Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: WoT

Navy's F-14 fighter jet flies its final mission

2006-02-17

The F-14 Tomcat, the fighter jet that soared into the national imagination in the movie Top Gun, has flown into the danger zone for the last time. The Navy announced Thursday that the last F-14 combat mission was completed Feb. 8, when a pair of Tomcats landed aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt after one dropped a bomb in Iraq. Capt. William Sizemore, who flew on that last mission, said the Tomcat will be missed.

"This is one of the best airplanes ever built, and it's sad to see it go away," Sizemore said in a Navy report from the ship. "It's just a beautiful airplane. And it just looks like the ultimate fighter."

Although still swift and deadly, the F-14 is a victim of changing times. For example:

Sophisticated missiles have made its specialty, aerial dogfighting, obsolete. Opposing aircraft target each other from miles away, often before the pilots can see each other except on radar.
Precision bombing is the new priority, and despite modification, the Tomcat can't carry the loads of the new F/A-18 Super Hornet.
It's too expensive in the long run. The jet that flew its first combat missions in September 1974 requires 50 hours of maintenance, compared with five to 10 hours for the Super Hornet, for each hour of flight time.

The F-14 and its Navy pilots were at the heart of the 1986 movie Top Gun, in which Tom Cruise played Maverick, an impetuous pilot training at the Navy's elite flight school in Miramar, Calif. Top Gun enhanced the reputation of an already legendary jet, said Adm. William Fallon, the U.S. Pacific commander and a former F-14 weapons officer. "Potential opponents, at the mere thought there might be Tomcats around, would head off the other direction," he said.

Although the Navy is better served by the newer jets, the beautiful F-14 will be missed, Fallon said. "It was the last of the pure fighters."

Posted by:Seafarious

#19
"C'mon, "Nuck". Who are you? W'dja usta be? Whadday hidin', eh?"

Ex Navy! Hiding nothing. Ex brown shoe, VA-87 when they flew A-7E's. CLAW-1. Been there, done that! Rode the America (CV-66) God rest her soul! Bastards used her for target practice.

Was an enlisted man, Nuclear weapons team! No Slack, in Light Attack! Jesus, I'm frickin old!

Still, I do know a few things about Carrier Ops!

Posted by: Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-17 23:58

#18 lethality
obstacle

Fred's name generator is very cool, indeed. Now even anonymity is individual.

Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-17 21:26

#17 C'mon, "Nuck". Who are you? W'dja usta be? Whadday hidin', eh?

Posted by: ustabeBobby 2006-02-17 21:00

#16
"It was (is) the ultimate standoff aerial killer, no?"

"Was" is the operative here. Keep in mind it's tech pedigree is late 1960's early 1970's. Times and capabilities have changed.

Not just for us, but for our erstwhile adversaries as well. There no longer exists a threat that the Pheonix was intended to meet that cannot be met by new weapons. For now.

I was in the fleet at the time the Tomcat was deployed, it WAS a GREAT fighter! Times have changed and our war fighting ability has progressed to the point that the F-14 is now
obsolete.

I must admit there is a certain sadness that this is so, but, I welcome the changes because they bring an increase in leathality (sp?) and economy!

There exists capabilities today that we do not know about, and, there are emerging technologies that we are not aware of. Keep in mind the F-117
Nighthawk existed for nearly 5 years before it was revealed. Same for the B-2.

It is reasonable to be concerned that we are being trianglated, and that we will be consumed, however, in reality, I do not believe it will happen.

As it stands now, there isn't a single nation, or nations, we cannot obliterate at will without the need for boots on the ground.

Iraq, as a nation building experiment is just that, an experiment! If need be, we can dispense with that mindset and just lay waste to those that oppose us. We know that, they know that, the only obsticle (sp?) is our will to do so.

Just my considered opinion!

Nuck

P.S. I love the name generator.

Posted by: Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-17 18:36

#15 JFM: I don't know enough to comment on the technical aspects of your comments, but in the last 50 years has there been a major transition of military aircraft (aside from some Skunk Works projects), that was not accompanied by heated arguments - both within and without military circles?

