The US Navy Says Goodbye to the Tomcat 576
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! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thank God (Score:4, Interesting)
But we'll never forget Sega's 2-degree-of-freedom arcade game After Burner II [wikipedia.org].
It came out one year later, had the same sprite-scaled love that Space Harrier great, and it had a soundtrack better than the movie that indirectly inspired it. When the enemy fighter appeared behind you, you could indeed "hit the brakes, he'll fly right by me" and blow the guy away. Suicide in any actual air-to-air encounter, but it made for great coin-op lovin'...
The pattern is full... but negative, Ghostrider, neither is the coin box in my basement arcade. Don't ask how I got it down got there, and I won't tell you you have to land until Stage 23.
I bet some hydraulic techs are happy about this (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice idea eh? The problem is there are six hydraulic actuators on each wing to make this happen. When one breaks, there's no way to tell which one is bad without pulling all six from the wing and putting each one on a test bench. Testing a single actuator takes about an hour... and Murphy states the bad actuator is the last one you test.
The F-18 may look like a lawn dart from hell, but at least it's relatively easier to work on.
Re:I bet some hydraulic techs are happy about this (Score:3, Interesting)
Most famous hardware in the military. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell yes, I admit I would love to fly at Mach 3 with my hair on fire, and have the call sign "Maverick." While over all I felt the military would be a poor choice of career for me due to my disrespect for authority, I always had a small fantasy to be able to fly an F-14.
I will briefly lament it's passing by wearing Axe body spray, putting on a navy uniform, and going out to bars to sing "She's Lost that Lovin' Feeling" to women who won't sleep with me.
Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause! (Score:3, Interesting)
I see no reason for us all to feel sentimental for something being "retired" (anthropomorphism anyone?) that existed on this earth for the sole reason of killing human beings.
Pure fighter aircraft are defensive weaponry, not offensive weaponry. They are used in the first instance to intercept bombers. Of course if you know your bombers are going to be intercepted you will deploy fighters alongside your bombers to intercept the fighters intercepting your bombers, but even in that case they are defending the bomber, not attacking enemy infrastructure in their own right.
Re:I'm Happy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And so marches on the.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Worse is better (Score:2, Interesting)
The tomcats primary purpose was as a long range interceptor/air superiority fighter (similar role to the F15 and the soviets MiG 25). Its job was to protect the fleet by destroying incoming supersonic bombers before they reached their launch range. It had to have legs, be fast, be able to track and launch at multiple targets at extreme range. It is a big powerful brute, but not that nimble.
The F18 fell out of the design requirements for the F16 (indeed the USAF took the YF16 and the navy the YF17) as a nimble cheap fighter aircraft. Both performed within spec (light, manoeverable, nimble) with IIRC the navy choosing the F18 due to it having dual engines.
I think you'll find the F/A 18 when devoid of bombs would more than out dogfight the F14/F15 in a furball, that was what it was designed for.
Of course the F/A 18 would first have to close range to the interceptors, while doing so it is vulnerable, falling into the envelope of what the interceptors were designed for (destroying targets at maximum standoff distance).
So what was my point? the F/A designation doesn't mean it is not as capable a fighter as it should be, it is just as capable as the F16 in both roles. Comparing the F18/F16 to the F14/F15 is comparing apples and oranges, they have completely different roles.
I fly a Grumman! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I bet some hydraulic techs are happy about this (Score:5, Interesting)
While your about it you might as well mention the negative experiences of the F18 down under, such as the double control inversion points (controls reverse themselves - a real oh shit moment) due to the fact that the damn thing twists longitudinally and laterally at speed. Not to mention the mods added to stop the damn tail ripping off during low altitude maneauvres that the aussies are so fond of. I hope the JSF isn't a dud. The F1-11 has been pretty good. Any piece of high tech has it's problems, you just need the right maintenance schedule.
To keep on topic, I think the F14 was a beautiful piece of Aviation history and it was designed in a time where thing got accomplished. The current state of the development of such things has reached a point where I'm amazed that anything actually ever gets achieved.
End of an era. (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather like the F-4 "Phantom," in the late '60s and the '70s, the F-14 was probably the most idealized fighter for an entire generation of kids in the '80s. Something about the design - the graceful lines, or the swing wings, perhaps - just made it more romantic than either the F-15 or F-16 to my mind. I got to see one at an airshow once, afterburners on and all, which was a treat given that I don't live on the coast.
Children of the '90s have their F-22s, and F-117s, to admire, I suppose. For the rest, the postively ancient B-52 still lives.
I was sad to see the F-4 fade away over the course of the '80s, though I wasn't around for its heyday. The same with the F-111 - the last true fighter-bomber (as opposed to strike fighter) in U.S. service. I have to wonder if the "Tomcat" won't be the last pure air-combat-fighter/interceptor ever put into production for the U.S. armed forces.
big big big boy (Score:2, Interesting)
big engines
big radar
big missile (Phoenix)
big gas tanks
big loss.....
at least we can shoot them down in someone else's airforce
Avro Arrow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause! (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Apparently dioxin can be produced as an impurity in the manufacturing process. The chemical companies supposedly monitor this and declare them dioxin free after removing bad batches. I have read that the US military was given guarantees that their supplies were not contaminated. I have also read that with the quantities that they ordered and that the speed that it was manufactured there was not the sampling and monitoring in place that might have been prudent. I don't know. If you really care there is lots and lots of biased (both ways) literature on the subject to read.
