The last days of the Tomcat

[Zero G]

It is funny that Chunx who has tons of time in the F-14 and was involved in testing the F-18F says that if he was flying back into a fight he would do it in the F-18F over the F-14 with no doubt.

I also recall him saying that there is more classified stuff about the E/F then what is known.

So I guess when the guys who have flown both choose the E/F then someone knew what they were doing.

[Ian_cf-18]

For Capt. Instigator

 

I think that Capt. Instigator mentionned that the Jolly Rogers were his favorite squadron. See the following link for plenty of good pictures of when they returned home from their last cruise with the Tomcat...

 

http://www.milavia.net/specials/finalcruise/index.htm

[Capt.Instigator]

Thank you for that link.. Those are some beautiful shots..

 

That's my love.... Something about them crossbones that I love.. Maybe the rebel in me likes what that sign stands for.......

 

Thanks bud for shareing..

[anivanov]

thanx for that link, it"s really worth to see them again......

 

 

btw are they going to fly with some other aircrafts?

[britgliderpilot]

Hem hem.

 

 

 

Much as I love the Tomcat and dislike the Super Airbrake . . . . has anyone mentioned the two other magic words yet?

 

No?

 

Avionics!!

 

Maintainability!!

[Pilotasso]

Plus they cant carry the AMRAAM. If they decide to buy the meteor (its being developed with RAYTHEON) The phoenix (wich is too much associated with the F-14 when imagining combat scenarios) advantage goes out of the window. And then its stuck with old sparrows.

 

The Tomcat was one of my favourite aircraft ever, but this is far form a conspiracy for the SH that will leave the navy defenseless.

[phant]

Come over to Germany and see some F4-F still flying here ... until they will be replaced by some Typhoons.

Not only German...

 

Phantom's still fly in Greece (H.A.F. - F-4E/RF-4E), Turkey (T.H.K. - F-4E/RF-4E/F-4E 2020), Japan (J.A.S.D.F. - F-4EJ - RF-4EJ) Iran (IIAF - F-4E/RF-4E) Egypt (F-4E).

 

Phantom's in Lomac...why not?? ;) ;)

 

Bye

Phant

[Starlight]

Hem hem.

Much as I love the Tomcat and dislike the Super Airbrake . . . . has anyone mentioned the two other magic words yet?

No?

Avionics!!

Maintainability!!

 

Avionics: the F-14D has some of the most advanced avionics in the world. Not to be compared to the F-22, maybe it also has a somewhat old cockpit, ok... but it has a digital FCS, one of the most powerful radar/weapon systems in the world, ECM up to the USN standards and it has proven to be very flexible when it had to adopt new weapons.

It's kinda weird that the F-15E Strike Eagle is regarded as a modern aircraft, a marvel as far as avionics are concerned and the F-14D an old truck just able to carry those big missiles. The F-14D is at least as modern as the Strike Eagle, and most of the airframes were built later than F-15E airframes.

 

Maintenability: the Super Hornet here has a huge advantage over the Tomcat, but it must be said that newer Tomcats are another thing compared to older ones. And this is what the author that I quoted said in another forum:

What the writer [referring to an article] so conveniently overlooks is that most of the deficiencies in the Tomcat's handling qualities (and a portion of its maintenance headaches) were fixed by the long-overdue adoption of a digitial flight control system that was retrofitted into existing Tomcats beginnning in the late 90s.

in his signature I read that he works at this facility as a developer:

NAS Patuxent River

so I think he knows what he's writing... (BTW he publishes his contact info so I don't think he's writing BS about his job)

[Starlight]

It is funny that Chunx who has tons of time in the F-14 and was involved in testing the F-18F says that if he was flying back into a fight he would do it in the F-18F over the F-14 with no doubt.

I also recall him saying that there is more classified stuff about the E/F then what is known.

So I guess when the guys who have flown both choose the E/F then someone knew what they were doing.

