is a NAVY plane...

Re:And so marches on the....

[Illserve]

Chamberlin did not "stand up to Hitler"

As I recall, Chamblerin was folding like a wet mattress.

*Churchill* stood up to Hitler.

Re:A miniscule percentage for buying weapons

[Shakrai]

But not even all of that 3% goes to buying weapons. A sizable chunk of it goes to ship building for the Navy, for example. Another chunk goes to buying ammo.

Last time I checked warships counted as weapons. Or is the Navy building cruiseships?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a flower child by any means. But the grandparent has a point even if his numbers are flawed. We spend way too much money on our military. You'd think that the several thousand deliverable nuclear warheads would be enough to ensure our safety......

Never had a chance?

[amightywind]

we never had a chance to use the Tomcat for its intended purpose

Not true [wikipedia.org].

Re:Thank God

[Phanatic1a]

This post is complete and utter bollocks.

First, the Cobra. The Cobra is a great-looking airshow maneuver that has zero utility in actual air combat. It's a high-alpha maneuver that does nothing but dump a whole lot of energy and gets nothing in return. "I'll hit the brakes, he'll fly right by" is a bullshit Hollywood thing that in real combat would get you dead as the guy who "flies right by"'s wingman now has you boresighted and you have no energy to do anything with. Moreover, the notion that American aircraft can't do it is dead-on wrong. There's a well-known photo of Bill Dana, former X-15 test pilot, doing just that in an F-14. You don't need vectored thrust to do one, you need an inlet geometry that can handle the high AoA without choking off the engines.

Second, the bit about 360-degree engagement is a pure pipe dream. It is complete nonsense. Some advanced Russian aircraft have a limited degree of off-boresight engagement capability, using a head-tracking system similar to that on the AH-64 Apache, and missile seeker heads than can look around up to about 60-degrees off-boresight. The only thing I can think is that you're confusing the ability of modern IR-guided missiled to engage targets in ways other than right up the tailpipe. The SU-37 can supposedly carry a rear-firing missile, but that doesn't in any way equate to 360-degree field-of-fire.

Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause!

[good soldier svejk]

The "defoliants" were used to remove the jungle cover in a few areas in Viet-Nam where VC/NVA activity was prolific and hidden under the forest canopy. It is arguable that it achieved its purpose. It was "policy" not to spray it directly onto population. The lingering after affect is less about poisons than about the totally denuded terrain left behind, that saw topsoil torn away and lost in the following monsoons. Wet deserts. I don't know if the areas have recovered yet - maybe?

Agent Orange was simply a mix of 2.4.5-T and 2.4-D which are common farm chemicals used to this today as weedicides. (Haven't seen 2.4.5-T around lately, it may have been pulled). They really work well to kill off broadleaf plants (vines) amongst grass crops like sorghum and maize. They are systemic and apparently in effect starve the plants. As far as the literature that I have read relates, these chemicals do not have any such effect on animals and more to the point - humans. They would almost certainly be friendlier than spraying with diesel fuel and kerosene which was also tried. The great poison debate that arose over Agent Orange came from a contaminant - dioxin.

While it is true that dioxin contamination was the worst problem, it is not true that 2.4.5-T and 2.4-D are harmless to mammals. I did a literature survey on the subject about twenty years ago and there was ample evidence before 1962 that 2.4.5-T and 2.4-D exposure caused large scale birth defects in mice. Also, while it may have been "policy" not to spray Agent Orange on population centers, it certainly was practice. According to a National Academy of Science study the US sprayed 3,181 villages, between 2.1 and 4.8 million people, directly with herbicides. Of course, this includes Agents Blue, White, Purple and Pink as well. It was US "policy" to spray Agent Blue [wikipedia.org], a mixture of two arsenic based compounds, on food supplies. Oh, and IIRC, the diesel and kerosene were used as base liquids to carry Paraquat based defoliants. You are correct that the effect of defoliation, and the destruction of microorganisms in the soil had devastating long term effects. By the mid eighties, 30% of previously arable land in Vietnam had laterized (essentially turned to brick). However, the Vietnamese have also gathered shocking statistics documenting the prevalence of birth defects in the children of southern veterans. Of course, defoliants represent only a portion of the chemical assault on the Vietnamese environment, and those veterans were probably exposed to all sorts of nasty things, but we can't discount them.

