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."
I don't doubt that it didn't drop Agent Orange. I'll take your word for it that it didn't.
I'm just sarcastically pointing out that the point is moot - the Tomcat was a killing machine - 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.
So, just pointing that out.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
new planes
Because slamming them into carrier decks and parking them in salt water spray incurs no maintenece cost. Those things could just be used forever, if it weren't for that damn Military Industrial War Complex.
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
... but they can be compared. Kind of like the cardinality of infinite sets.
It sucks to have to kill people, but you must be prepared to do it to prevent other killings and/or misery — deemed greater by some measure or another.
People have always been fascinated with things beautiful, weapons included — consider the swords and the firearms collections, for example. The fascination with a fighter plane is perfectly legitimate too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
But will newer-trained pilots still be able to fly them?
Actually the original poster referred to income taxes not federal budget. Now i'm assuming the original poster meant total receipts so using the estimated 2007 data you linked to, thats $2.4 trillion vs $466 billion in defense spending next year so that's like ~19.5%
If we do in fact use just the $1.1 in individual income tax receipts, then it is 42%. Granted still not 64% but a hell of alot.
But whatever the case, you definetly would not refer to the overal budget since our government will be ~400 billion OVER total receipts (i.e deficit). Referencing as a percentage of GDP as another poster suggested is even more rediculous. The fact is, as a nation we are over $8 TRILLION dollars in debt and it's going to be getting larger and larger over the next decade. By the time we're rid of this president we'll be close to $10 trillion in debt... he'll have nearly doubled our debt in 8 years.
Somebody save us from these so called "conservatives."
You know, like if there are enemy jets flying around?
Seems to me that they'd be purely in aggressor mode for such a situation.
I'm not sure how you'd exactly qualify a ground attack plane (one that has no bombs, only guns & rockets) but they certainly aren't there for defensive purposes.
Air superiority isn't something that you magically attain. You usually have to take it by destroying enemy airplanes and/or S-A weapons.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
She came, she saw, she conquered.
She was built to fight the USSR, and remained in service long past her purpose.
She did her job, and jobs she was never meant to do.
I will miss that amazing bird.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total US Federal Budget for 2006 was projected to be approximately $2,507 Billion. Of that, defense is $438 Billion, Social Security is $540 Billion, Medicare is $380 Billion, and Medicaid is $193 Billion. Social welfare dwarfs military spending now, and it will skyrocket over the next 30 years or so as the US baby boom generation is starting to retire.
Still, $438 Billion is all weapons, right? Well... no. Depending on the year, Defense spending, is about 23% for personnel (pay, benefits), 31% for operations and maintenance (fuel & parts), and 15% for R&D. Procurement is a stunning 18%. That is about 3% of the total Federal budget. 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. There are plenty of other things, like fire fighting equipment, periscopes, and pollution control equipment, night vision gear, and construction equipment.
The Federal budget also doesn't include state income taxes for which an even smaller percentage is going to go for defense related expenses. City and county taxes don't contribute anything either.
Overall, a minute percentage of American taxes goes to new weapons.
(I guess protest signs wouldn't look so scary if they complained that the US spent 1.6% of its Federal budget on weapons.)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Well, yes. The plane was designed for air superiority combat against a capable contemporary air force (read, the Red Air Force). Since we thankfully never fought a full war with the Soviet Union, we never had a chance to use the Tomcat for its intended purpose (in the Gulf War, Iraq refused to face our Tomcats, knowing its air force would be slaughtered). Similarly, we never used our arsenal of nuclear missiles, our subs, or any of other huge classes of weapons for their designed purpose, either.
Now, it's possible that if we'd never built these weapons of war to fight the Soviet Union, people like Brezhnev wouldn't have taken the opportunity to conquer Western Europe or at least extort from it money to prop up the Soviet Union, and accordingly the only reason we built them was to fund a military-industrial complex. It's similarly possible that, had Danzig been handed over to Hitler when he demanded it, World War II would have been averted, and the only reason Chamberlain stood up to Hitler in 1939 was to please Britsh armaments manufacturers.