 

Chunx is a backseater, maybe the SuperHornet has just more comfortable ejection seats :D

[Force_Feedback]

Chunx is a backseater, maybe the SuperHornet has just more comfortable ejection seats :D

 

Nah, the seats are the same (MB Mk.14, or NACES), but maybe he got more space back there to play with his "target designation stick" on long flights :icon_mrgr

[D-Scythe]

Avionics: the F-14D has some of the most advanced avionics in the world. Not to be compared to the F-22, maybe it also has a somewhat old cockpit, ok... but it has a digital FCS, one of the most powerful radar/weapon systems in the world, ECM up to the USN standards and it has proven to be very flexible when it had to adopt new weapons.

It's kinda weird that the F-15E Strike Eagle is regarded as a modern aircraft, a marvel as far as avionics are concerned and the F-14D an old truck just able to carry those big missiles. The F-14D is at least as modern as the Strike Eagle, and most of the airframes were built later than F-15E airframes.

 

Um, just because two aircraft were built near the same time DOESN'T mean they are on par avionics-wise. I'm sure that in terms of processing power/memory resources the F-14D is comparable to the Mudhen, but the Strike Eagle's avionics suite is much more capable in the A/G/multi role because it was designed for that role from the outset. Plus, the F-15E has recieved far more upgrades than the F-14D has, to the point that the two aren't even comparable (Not to say that the F-14D doesn't perform the strike role very well - it does).

 

The current F-15E, with GPS-guided munition and Sniper XR integration, plus FDL, is without equal in the A/G strike role. In any case, the Super Hornet with ATFLIR is likewise also far more likely to hit a few time-sensitive targets and survive than the F-14D is.

[tflash]

An article in Air International also concludes the Tomcat came to its full potential at the very end of its carreer. The F-14D achieves a 98% serviceability rate. They do carry JDAM also, the GBU-38 being the most used weapon. For air-to-air they carry AIM-7H and AIM-9M.

 

Its APG-71 radar is a development of the Strike Eagles' APG-70 with similar modes; it has Fighter to fighter datalink and is JTIDS compatible.

 

I agree its main disadvantage is that it was designed to fly and not to please accountants.

 

And of course, high-brass always had problems with backseat flights in the Tomcat: http://f-14association.com/stories-07.htm

[Starlight]

Um, just because two aircraft were built near the same time DOESN'T mean they are on par avionics-wise. I'm sure that in terms of processing power/memory resources the F-14D is comparable to the Mudhen, but the Strike Eagle's avionics suite is much more capable in the A/G/multi role because it was designed for that role from the outset. Plus, the F-15E has recieved far more upgrades than the F-14D has, to the point that the two aren't even comparable (Not to say that the F-14D doesn't perform the strike role very well - it does).

 

The current F-15E, with GPS-guided munition and Sniper XR integration, plus FDL, is without equal in the A/G strike role. In any case, the Super Hornet with ATFLIR is likewise also far more likely to hit a few time-sensitive targets and survive than the F-14D is.

 

I'm not saying the current F-15E is comparable to the current F-14D. I was saying that the F-15E and F-14D are aircraft of the same generation, both evolutions of strictly air-to-air projects. The F-15E was well funded, upgraded and developed, the F-14D wasn't.

The F-14D was probably dead since its early production, because without political support (= gov't funds) no aircraft can survive. Budget cuts for aircraft are worse than most air defenses.

I read somewhere that many people regard the F-14D as a more capable air-to-ground platform than even the F-15E. That doesn't mean that these capabilities were exploited. Anyway F-15E received Sniper and JDAM just a few years ago (Sniper was tested during OIR, in 2003), when F-14D were already planned to be scrapped. Before the last StrikeEagle upgrades the Bombcats were a good match... they had similar radars, both had JTIDS, GPS, LANTIRN, JDAM, NCTR, the Bombcat also had ASPJ (even the F-18C don't have them as standard, they have less ASPJ kits than airframes). The StrikeEagle could carry the Slammer, but not the Phoenix.

 

 

An article in Air International also concludes the Tomcat came to its full potential at the very end of its carreer.

That is precisely my point. The Tomcat was fully exploited only too late, and at that point it was already destined to be retired.

