NationStates Jolt Archive

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060728/060728_TOMCATS_hmed.hmedium.jpg

U.S. Tomcat fighter makes last carrier flight
Jet made famous by ‘Top Gun’ deemed too expensive for post-Cold War era

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14083611/

ABOARD THE USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT - The U.S. Navy’s F-14 Tomcat, built to protect the fleet from Soviet bombers, took its last flight off an aircraft carrier Friday, closing one of the final chapters in its 32-year history.

The retirement of the Tomcat, made famous in the movie “Top Gun,” clears the way for the Navy to start using new military aircraft that supporters say can meet post-Cold War requirements more affordably.

But for Tomcat pilots and aircraft enthusiasts, the end of the F-14 does not just mark an end of an aviation era -- it signals a trend in U.S. government weapons spending that favors cost-cutting over performance.

“We’re kind of retreating from an era of best you can build and moving to an era of best you can afford,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group aerospace and defense consultancy.

Beyond reflection about the aircraft’s powerful image, supersonic speed and unmatched dog-fighting capabilities, many sailors and analysts agreed the Navy just doesn’t need the Tomcat anymore.

This was always my favorite military plane, and it's as old as I am. :(

I always wondered why we'd go from planes other air forces couldn't beat to things we could barely afford to build. How many "New Advanced Fighters" have we skipped now because they ended up expensive?

I always wondered why we'd go from planes other air forces couldn't beat to things we could barely afford to build. How many "New Advanced Fighters" have we skipped now because they ended up expensive?


Old Pentagon Joke, circa 1975.

'Soon we'll have a fighter-design that is so advanced it can beat all other airforces in the world singlehanded. Unfortunately, we can only afford 1/2 of it.'

Jeez. Scared me to death for a minute.

I thought this thread was supposed news of the Jakarta Tomcat.

If they suddenly stopped the Tomcat project, I would be pissed.

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif_http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/topdown.gif

I'm sure that recurring maintenance and the manpower that requried was a big factor in retiring the plane. A thirty-two year old ANYTHING doesn't work as well as when it was new. There is metal fatigue, corrosion, parts obsolecence, just to name few factors that need to be considered in extending the life of an old aircraft.

That said, there's one big Bravo Zulu to send to Grumman for making such a great airplane.

I'm sure that recurring maintenance and the manpower that requried was a big factor in retiring the plane.

I believe that in these past few years, the Tomcats required an average of 40 manhours of maintenance for every hour of flight.

That being said, I still wish they'd upgrade/refit them and keep the Tomcats in service. They were great birds - the fact that they look sexy as hell is just a happy coincidence. :)

http://www.flyerwires.com/smiley-tomcat3.gif

In an interesting little reversal, the Air Force is pouring money into maintenance of B-52. The Air Force expects them to last into 2045.

Thats right, by the time of retirement, these airplanes will be near 100 years old.

I'm sure that recurring maintenance and the manpower that requried was a big factor in retiring the plane. A thirty-two year old ANYTHING doesn't work as well as when it was new. There is metal fatigue, corrosion, parts obsolecence, just to name few factors that need to be considered in extending the life of an old aircraft..

Tell that to the B-52 bombers...

In an interesting little reversal, the Air Force is pouring money into maintenance of B-52. The Air Force expects them to last into 2045.

Thats right, by the time of retirement, these airplanes will be near 100 years old.

So true, they're abandoning the F-14 and the F-16 but they're upgrading the B-52.

I guess it's kind of like how they kept pulling the WWII battleships out of retirement for every war until the mid 90s.
(They used them as Missile Frigrates basicly)

They're abandoning the F-16? I never heard about this!

And the upgrading of the B-52s make sense to me. In modern, low intensity conflicts that the US will be in, they don't need bombers designed to penetrate heavy air defenses. They need a bomber that can deliver an assload of bombs on top of someone. Look what they did to the Taliban and the Iraqi military.

They're abandoning the F-16? I never heard about this!


As I understand it, the F-16 is to be replaced by the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter).

That's a negative ghostrider, the pattern is full. :(

I'm personally glad we're getting rid of them. The tomcat is a nice aircraft, but its old. I mean, in their only real air combat(Iraq-Iran war), Mirage F1's were downing them. When we are likely to be facing enemies with aircraft one to two generations past the F1, we need to be using our Superhornets more, which are better at the BVR game than the tomcats.

As I understand it, the F-16 is to be replaced by the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter).

Replaced, over the next few decades, heh

So they're replacing the Cheaper F-16s with some super expensive Joint Strike Fighter? Didn't they learn in the 80s? Quanity trumps Quality.

(In mock dogfight military trials in 1978 any Two planes could beat out a single plane, even if the Single plane was an advanced model F-15 and the two planes were the cheap F-5s.)

(In mock dogfight military trials in 1978 any Two planes could beat out a single plane, even if the Single plane was an advanced model F-15 and the two planes were the cheap F-5s.)

That was in 1978, when BVR shots (beyond visual range) were rare and difficult.