Re:Why is tracking 6 targets still a big deal?

[Guysmiley777]

Couple of things. You have to understand what "to track" means. What specifically they are talking about with the AIM-54/AWG-9 weapons system is that it can engage 6 targets at once.

The AIM-54 Phoenix is guided initially by the F-14's AWG-9 radar is what is known as "semi-active radar homing". The missile sees the reflections off the target from the F-14's radar. Once the missile gets close enough, it spins up its own active radar which will take over terminal guidance.

"Old school" radars are directed mechanically (the dish actually moves left and right and up and down). To track a target, the dish points directly at the target instead of scanning back and forth. With the AIM-7 Sparrow for example, (a SARH missile) the firing aircraft could track one and only one target. With the AWG-9, a Tomcat can divide its attention among 6 targets at once, providing guidance for 6 missiles in the air at once. This was a Big Deal at the time. Now with electronically scanned array radars, it is a LOT easier to do (no pointing a physical dish).

The AIM-120 AMRAAM is guided initially by an inertial system (the firing plane tells it the target info, location, speed, etc) then when it gets close enough it starts looking for the target with its own radar. This leaves the firing platform free to do whatever it wants, there is no initial need to provide target illumination like with the Phoenix. Thus, with AMRAAMs you can engage as many targets as you have missiles. The AIM-120 is a damn fine missile, you have to keep in mind the AIM-54 was in service before the AMRAAM was even a glimmer in an engineer's eye.

Re:And so marches on the....

[ddade]

No offense, but that is totally wrong. The tomcat was designed for one thing and one thing only: to protect the carrier group from nuclear capable soviet bombers. The tomcat was so physically large because it was basically a weapon platform... the awg-75 (?) radar system and up to six aim-54 missles that were used to flight out very fast (what dogfighter needs mach 2.4+ speed?) and rain Phoenixes on the bombers before a single one could take out the entire carrier group with a nuke. The Navy did studies and determined that that was preceisely what the Soviets would do. As a dogfighter, the Tomcat was for most of its career crippled by the anemic Pratt & Whitney TF-30 engines also used in the F-111. Aside from tending to flame out (the justification for Goose's death in Top Gun) at high alpha and spraying compressor blades everywhere, they did not have the umph to counter the induced drag when the Tomcat was turning. Hence, it bled energy and couldn't sustain corner velocity. Think about it... it's got a huge planform and can't turn... not a recipe for a great dogfighter. It wasn't until the DFE engines and later the GEs that allowed the Tomcat to take advantage of it extremely low loading, but that was years into its service life. The majority of the fleet was always the poor A version. Incidentally, remember the Aldrich Aames spy case? Well, the Tomcat was one of the casualties of that affair. He passed inflated radar estimates to the U.S. government which caused the Navy to calculate that the Tomcat would not be non-survivable in light of the threat of Soviet radar advances. So the Tomcat was cancelled depsite the fact that it had been re-engined (with the same GEs used in the F-15, making it the dogfighter it should have been originally) and received firmware upgrades making it an extremely capable attack platform called the Bombcat. In a move that sparked a scandal, Congress ordered Grumman to not only stop production, but to also destroy all the tooling, ensuring the the project could not be easily restarted. And today, we have the F-18E/F, which in many ways fails to meet the performance of the old C/D version. Each time it failed a test, they simply relaxed the criteria, and (I don't know if it was ever corrected) I remember that it was discovered that the Super Hornet behaved extremely badly at high alpha, where a fighter pilot who wants to live another day usually flies. There's a great book called "The Tomcat Story" which is worth reading. it's written by one of the program managers. I think the above poster was confusing the F-14 with the F-15, which was created when the CIA was scared out of its wits by its own estimates of the Soviet Foxbat. So they told MacD to pull out all the stops and basically build a superplane with fewer tradeoffs.

Re:And so marches on the....

[SEE]

Chamberlain left office after declaring war on Germany for its invasion of Poland, after refusing to fold on Hitler's demand for Danzig.

Did he screw up royally on Czechoslovakia? Did he totally misestimate Hitler in 1938? Yes, of course he did. And he knew he did, which is why he stepped down so somebody credible could take over the war effort. But Chamberlain did stand up to Hitler in the end.