 

BTW, this post won't change anything in Tomcat's history, anyway I was a bit sad knowing that my favourite aircraft, which was a very very very capable platform, was scrapped beforehand because it wasn't funded. And just in favour of an aircraft which doesn't seem a marvel like an F-22 for example.

IMHO scrapping the Tomcat is a HUGE waste in terms of money and campability. Extending its life would have costed billions of bucks, but it would have saved the money to develop and field (R&D, weapons and avionics tests) a brand new aircraft, waiting for a next generation aircraft, a kinda carrier-based f-22. The SuperHornet is NOT a new generation aircraft. And just a quick note, what will the US gov't do with the Phoenix arsenal (each item rated at about than $ 1,000,000 USD)? Will they fire them like fireworks at New Year's Day? :)

 

http://f-14association.com/stories-07.htm

 

I'd already seen that... a real jerk!

[D-Scythe]

I read somewhere that many people regard the F-14D as a more capable air-to-ground platform than even the F-15E.

 

In terms of what? The only advantage the F-14D had over the Eagle was range.

 

That doesn't mean that these capabilities were exploited. Anyway F-15E received Sniper and JDAM just a few years ago (Sniper was tested during OIR, in 2003), when F-14D were already planned to be scrapped. Before the last StrikeEagle upgrades the Bombcats were a good match... they had similar radars, both had JTIDS, GPS, LANTIRN, JDAM, NCTR, the Bombcat also had ASPJ (even the F-18C don't have them as standard, they have less ASPJ kits than airframes). The StrikeEagle could carry the Slammer, but not the Phoenix.

 

APSJ is not that significant - indeed, the current kits are just leftovers from a cancelled multinational project. It's better than nothing, to be fair, but it certainly doesn't compare to the full blown Super Bug EW suite.

 

And no, the F-14D was not a good match for the F-15E in the strike role. Did the APG-71 even have SAR mapping or GMT capability? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. AFAIK, the APG-70 was far superior to the APG-71 in the A/G role.

 

 

An article in Air International also concludes the Tomcat came to its full potential at the very end of its carreer. The F-14D achieves a 98% serviceability rate. They do carry JDAM also, the GBU-38 being the most used weapon. For air-to-air they carry AIM-7H and AIM-9M.

 

What full potential? It's full potential was as a fleet defender. Sure, many attributes of a fleet defender also proved to be advantageous in the A/G role, thus it had potential as a striker, but to say that the Tomcat's full potential was achieved by its ability to deliver bombs on target is a mistake, IMO.

 

And all the U.S. "teen" fighters can carry JDAMs. Yet, the F-14D is the only aircraft that cannot carry AMRAAM (thus making it the least capable of defending itself from enemy fighters in a high threat environment), and also the only aircraft that does not have a EWS suite tailored for the strike role (thus making it the least survivable in a high threat SAM/AAA environment). Currently, with the wars the U.S. has been fighting, the air threat has been non-existent, but what if the next country Washington declares war on can actually defend itself? The F-15E, F-16C and F/A-18 can all continue their strike mission without extensive upgrades or SEAD/fighter support. Can the F-14D?

 

I'm not bashing the Tomcat, but I don't think it's wise to be bashing the decision to replace it either.

[tflash]

In terms of what? The only advantage the F-14D had over the Eagle was range.

 

Range is and will always be a significant advantage.

 

 

 

What full potential? It's full potential was as a fleet defender. Sure, many attributes of a fleet defender also proved to be advantageous in the A/G role, thus it had potential as a striker, but to say that the Tomcat's full potential was achieved by its ability to deliver bombs on target is a mistake, IMO.

 

 

It is only natural for jets to take on different roles throughout their carreer. certainly on a carrier, where you can't afford to waste space. So what's your problem? To me, a real problem was the fact that the F-15C Eagle was so narrowly confined to 1 mission that it had to witness the last war as a kind of spectator.