Nowadays, with the US Air Forces, BVR shots are "the rule" - that is, no one is going to get close enough to dogfight, or so the thinking goes.

A cheap F-5 isn't going to do any all-weather ground attack, nor is it going to do a BVR shot. In today's air environment, it would be a target, not an asset. And it would not survive the environment - it would never get close enough to dogfight.

So they're replacing the Cheaper F-16s with some super expensive Joint Strike Fighter? Didn't they learn in the 80s? Quanity trumps Quality.

(In mock dogfight military trials in 1978 any Two planes could beat out a single plane, even if the Single plane was an advanced model F-15 and the two planes were the cheap F-5s.)

Though the post above this went into the subject, one F-35 would wipe the floor with two F-16's.

The F-35 would detect both aircraft before they detected it, using its AESA radar. With its quite low RCS, it could get into range to fire two AMRAAM's, and then race away from the F-16's.

You get two dead F-16's.

People get so mad when new technology replaces old technology. Twenty years ago, we had the High-low mix of expensive F-15's and cheap F-16's. Now we have a high-low mix of expensive F-22's and cheap F-35's(and if projected prices are correct, though I doubt they will be, the F-35 is actually quite cheap, especially relative to the gold-plated F-22).

Nowadays, with the US Air Forces, BVR shots are "the rule" - that is, no one is going to get close enough to dogfight, or so the thinking goes.

I thought that was disproven... :confused:

I thought that was disproven... :confused:

Disproven? How so?

How many planes have been involved in dogfights since the end of the Iraq-Iran war, exactly?

Guns are backups, last resort weapons for planes without any more missiles, etc. With missiles that will fly for 40-60km, and radars that will detect up to 100+km, the name of the game is BVR. Trying to reduce RCS so your enemy can't see you/launch missiles at you before you launch at him, being able to jam enemy radar/missiles/etc to gain advantages against missiles, unique ways of detecting aircraft(like IRST suites, etc), better BVR missiles(Meteor is looking great), etc.

I thought that was disproven... :confused:

I was under that impression as well. Though really, its been a long time since there has been a need for widescale ariel dogfights.

Even if BVR weapons are effective, I thought rules of engagement require visual confirmation of a hostile target.

Even if BVR weapons are effective, I thought rules of engagement require visual confirmation of a hostile target.

No, there is no required visual confirmation. Remember shooting down the iranian jetliner we thought was a fighter plane?

Aircraft use IFF to determine whether or not its an enemy. In peacetime, most likely its alot more careful, possibly required visual. However, in wartime, IFF is the mainstay.

fait thee well :(

In an interesting little reversal, the Air Force is pouring money into maintenance of B-52. The Air Force expects them to last into 2045.

Thats right, by the time of retirement, these airplanes will be near 100 years old.
But bombers just don't have the same kinds of stresses put on the systems as fighters do. They also aren't in the same kind of game, so to speak, as a fighter.

But bombers just don't have the same kinds of stresses put on the systems as fighters do. They also aren't in the same kind of game, so to speak, as a fighter.



not to mention the stress of "crash landing" and catapulting off and on the carrier.....somthing the bomber does not have to do.

I believe that in these past few years, the Tomcats required an average of 40 manhours of maintenance for every hour of flight.

That being said, I still wish they'd upgrade/refit them and keep the Tomcats in service. They were great birds - the fact that they look sexy as hell is just a happy coincidence. :)
The one thing that the Navy is giving up when it retires this aircraft is the two-man cockpit. There are so many advantages to having a second set of eye, a second set of hands, a pal to drink with when your stuck at England AFB on a Tuesday because the plane broke ... The increase in cockpit IQ more than doubles when you put that extra guy in there.

Sensor fusion can help a little, but I don't think any of the modern single seat aircraft are as mission capable as they could be, only for the lack of that second seat.

not to mention the stress of "crash landing" and catapulting off and on the carrier.....somthing the bomber does not have to do.
Back in the days before the A-6 was retired, it had undergone a re-winging. The original spars had exceeded the life that had been planned and were starting to break. After the rewinging, the empennage was the next most vulnerable part. A few of us had a pool on which carrier the first A-6 would trap and leave the tail sitting on the angle, while the rest skidded off the end.

I watched an airshow in San Diego at Miramar. [sp?]

The Tomcat was an impressive bird.

the days of war change for all things
and the fax that war it self has change
i be sad to see the tom go it is a good plane cheap the new that are caming out

the days of war change for all things
and the fax that war it self has change
i be sad to see the tom go it is a good plane cheap the new that are caming out
Before we lament the demise of a 'cheap' airplane, remember that most of the budget for these things is operation and maintenance.

What you can do to keep the aircraft in the forefront of everyone's memory is to become involved with an association that will buy, transport, and erect a memorial version of a Tomcat at some suitable location. We just did that with an A-6 at MCAS Cherry Point. Plan on spending about $100K. You might get by for less.

Oh cool. The price will go down on Tomcats and Iran will have plenty of them very soon. Neat!

Oh cool. The price will go down on Tomcats and Iran will have plenty of them very soon. Neat!
You're forgetting about a little think called ITAR.