On the one hand, I don't know enough to gainsay the decision. On the other hand, I understand enough about military-industrial pork aspects and the lurches in DoD budgeting to be suspicious of such decisions.

The F-22 saga comes to mind here.

/one long rhetorical comment

Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-02-17 16:47

#14 It's too expensive in the long run. The jet that flew its first combat missions in September 1974 requires 50 hours of maintenance, compared with five to 10 hours for the Super Hornet, for each hour of flight time.

Of course they do. We are talking of very old air frames who are litterally falling apart. It would be an entirely differnt matter if it they were brand new Super-F14s. And while we cannot be sure about relative costs of a SuperHornet against that hypothetic Super-F14 the fact is that regular F18s were two or there times more expensive to buy than regular F14s. THe navy wasn't happy that the supposedly cheap plane ended costing much more than the more capable F14. Additionally the Hornet carbon wing doesn't take damage gracefully, even minor damage like the one caused by small arms bullets; they literally tear apart.

Posted by: JFM 2006-02-17 16:42

#13 The preceeding should have read:

Except in the Top Gun movie the F14 was not a dogfighter. It was no F15, it was not F16 it was not even an F18

Posted by: JFM 2006-02-17 16:25

#12 Sorry but the article is all wrong. Ecept it in the Top Gun movie the F14 was not a dogfighter. It was no F15, it was not F16 it was not even an F16.

Wghat was the role of the F14? Protect the fleet. And it was ideal for that: it was a fast plane who could keep supersonic flight for much longer than an F15 or F18 can because at high speeds its wing behaves like a delta and thus an F14 burns fuel at a far lower rate yan an F18 or F15. Its radar has an enormous range and also scans a much wider range (I think it is 180 degrees aginst 60 for an F18). it can engage several targets simultaneously (launch a missile against a planeand attck another without waiting for the first missile having reached its target) and keep track of a gaizilion plane. And because of the roommier nose of an F14 there is no way technologies being equal that an F18 can get a radar half as capable. With missiles whose range is over 60 miles an F14 covers a LOT of airpace. And that is important because a carrier has a limited number of interceptors and this cannot afford to need twoo dozens planes flying simultaneosly just for air defence. And that it will have to do with F18s: an F18 must turn towards its target (narrow radar cone), go subsonically (limited endurance in supersonic) towards it (short ranged missiles) where an F14 will simply erase it from airspace with a Phoenix. In the time it takes an F18 to get into firing position the hostile could have launched a missile against a carrier.

Phoenixes are unadequate aginst fast, maneuverable planes? Hwta is the problem? No plane, even the F16, remains fast and manueverable once they are loaded with ordnance big enough to harm a ship: they can't fly supersonic and are real dogs.

What I have heard about the whole thing is that the Navy is not happy with the replacement of the F14 by a plane the F18 who, be it the regular Hornet or the Super-Hornet quite simply can't do its job and that the reasonable thing would have be to modernize the F14 when it was time (during Clinton presidencies) instead of letting the Navy with only an unadequate plane (the F18) until it gets the new generation plane (the navl counterpart to the F22). But apparently shoving F18s through the Navy's throat presented more opporrtunities for pork than modernizing the F14 and the Phoenix.

Posted by: JFM 2006-02-17 16:22

#11 The irony of weaponry is that for every weapon there is a counter.

Now we are entering into an age where drones may rule the sky, and air-to-air missiles may be overcome with lasers and anti-electronics energy weapons.

But both of these might be overcome with something crude and simple, perhaps a heavily armored aircraft, an aircraft equivalent to a tank. Slow, awkward, but fairly invulnerable, its purpose would be to get well within range to use more conventional weaponry, such as gatling guns.

Such an aircraft would possibly use a fanwing-type propulsion system, instead of a jet or prop engine, and be almost as slow as a helicopter. But if it had armor plate that could not be penetrated by an air-to-air missile, and not needing sophisticated electronics to fly, it could muscle its way to air superiority.

Ironic that such an inexpensive, low-tech machine could prove itself better for a while than multimillion dollar masterpieces of technological sophistication.