 

 

And all the U.S. "teen" fighters can carry JDAMs. Yet, the F-14D is the only aircraft that cannot carry AMRAAM (thus making it the least capable of defending itself from enemy fighters in a high threat environment), and also the only aircraft that does not have a EWS suite tailored for the strike role (thus making it the least survivable in a high threat SAM/AAA environment).

 

 

The F-14D has all it takes to be a good bomber, and has many survivability advantages over F-16 and F-18 if youl'd ask me. The most important being the swing wing concept: the swept wing design gives the ideal high wingload for a stable and fast low level flight, without burning to much gas. Both the Mudhen and the F-18 become airbrakes when flying low and fast, and due to the low wingload you're in for a rough ride.

 

 

The F-15E, F-16C and F/A-18 can all continue their strike mission without extensive upgrades or SEAD/fighter support. Can the F-14D?

 

 

 

No, they can't. None can continue their mission without SEAD/EW support in a true high-threat environment. The F-15E has an RCS like a football dome. It will be replaced by the F-22A for strikes in high-threat environments.

[D-Scythe]

Range is and will always be a significant advantage.

 

Yes, but accuracy and survivability is an even more significant advantage ;)

 

It is only natural for jets to take on different roles throughout their carreer. certainly on a carrier, where you can't afford to waste space. So what's your problem? To me, a real problem was the fact that the F-15C Eagle was so narrowly confined to 1 mission that it had to witness the last war as a kind of spectator.

 

My problem? I don't have a problem - I'm not putting the F-14 on some pedestal for apparently no reason.

 

The F-14D has all it takes to be a good bomber, and has many survivability advantages over F-16 and F-18 if youl'd ask me. The most important being the swing wing concept: the swept wing design gives the ideal high wingload for a stable and fast low level flight, without burning to much gas. Both the Mudhen and the F-18 become airbrakes when flying low and fast, and due to the low wingload you're in for a rough ride.

 

Haha, get a bit updated on modern jet tactics man. Flying low is no longer standard doctrine, although strike pilots still train for it occasionally. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Desert Storm, and it certainly isn't going to work in any future war.

 

No, they can't. None can continue their mission without SEAD/EW support in a true high-threat environment. The F-15E has an RCS like a football dome. It will be replaced by the F-22A for strikes in high-threat environments.

 

And what about the F-14D? My point wasn't that the F-15E didn't need SEAD/fighter support - even the B-2 and the F-117A need such support - but simply that it needs less of it than the F-14D.

 

Honestly, IMO the A/G capability of the F-14 is being blown out of proportion here. Sure, it has LANTIRN to give it a LGB capability, but the Hornet and the Mudhen had that over a decade ago. It doesn't have a tailored EW suite, or a tailored A/G radar, features which both the 15E and the Hornet had since the late 80s/early 90s. It's self defense AAM load-out leaves much to be desired - the Phoenix is inadequate for a self-defense weapon, as strike aircraft should not be scanning for bogeys 100 miles away with its tell-tale radar, and the AIM-7 is not as effective as AMRAAM.

 

Don't take it that I think the Tomcat is no good in striking targets. The "Bombcat" is fine in a Kosovo or Iraq type of conflict, where the threat of SAMs and fighters is non-existent. In such a scenario, the Tomcat's advantages automatically come to the forefront, such as range, time-over-target, the extra guy in the back, etc. But without some upgrades, there are obvious questions that must be raised about the F-14's survivability in a high-threat conflict. I doubt it will be afforded the luxury of loitering over a target area and picking out targets with LANTIRN to attack with JDAMs/LBGs over Iran or Korea.

[Prophet_169th]

You need to ask yourself, who else was part of the "Axis of Evil"? And one of those countries listed, N Korea, has a very very very large SAM network. And Iran, one of the other "evils", is buying Tor SAMs from Russia to put around the nuke plant russia is building for them.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/iran-buying-sa15/tor-m1-sam-systems-from-russia/index.php

 

It is probably one of the reasons we havent had larger aggressions with either of them, since we rely heavily on air superiority.