Answer: 4 jets and 1 helicopter [aerospaceweb.org].
I know! My locks at home have prevented ZERO thefts by last count so I'm having them all removed! What a waste!
Also, I'm not fat, which makes all my exercise and healthy eating REALLY pointless. I'm wising up and switching to TV and twinkies!
"the Tomcat was a killing machine - 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."
The only thing the Tomcat was intended to "kill" were enemy bombers. They were built as super fast planes with weaponry that could reach out and touch air targets (bombers, specifically). They initially had no ground capability whatsoever. Their primary offensive weaponry couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, let alone a highly manueverable fighter aircraft. However, they could swoop in quickly, unload on large bomber groups (taking down huge numbers of bombers), and then run like hell from the escort aircraft.
The purpose of the Tomcat was to take down Russian bombers before Russian bombers carpet-bombed and/or dropped nuclear weapons on American cities. It wasn't a killing machine; it was a tool of deterrence. Without reason to believe their bombers would never make it to American shores, the Soviets would have felt a lot more comfortable launching a crippling first attack on America. ICBMs can only do but so much damage. Bombers, on the other hand, could cripple our counter-attack capability and nullify MAD.
In other words, the Tomcat served to help prevent what could have easily been the bloodiest and most destructive conflict in all of human history.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Well, for all the coolness of the hardware, it's the work of people such as yourself that made (and still makes) the USAF and USN an effective national defense.
So, you know, thanks.
Wasn't it the F4 Phantom that dropped Agent orange, as well as napalm in Vietnam...?
-Noc
Only if it's almost as much trouble to test them as it is to pull/replace them to begin with.
Otherwise, if you've had to pull them all, you may as well test them all. Might wind up detecting a marginal one, for instance, or you might end up catching a multiple-actuator failure (as unlikely as that might be).
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Actually, there's a fair amount of evidence that the Russians never did have intentions beyond holding the WarPac line, and the main reason for their massive arms spend was an utter refusal to fight the Great Patriotic War again. I don't follow it terribly closely, but just as the US would claim it never intended to start a war, the Russians can quite plausibly make the same claim.
Yep with kalashnikovs amd RPG 7's .....
Indecision is the key to flexibility.
Actually, there's a fair amount of evidence that the Russians never did have intentions beyond holding the WarPac line, and the main reason for their massive arms spend was an utter refusal to fight the Great Patriotic War again. I don't follow it terribly closely, but just as the US would claim it never intended to start a war, the Russians can quite plausibly make the same claim.
There's also a fair amount of evidence that prior to the Great Patriotic War Stalin was hoping that Nazi Germany and the UK would beat the shit out of each other so that the Soviet Union could pick up the shattered pieces of Western Europe.
You think they would have stopped at Berlin if we hadn't had a few million troops in Europe when Germany surrendered? You are dreaming. Ask Finland or the Baltic States what it was like to be nextdoor to Stalinist Russia.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Gee - and the average policemans gun is fired in anger how many times during it's life? Prior to the current war in Iraq you could pretty much say the same thing for the average Military rifle, or artillery piece, or tank, or machine gun...
Have it, and hope you don't need it is a LOT better than Need it - and don't have it
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Yes, but with todays missles, when are they ever going to get that close for it to be a viable tactic?
Thrusters?
1. It is called an exhaust, afterburner , or even a nozzle. Thursters are what the shuttle uses to maneuver with.
2. Modern IR missiles can lock on to the heat of the airframe. A Cuban Mig 29 shot down a Skymaster with an IR missile. The Skymaster has two small piston engines.
The Cobra isn't a great air combat maneuver. It may be useful to get a snap shot off at a target but as far as avoiding missiles goes it is useless. It is good at air shows. It kind of remindes me of a lot of feathers in software, it demos well.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.