Farewell to the Tomcat

[Tom C.]

The A-6F was killed in the mid '80s by Lehman when he was SECNAV. He is also an A-6 BN. He probably concluded it couldn't survive in a modern air combat arena. The A-12 had its own problems. The EA-6B is the other high cost to maintain aircraft in the current Navy inventory. It will be replaced by the EA-18G, which is currently in development.

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Lotsa info here,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18g.htm

Vick

 

[El Tejon]

Wassup?

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2690945?htv=12

 

[bowfin]

The Iranians seemed to have had fighter to fighter success with the Phoenix in their war with the Iraqis, even with the severe handicap of parts embargo.

No one has put any money into the Phoenix missile since the early '80s, so it definitely would be showing its age. I am sure no one here is using a Tandy or Commodore computer any more to view this message. The Sidewinder was first launched in the '50s, but it has evolved because of constant improvements and updates.

I still haven't heard any theories on how a Hornet catches and skins a faster Tomcat while dodging a half dozen Phoenix missiles, unless the rules say a Tomcat has to fly slow and straight towards his adversary until the Hornet finishes twisting and turning. I would think a smart Tomcat pilot would use that time to his advantage, wouldn't you?

I found this article, which might shoot my theories down, as I haven't had time to read it yet, but in the interests providing the interesting to the interesed, I'm posting the link:

Battle of the Super Fighters: F-14D Tomcat vs. F/A8 E/F Super Hornet

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200202/ai_n9030925

 

[ghost squire]

I'd be willing to wager in favor of a US Navy Aviator in a mediocre Superhornet vs. an Arab pilot in any state of the art Russian fighter of his choice

I wouldn't. We put our best pilots in F-4s against nearly untrained ones in outdated MIGs in Vietnam and barely maintained an even kill ratio at times. The MIG was a superior dogfighting plane. The new generation of fighter jets are many times better then what we have, although perhaps excepting the F-16 (still inferior though). The F-22 is better then all of them though, and its price shows it.

Face it folks, the machine is part of us, its what made us into what we are today. I'm so tired of people saying its not the machine its the man, to a certain extent yes but even the best fighter pilot would lose in a Biplane armed with a single shot smoothbore derringer against modern MIGs.

Stop rejecting machines people, they are part of what makes us human. Because of machines (knives and spears) we engineered a high protein diet for ourselves, changing the face of the earth forever and taking our fates in a whole different direction then monkeys. Thats of course assuming your not an idiot who believes in creationism literally.

Since then everyone has been on the quest for the perfect sword (gun, plane etc). Sure, Musashi beat many opponents with a wooden sword and everyone loves those stories but thats one man in the history of the world out of billions.

 

[Pilot]

The F-14 was the one with the wings that moved in and out? A nifty feature.

Yes, that's called variable wing geometry. With the wings extended, the plane has more lift (and therefore drag) for slow flight, takeoffs, landings, etc. With the wings retracted, less lift but also a lot less drag allowing faster speeds. And with those huge jet engines fired up, you don't need much lift for the wings to fly.

What about the F-22 (Raptor, i think?)- all i know is that it exists. Could it see future or current use?

I don't think there is a Navy variant planned for the F-22, but their is a Naval and Marine JSF (Joint Striker Fighter).

 

[CypherNinja]

No more trips down the "Highway to the Danger Zone".

Bastard.


::Starts WinAmp::

 

[misANTHrope]

I wouldn't. We put our best pilots in F-4s against nearly untrained ones in outdated MIGs in Vietnam and barely maintained an even kill ratio at times.

But keep in mind that early in the war, when the kill ratios were low, our pilot training was deficient, especially compared to modern training. Consider the formation of the well-known "Top Gun" training command. Prior to the formation of Top Gun, the Navy's kill ratio had dwindled to around 2:1. The effect of Top Gun training, after the pilots had returned to the fleet and passed on knowledge to their squadrons, was to drive the Navy kill ratio up to the 12:1 range.

Training is still a superior factor to equipment IMO.

 

[Tom C.]

"We put our best pilots in F-4s against nearly untrained ones in outdated MIGs in Vietnam and barely maintained an even kill ratio at times. The MIG was a superior dogfighting plane."

That isn't true. We put guys out there who had been properly trained. The Navy asked Capt. Ault to look into it and his report resulted in the establishment of the Navy Fighter Weapons School, Top Gun. With aircrew trained there, when we went back up north in 1972, the kill ratio went from 2 to 1 to 12 to 1.

Dogfighting isn't all that fighters are about. Air Force Capt Steve Richie is the only other ace from Viet Nam (with Navy Lt Randy Cunningham). Four of Richie's kills were AIM-7 Sparrow radar guided head-on shots.

I have just started reading the article by Kress and Gillcrist. One thing to remember is Kress was a Grumman engineer on the F-14 and ADM Gillcrist was an aviator in the F-14. Well informed, but not current. Potentially biased.

 

[bowfin]

ghost squire,

I am with you, if you face death or becoming an "MIA" while flying a combat mission, would you want to fly that mission in the best possible aircraft possible, or one that was "adequate" or "good enough".

I will disagree on the merits of dogfighting. No American WWII ace made his reputation on dogfighting. Almost all of them dove down on unsuspecting enemies, shot them to pieces on the way down, and then kept right on going until they were clear to climb again. In fact, most aerial victories in World War II never came at the end of a hard fought dogfight, usually someone was shot out of the sky before he even knew that he was being engaged.

The only reason we were dogfighting so evenly in Vietnam was because of overcautious rules about visually acquiring the target before pilots were allowed to use Sparrows and Sidewinders. Compounding the problem was the fact that the early F-4s had no internal gun. So in essence, we were giving away our advantage (intercepting with faster planes with Air to Air missiles) to fight at a disadvantage (dogfighting more maneuverable aircraft with no gun), due to the flawed visual confirmation rule.