 

Regardless, I agree with D-Scythe, and hes just stating the facts. Like you said, on a carrier space is everything. Which means you need a fighter that can fill whatever role you need. The F-14D couldnt. And it wasnt worth putting more money into. Now, Im not saying that the F22 is worth putting money into, but thats the Airforce for ya. The Navy has always seemed to make better decisions in that regard.

[britgliderpilot]

You need to ask yourself, who else was part of the "Axis of Evil"? And one of those countries listed, N Korea, has a very very very large SAM network. And Iran, one of the other "evils", is buying Tor SAMs from Russia to put around the nuke plant russia is building for them.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/iran-buying-sa15/tor-m1-sam-systems-from-russia/index.php

 

It is probably one of the reasons we havent had larger aggressions with either of them, since we rely heavily on air superiority.

 

Regardless, I agree with D-Scythe, and hes just stating the facts. Like you said, on a carrier space is everything. Which means you need a fighter that can fill whatever role you need. The F-14D couldnt. And it wasnt worth putting more money into. Now, Im not saying that the F22 is worth putting money into, but thats the Airforce for ya. The Navy has always seemed to make better decisions in that regard.

 

Just for the record, Iraq during the first Gulf War had the largest, most complex, most integrated air defence umbrella ever seen.

 

Yeah - did them a lot of good, didn't it? ;)

 

 

 

You could have made the F-14D even better - see the Super Tomcat proposal. All kinds of tweaks . . . .

 

These days you'd have to add AMRAAM support, AESA radar, supercruise if you could, and lower the RCS if you could.

 

The F-14D was a superb 4th-generation fighter . . . . . it only ever could have been a 4.5th generation fighter, and it would have cost a hell of a lot of money to get it that far.

These days, the native performance of the airframe is secondary to what you bolt onto it - the avionics are rather more expensive than the aircraft itself. The Super Airbrake already had all those avionics . . . . the Tomcat didn't.

[Guest IguanaKing]

You need to ask yourself, who else was part of the "Axis of Evil"? And one of those countries listed, N Korea, has a very very very large SAM network. And Iran, one of the other "evils", is buying Tor SAMs from Russia to put around the nuke plant russia is building for them.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/iran-buying-sa15/tor-m1-sam-systems-from-russia/index.php

 

It is probably one of the reasons we havent had larger aggressions with either of them, since we rely heavily on air superiority.

 

That could be a reason, but like BGP said, that alone hasn't really stopped us before. With the DPRK, one of the major problems is all of those artillery pieces they have along the DMZ. In the event of a war, it is estimated that 10's of thousands of civilians in cities like Seoul would be killed in the first hour of such a conflict by those artillery pieces. So...a strike there is less than attractive.

 

In the case of both DPRK and Iran, there are also hot reactors to deal with. Not exactly something you want to bomb when you can't predict the effects, or where they may spread.

 

As far as upgrading the Tomcat to meet current needs...well, as has already been said, upgrading avionics is costly. Not only is there the cost of the equipment itself, but also the time and materials to implement it. In many cases, this can cost even more than the aircraft itself...so, it often makes more sense to just buy something that already has the capability. I hate to see the Tomcat go, but the nature of the conflicts we expect to fight in the future really don't fit what the Cat was designed for, and its not really practical to make it that way.

[GGTharos]

You need to ask yourself, who else was part of the "Axis of Evil"? And one of those countries listed, N Korea, has a very very very large SAM network. And Iran, one of the other "evils", is buying Tor SAMs from Russia to put around the nuke plant russia is building for them.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/iran-buying-sa15/tor-m1-sam-systems-from-russia/index.php

 

It is probably one of the reasons we havent had larger aggressions with either of them, since we rely heavily on air superiority.

 

Regardless, I agree with D-Scythe, and hes just stating the facts. Like you said, on a carrier space is everything. Which means you need a fighter that can fill whatever role you need. The F-14D couldnt. And it wasnt worth putting more money into. Now, Im not saying that the F22 is worth putting money into, but thats the Airforce for ya. The Navy has always seemed to make better decisions in that regard.