About the fanwing system:

http://www.fanwing.com/

Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-02-17 15:50

#10 While the AMRAAM doesn't have the range of the Phoenix, it's getting better, and the D varient has some neat tricks.

Posted by: Jackal 2006-02-17 13:49

#9  Sophisticated missiles have made its specialty, aerial dogfighting, obsolete. Opposing aircraft target each other from miles away, often before the pilots can see each other except on radar.

Someone has forgotten their history. With all technology there is a cycle of action/reaction. I'm sure our opponents will attain stealth and capabilities to close the distance once again. When they do, we'll pay once again for the attitude that 'no one dog fights' anymore.

Posted by: Glinemp Ebbomonter1494 2006-02-17 13:18

#8 Sophisticated missiles have made its specialty, aerial dogfighting, obsolete. Opposing aircraft target each other from miles away, often before the pilots can see each other except on radar.

How often is this myth going to be repeated? This is the same reason the F-4 didn't originally have a cannon, but then along came the Vietnam war and it was discovered "all-missiles-all-the-time" was a mistake.

While it may be true that none of our top-of-the-line fighters have had a gun kill in some time, we haven't exactly been facing worthy adversaries lately. That could change if we find ourselves facing the Chinese someday.

Posted by: Dar 2006-02-17 13:15

#7 ..Phoenix was adapted from the Eagle, which was to have gone on a plane called the Missileer - a huge, subsonic truck of a plane that was supposed to just cruise in lazy circles over the fleet and wait for Russian bombers and missiles to obligingly fly within range. When the Navy balked at Missileer (it was replaced by a little bird called the Phantom II) the Eagle was redesigned into Phoenix and was to have been the sole armament for the F-111b (AKA the "Sea Aardvark"). When the -111B was scrapped (overweight, underpowered, and shoved down the USN's throat by Robert MacNamara), the Phoenix - already tested an nearly ready - was easily adapted to what became the Tomcat.
It was essentially intended to deal solely with bombers and Soviet air-launched air-to-surface missiles. It really wasn't all that capable against smaller and more maneuverable targets, but that's why they had Sparrow, Slammer and Sidewinder, plus the gun. .Com, for the anti-bomber/missile role it was wiyhout peer. The ultimate aerial killer is still the AIM-9 Sidewinder, whose design is essentially based on WWII German technology. Covering all models from the original Korean War-era bird to the present -9L, the official kill rate is around 85%. I suspect the actual kill rate is as high as 90%.

Mike

Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-02-17 12:59

#6 To get its huge rage the Phoenix lobs itself into a target basket in a parabolic arc before using its onboard radar to identify its target. To my knowlege the Tomcat was the only fighter to fire it 'parrently the Iranians still have some AIM64's left but I doubt they are useable.
The Tomcat was not designed as a fighter but as an inteceptor to shoot down, at long range soviet badgers and bears that were approaching carrier battle groups.

Posted by: pihkalbadger 2006-02-17 12:54

#5 Adm William Fallon....coincidental since the Topgun school moved to Fallon NAS

Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-17 12:51

#4 Phil, I seem to recall a test in which the F-14 launched AIM-54s against six (6) supersonic maneuvering targets at a range of 120 nm. The last target was destroyed at >80nm. The F-14 as a gun fighter only made sense if you have to make a visual ID of your target. The decision to scrap the F-14 was a combination of rising maintenance costs and the need to free up cash to buy F-18 E/F SuperHornets. Kind of like the Air Force selling its soul to buy F-22s.

Posted by: RWV 2006-02-17 12:28

#3 requires 50 hours of maintenance,

Like some women I'm glad I don't go out with...

Posted by: Raj 2006-02-17 11:58

#2 Depends, .com; I've heard that the Phoenix was great if you were shooting at relatively slow/unmaneuverable bombers from long range, but that it wasn't that maneuverable of a missile. And that it needed a lot of maintenance as well.

Posted by: Phil 2006-02-17 11:48

#1 Okay propeller-heads:
Has the Phoenix been adapted to any other fighter (or vice versa) in the inventory?

It was (is) the ultimate standoff aerial killer, no?

Posted by: .com 2006-02-17 11:39

00:00