The good old wikipedia seems to have something on it though I haven't read it:
URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
Disclaimer: As an ex-farm boy I contacted these specific chemicals many times and indeed on occasion was sprayed directly with them. I had no protective clothing or breathing apparatus. I have two healthy kids with fully formed pentadactyl limbs. My mental state however has now degraded to responding to stuff on slashdot occasionally............
Re:And so marches on the.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The US navy at one point had at least 699 [fas.org] F14's in service or on order (that sounds incredibly high, is it a typo on fas.org?), at a per-copy cost of $38,000,000, plus maintainence costs with exceed procurement costs over the lifetime of each aircraft. So figure $56,000,000,000.
Now here's a little quiz for your flight-sim jockeys out there. Guess how many bogeys the F14 shot down 34 year run, in total? Guess before you read the answer.
Answer: 4 jets and 1 helicopter [aerospaceweb.org].
Re:Oh say can you... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I bet some hydraulic techs are happy about this (Score:2, Interesting)
If anyone in canberra would pull their heads out of eachothers arses long enough to listen to the experts they'd keep the F111's flying for a few more years and buy F22's instead for when the time comes to retire the F18's and F111's
Some interesting articles and papers with comparisons are available at http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html [ausairpower.net]
Re:And so marches on the.... (Score:3, Interesting)
He cited that as the key reason why he decided to teach. He thought that once in awhile someone in class might actually listen to him.
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Interesting)
4 jets, 1 helicopter, and the entire USSR airforce (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, some folks and even some nation-states occasionally decide "Eh, the Americans were probably kidding about actually using that whole military machine thing". Hiya, Saddam, tell me: how did that invasion of Kuwait go for you again?
Flying an F-14 may be a fantasy, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely you jest. I saw it, and being in the Navy at the time, hated it, since it was nothing like the real Navy, and apparently a chick-flick. There are emotional issues, a love conflict, (boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl-again story line,) the men-playing-volleyball scene, and the ending with the protagonist confronting personal demons and finding self-actualization. Take away the F-14s, and it is your stereotypical chick-flick. I would say all it needs is Meg Ryan, but she's already there.
To be fair, I am kind of biased. Most (definitely not all) of the Navy (and other military) pilots I have known followed orders to the tee to safely complete their mission, and would never act like Maverick, so the whole screenplay is bull. Even the pilots who were bigger-penises-than-supernovae-would-require-to-r
Let's not forget Iran.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently the Iranians added substantially to that score during the first Gulf war. Ironically enough, and if your information on Tomact air victories in US service is reliable, that means that the majority of F-14 Tomcat victories were achieved by the air force of the Islamic Republic of Iranian. It took Iran a while to recover their capability to operate the Tomcat after the revolution but when they did the Tomcat had an easy time especially vs. Iraqi MiG-21s, MiG-23s and assorted helicopters since the Iraqis only got pretty low grade export variants from the Soviets and had nothing capable of matching the Tomcat on any level until they got MiG-25 and Mirage fighters with good radar warning receivers, modern intercept radars and the all important long range missiles. Of course all this happened while Saddam was still America's friend and <sarcasm> before he joined the axis-of-evil </sarcasm>. What is really amazing is that Iran still manages to operate the Tomcat today 27 years after the revolution without manufacturer support.
Re:Thank God (Score:4, Interesting)
Most older aircraft, yes, but it was possible and did happen with an F4:
Once again, he met the MiG-17 head-on, this time with an offset so he couldn't fire his guns. As he pulled up vertically he could again see his determined adversary a few yards away. Still gambling, Cunningham tried one more thing. He yanked the throttles back to idle and popped the speed brakes, in a desperate attempt to drop behind the MiG. But, in doing so, he had thrown away the Phantom's advantage, its superior climbing ability. And if he stalled out
The MiG shot out in front of Cunningham for the first time....
from this source [acepilots.com]
Re:Next, the F-35. Maybe. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is tracking 6 targets still a big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's one thing that I haven't understood about the F-14 and AIM-56 for a long time. Every time people talk about them, a big deal is made out of the fact that it can track and fire missiles at so many targets at once, as though this is a unique or unusual feature.
Maybe it is, but I don't get why. AFAIK, the F-14 still just has one radar dish in the nosecone, right? So shouldn't the ability to track targets merely be a computers and software issue? That makes it kind of neat for 1970, but every year that goes by, should make it that much more trivial. Shouldn't every modern plane have this capability by now?
Or does this have something to do with the sensors in the Phoenix? (But if so, then why can't planes with AMRAAMs do the same thing?)
Re:Thank God (Score:3, Interesting)