 

I strongly believe that the Tor is there for its anti-missile capabilities. The US inventory has a lot of stand-off weapons to use on that reactor ... JDAMs, for one, which can glide 40nm - ALCMs, Tomahawks, and so on and so forth. In general if a couple B-1B's or B-2 make their way within that range, that reactor's toast since I doubt it'll be able to take out all those munitions. Alternatively you can LGB it after an AGM-88 swarm.

 

The BEST way to take out attacking aircraft has always been and always will be a fighter. Air defenses are just speed bumps.

[D-Scythe]

Just for the record, Iraq during the first Gulf War had the largest, most complex, most integrated air defence umbrella ever seen.

 

Yeah - did them a lot of good, didn't it? ;)

 

Not trying to be smart or anything, but I thought the Soviet's had the most sophisticated and capable air defense network NATO has "seen"?

 

Plus, the Tomcat wasn't used in A/G in that conflict, and one of them was already shot down by an SA-2. In contrast, the F/A-18C, which spent much more time in higher threat zones than the Tomcat, lost none of their number.

 

You could have made the F-14D even better - see the Super Tomcat proposal. All kinds of tweaks . . . .

 

Why would they spend more money upgrading Tomcats, buying more spares, and training pilots when there's another aircraft that is already there (i.e. the F/A-18C) that can do everything the Super Tomcat can?

 

These days you'd have to add AMRAAM support, AESA radar, supercruise if you could, and lower the RCS if you could.

 

Supercruise? Doubtful with external A/G stores. Lower the RCS? You can't lower the RCS smaller than the RCS of the Super Hornet without a lot more money.

 

I know, the point you're trying to make is that it would take a lot of cash to turn the Tomcat into a true striker, but people still seem to think for some reason that for half the cost of the F/A-18E/F program the Navy could've got a far more capable strike aircraft in an upgraded F-14D. Even if this was true, the fact that much of the support, logistics, training (all of which probably cost more than the fighter itself) and technological maturity is already present in the F/A-18, whereas the proposed upgraded Tomcat consists of mostly unproven specs and simple promises.

 

The F-14D was a superb 4th-generation fighter . . . . . it only ever could have been a 4.5th generation fighter, and it would have cost a hell of a lot of money to get it that far.

These days, the native performance of the airframe is secondary to what you bolt onto it - the avionics are rather more expensive than the aircraft itself. The Super Airbrake already had all those avionics . . . . the Tomcat didn't.

 

Agreed. With money, you can turn a MiG-17 into a lethal dogfighting machine if you wanted to.

[britgliderpilot]

Not trying to be smart or anything, but I thought the Soviet's had the most sophisticated and capable air defense network NATO has "seen"?

 

Think this is the only part we're not agreed on ;)

 

 

Will try and find where I read the quote - as I understand it, the difference between the Soviet Union and the Kari system is the integration.

 

The Iraqis had a massive number and variety of SAM systems, fighters, AAA, and other air defence assets - probably comparable to the USSR when considering the relative size of the countries. The tech level was probably similar, but the Iraqis linked everything together so that it could all be properly organised . . . . until we demolished the integration, that is ;)

 

 

That's my understanding, anyway - will hunt down the details in a bit.

[Pilotasso]

The tech level was probably similar, but the Iraqis linked everything together so that it could all be properly organised . . . . until we demolished the integration, that is ;)

 

Thing is that the defense specialy the air defense in Iraq was already undermined even before the first shot was fired. Saddam had a tight controll in everyone and anyone that distinguished himself in any way was ruthlessly put down by saddam himself as any form of protagonism or leadership capabilty was deemed as a potential threat to the regime. Thats was how paranoic Saddam was. Even the pilots were afraid to distinguish themselves in combat as they would later confess and they saw many of their superiors been arrested never to be seen again.

[Shaman]

:frown: And I never had a chance to see them flying with my own eyes :(

:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

[Prophet_169th]

Not to revive an old thread, but after watching GA's moving, I thought of something.

 

What does the US have to replace the AIM-54? Is there another platform capable to fire the missle?

 

Given its range, its seems odd they would get rid of the long legs it has.