Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F-14 Tomcat is workhorse of air missions, for now
Chicago Tribune ^ | Apr. 11, 2003 | JAMES JANEGA

Posted on 04/11/2003 9:02:29 AM PDT by LSUfan

Edited on 07/02/2004 5:48:13 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

ABOARD THE USS CONSTELLATION -(KRT) - Sleek and projecting power even though still, the USS Constellation's F-14 Tomcats dominate the carrier's flight deck. Originally designed to foil Soviet fighters during the Cold War, these exponents of Navy air power are probably seeing their last service in this one.

Instead of the dog-fighting missions for which they were created, the Tomcats have been retooled into part bomber, part forward air observer and part airborne traffic controller for other planes attacking ground targets.

In coming years, the Navy plans to phase out the Tomcat in favor of the newer, easier to maintain F/A-18 Super Hornet. But for the time being, the F-14 remains a workhorse in the complex air missions supporting coalition ground troops in Iraq.

"I would characterize the Tomcat as a late-1960s muscle car," said Capt. Mark Fox, a Tomcat pilot who shot down the first Iraqi MiG during the first gulf war in 1991.

Full story ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: avionics; f14; f14tomcat; navy; sexybeast; tomcat; ussconstellation; weaponssystem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
Every time I read an article about the F-14 that mentions the Super Hornet, I cringe. It seems the only advantage the Super Hornet has over the F-14 is its avionics package.

The Tomcat is faster and goes further, which it means it can carry a larger practical weapons load.

We haven't faced real air opposition in a long time and perhaps we never will, but what if we have to face fairly well-trained Red Chinese pilots flying Su-27s or Su-30s down the road? My guess is we'll be missing the F-14 then, because the Super Hornet is not a great dogfighter and can't loiter as long as a Tomcat.

And we also managed to let the Phoenix missile capability fade away by never updating it and then making the F-14 an A-6E replacement. We may wish we had a modern Tomcat and up-to date AIM-54 if and when we have to face the Iranians or the Chicoms. They both are armed with the M2.5+ SS-N-25 Sunburn anti-ship missile.

1 posted on 04/11/2003 9:02:29 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
She wants to look her best for her subjects.
>

Make a fashion statement. Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 04/11/2003 9:03:42 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
How does the JSF stack up? I think the Navy and Marine Corps have ordered a bunch of 'em, and it would be interesting to hear your take on how the Navy's air capabilities will change.

FWIW, a friend of mine from college has flown both, and last time I spoke with him, he said he "loves" flying the Super Hornet. But that doesn't say anything about the capabilities.
3 posted on 04/11/2003 9:07:33 AM PDT by Rammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
I agree. When we lose the capability to launch the Phoenix missile, we will lose a very big advantage as it allows the pilot to launch on a bogie from over 100 miles away, perhaps even before the enemy bomber is within range of our ships.
4 posted on 04/11/2003 9:08:17 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan; hchutch
Every time I read an article about the F-14 that mentions the Super Hornet, I cringe. It seems the only advantage the Super Hornet has over the F-14 is its avionics package.

And maintainability, and readiness rates.

A fabulously capable airplane does you no good if it's stuck in the hangar bay awaiting parts.

The Tomcat is faster

This ain't a race.

and goes further, which it means it can carry a larger practical weapons load.

The Navy's out of the deep strike business because they bet on the wrong horse in 1984. Go read The $5 Billion Misunderstanding.

We haven't faced real air opposition in a long time and perhaps we never will, but what if we have to face fairly well-trained Red Chinese pilots flying Su-27s or Su-30s down the road?

Let me know when Chinese pilots actually get to the level of "well-trained."

Wong Wei was NOT unexceptional.

My guess is we'll be missing the F-14 then, because the Super Hornet is not a great dogfighter and can't loiter as long as a Tomcat.

In what way is the Super Hornet not a great dogfighter?

The Tomcat has some serious dogfighting issues. At anything above a modest AOA, the pilot isn't so much flying the airplane as he's flying the engines in order to avoid compressor stalls.