 

[IZinterrogator]

 

[roo_ster]

It is my understanding that the Superhornet is came about because:
1. Tomcat was gettting long in the tooth
2. The acquisition process could be shortened by buying a follow-on to an already-boughten aircraft.

BTW, the original Hornets & the Superhornets don't seem to share much in common save the F/A-18 designation. Also, the SH is significantly larger.

There still is no real replacement for the A-6, an all-weather medium bomber.

The Navy needs some newer air frames, pronto.

 

[torpid]

Why the navy didn't look into converting the Tomcat into veritech Valkyries is a mystery to me. Totally wasted the potential for the Navy to expand into mechanized assault and space defense...

 

[ArmedBear]

Will they be available on the surplus market?

But then again, 65:1 maintenance:flight time sounds even worse than this old Porsche I used to own... That MIGHT even be as bad as a Jaguar.

What's a real bummer is that we retired the Sopwith Camel, though.

 

[misANTHrope]

Will they be available on the surplus market?

But then again, 65:1 maintenance:flight time sounds even worse than this old Porsche I used to own... That MIGHT even be as bad as a Jaguar.

What's a real bummer is that we retired the Sopwith Camel, though.

I actually read earlier today that the aforementione CAPT Snodgrass is looking into acquiring *16* Tomcats for use in the show circuit. I can only assume that he's got some serious sponsorship available to have the funds for that. The question is still out as to whether they'll al be flying, or maybe the other 15 are for parts.

 

[shep854]

It will be used as target drones like all the other old fighters. Sad.

Yep, but it is a FAR better way to go than sitting in the desert, being chopped up for scrap.

 

[Old Dog]

The question is still out as to whether they'll al be flying, or maybe the other 15 are for parts.

Yeah, one for flying ... 15 for parts cannibalization is about the correct ratio ... I remember a buddy of mine, a MO in a Prowler squadron, telling me that the worst day (from the maintainers' standpoint) in an EA-6B squadron was far better than his best day in a Tomcat squadron ...

 

[Harve Curry]

Must be alot of pressure on the maintenance guys at a ratio of 65 down hours to one flying. One slip up and the result could be catastrophic. After all that work they don't get to enjoy the ride.

So what is the least maintenance hungry airplane ?

 

[Rumpled]

I sure do miss all of the Marine aircraft that used to fly over my house before El Toro closed. Those night carrier landing drills with the 14's sure could drown out the TV. As my father instructed me, "That's the sound of freedom, son". That was back when we lived under P-3's every couple of minutes at Moffett. How come all the bases near my house always closed?
(Hamilton, Alameda, Presidio, Mare, Moffett, Tustin, El Toro)

Going off topic - The blissninnies in my complex used to post the phone # to complain about noise at El Toro. They never saw the logic that the base was built in the forties, and their house in 1977.
I used to call occasionally, also. The calls would go something like this.
Ring, ring
"Thank you for calling the El Toro noise complaint line; this is Corporal So and So; how may I help you maam or sir?"
" I'd like to uncomplain"
"Excuse me, sir"
"I'd like to uncomplain, I really like the sound of your jets there; so just cross off the name on top of the list tonite"
"I'm sorry I can't do that, sir"
"OK, Marine, just put one over in the other column tonite. Thanks and have a good nite, Corporal."
"Thank you sir"

I bet my calls just confused the heck out of them.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

The F-14 is a very cool plane, I'm sad to see it go. The Super Hornet can't be beat, though.

Wow. Don't ever tell that to an Eagle pilot.

The Phoenix, like the F-14, has great propaganda and people believe that it can accomplish miracles. Unfortunately, the reality is that both are relics of the 70s and 80s. Think about it...if the Phoenix were such a great missile, why aren't they building any more aircraft to carry/use it?

More like a 60s relic. Though I'm sure it went through improvements, the Phoenix system was developed for the YF-12, the interceptor version of the SR-71, which needed a much faster missile than what was available at the time, due to it's incredible speed. The interceptor version was killed, and the Phoenix was a weapons system without a platform. It was rescued by the navy for fleet defense duties. As you said, an outdated missile, though fairly incredible for it's day.

I'm sad to see the F-14 go also, as I was the F-4. But it's time to move on. I'm just wondering why the Navy didn't go after the F-23. It would have been the perfect replacement. But then why didn't the Air Force go after the F-16 XL, and why.....yada, yada, yada

 

[ghost squire]

Training is still a superior factor to equipment IMO.

No I totally agree, I'm just saying its not the end all mythological determining factor in most cases, that equipment does play a role.

I wouldn't want to fight in Iraq with a musket is basically my point, no matter how cool that would make me in the eyes of some of the semi-luddites on here.

I will disagree on the merits of dogfighting. No American WWII ace made his reputation on dogfighting. Almost all of them dove down on unsuspecting enemies, shot them to pieces on the way down, and then kept right on going until they were clear to climb again. In fact, most aerial victories in World War II never came at the end of a hard fought dogfight, usually someone was shot out of the sky before he even knew that he was being engaged.

The only reason we were dogfighting so evenly in Vietnam was because of overcautious rules about visually acquiring the target before pilots were allowed to use Sparrows and Sidewinders. Compounding the problem was the fact that the early F-4s had no internal gun. So in essence, we were giving away our advantage (intercepting with faster planes with Air to Air missiles) to fight at a disadvantage (dogfighting more maneuverable aircraft with no gun), due to the flawed visual confirmation rule.

I don't think were in disagreement about this, I was merely saying that part of the reason we at one point had such a poor kill ratio is because we got into dogfights so often for whatever reason and didn't have a plane suited to it.

Later we added better training AND guns, that part shouldn't be overlooked.