Slashdot Mirror


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."

10 of 576 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause! by dukeisgod · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 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.

  2. Re:And so marches on the.... by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    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 to sit around in a state of somewhat possibly potentially close to readiness, just in case a really big war breaks out.
  3. Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause! by Duhavid · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  4. Re:Worse is better by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Hey, you've got to spend income taxes somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Lets Have a Round of Applause! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  7. Re:Reading between the lines... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  8. Re:Wither, Aim-54 Phoenix? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative
    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...
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  9. Never had a chance? by amightywind · · Score: 4, Informative
    we never had a chance to use the Tomcat for its intended purpose

    Not true.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  10. Re:Why is tracking 6 targets still a big deal? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.