And we also managed to let the Phoenix missile capability fade away by never updating it and then making the F-14 an A-6E replacement.

Get over it--the world changed.

We may wish we had a modern Tomcat and up-to date AIM-54 if and when we have to face the Iranians or the Chicoms. They both are armed with the M2.5+ SS-N-25 Sunburn anti-ship missile.

Which the Phoenix would be absolutely worthless against. It was designed to shoot the archers, not the arrows.

5 posted on 04/11/2003 9:08:55 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

6 posted on 04/11/2003 9:10:54 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
I bet the F-22 will stand up.
7 posted on 04/11/2003 9:11:29 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I feel the need, the need for speed
8 posted on 04/11/2003 9:12:47 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Semper Gumby - Always flexible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I bet the F-22 will stand up.

I'm sure, but we're talking carrier-based aircraft, which the F-22 ain't.

9 posted on 04/11/2003 9:15:37 AM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
True, have to wait and see on the carrier based JSF.
10 posted on 04/11/2003 9:18:36 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The Tomcat has some serious dogfighting issues. At anything above a modest AOA, the pilot isn't so much flying the airplane as he's flying the engines in order to avoid compressor stalls.

That concern pretty much eliminated when going from the P&W TF30's (A model) to the GE F110's (B/D models).

11 posted on 04/11/2003 9:20:57 AM PDT by quark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
There were similar misgivings during Vietnam when the Navy replace the F8 Crusader with the F4 Phantom. Pilots will always have a warm spot in their hearts for certain aircraft, but the key is to get the most from what you got.
12 posted on 04/11/2003 9:24:49 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quark
IIRC, the B/D program got clobbered way back when.
13 posted on 04/11/2003 9:25:18 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Best option would be for the Navy to get onto the FB-22 project and ditch JSF.

In the interim, getting more F-14Ds as soon as possible.
14 posted on 04/11/2003 9:25:37 AM PDT by hchutch (America came, America saw, America liberated; as for those who hate us, Oderint dum Metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Aye, it's a sexy beast!
15 posted on 04/11/2003 9:26:22 AM PDT by rabidralph (Hey, Saddumb, All Your Base Are Belong To Us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Can't build F-14Ds for a long time, yet.

The military doesn't pay for the tooling to be stored, so it gets destroyed.

I don't think the FB-22 is going to be even remotely carrier suitable.

Bottom line: the Navy doesn't do deep strikes anymore. It's really, with that few aircraft, a nuclear mission anyway.
16 posted on 04/11/2003 9:27:30 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
What a mess.

This si not good. The Iranians have Backfires according to some of my sources, plus they have Fencers. We need the ability to fight the outer air battle.
17 posted on 04/11/2003 9:30:43 AM PDT by hchutch (America came, America saw, America liberated; as for those who hate us, Oderint dum Metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
This si not good. The Iranians have Backfires according to some of my sources, plus they have Fencers. We need the ability to fight the outer air battle.

If you look at single-dimensional ops, yeah, you need it.

If you look at joint ops...the "Outer Air Battle" consists of some boys from Whiteman cratering the runways and bombing their HASs, and Navy TLAMs smashing their fuel depots, barracks, and maintenance facilities.

How you win the air battle: you kill enemy planes by the dozen on the ground, not one at a time at 30,000 feet.

18 posted on 04/11/2003 9:33:49 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
have to wait and see on the carrier based JSF.

From certain angles, the JSF looks quite nice:

However, the military is pushing the thing as a replacement for everything from the F-14 to the A-10. They may as well announce that it is capable of standard takeoff-to-orbit, as well. Jack of all trades, master of none.

19 posted on 04/11/2003 9:36:42 AM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
How you win the air battle: you kill enemy planes by the dozen on the ground, not one at a time at 30,000 feet.

Only if the enemy accomodates us, of course. We still need fast Navy aircraft carrying powerful long-range missiles, in the event that we don't catch those aircraft on the ground.

Do we have anything else that can carry the Phoenix, or any other missile that matches the Phoenix for range?

20 posted on 04/11/2003 9:40:43 AM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson