Tomcats...

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 22 May 2006, 10:28

Good bye and good riddens. Sept. 2006 is its official death and I can't wait. To all of you who love the tomcat obviously you've never stood on the flight deck with 'em. here is a link for the official site for the committee that is doing away with the beast. http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 22 May 2006, 10:49

And what exactly is so bad with doing that?

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 22 May 2006, 11:53

Nothing at all, just glad its going to the bone yards in Arizona. If it wasn't for topgun (the movie) that aircraft wouldn't get the recognition that it got and does not deserve. We all know that it wouldn't survive in a knife fight nuff said with that.

And stop inflatting your post count Kodiak! :lol: :lol: :lol:

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 22 May 2006, 12:08

Hey!! That was a genuine question DA, ya know. Anyways, the F-14 wasn't designed as a knife-fight aircraft. It was, as you are of course aware, designed as an long-range interceptor against Soviet bombers. Hence the purpose of Top Gun schooling - to take the aircrews back to basics, and re-learn dogfighting and BVR tactics against compatible opponents.

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 22 May 2006, 13:45

Hey DA sorry you did'nt like the Tomcats because you had to deal with them on deck, but obviously they were worth the inconvenience. I completely disagree with your statement that they don't deserve their reputation; they've definitely earned it. Not only were they top notch in BVR, but in the right hands, they could handle themselves quite nicely in a merge from what I've read and heard about them. I've talked to a few Tomcat pilots who used them in combat and flown them in exercises to practice ACM, and they swear by the aircraft. So I guess it's a matter of opinion. Frankly, I'm sorry to see them go, but I have to admit that its time to update our arsenal.

I posted about this a few months ago stating that they days were coming to end. I really think we're losing something special in this aircraft that will not be easily replaced. One thing that comes to mind is that we'll lose the phoenix missle platform and that is really too bad because I still think they would be effective in the years to come and save many lives because of their stand-off ability.

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 22 May 2006, 15:08

The phoenix is of no use anymore. The new generation of fighters and fighter bombers can out maneuver that piece of crap missle, and as far the F-14 being able to handle its own in a knife fight and such yeah right. It would be like a porsche going up against a semi. Now I'm not saying that it can't do it but it would definately have to be in the right hands of an experienced individual to do what it needs to do.

DA

Mooseman · Post by **Mooseman** » 22 May 2006, 15:25

i have actually seen a semi out accelerate a porsche....of course, the jet engine on the back may have had something to do with it!!

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 22 May 2006, 16:22

<sigh> well obviously you've made up your mind DA. But, I can't say I agree with anything you've said. Ah well.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » 22 May 2006, 19:44

jeez DA - i did not know you were a jet fighter pilot and weapons expert with real life experience...

i guess it is good we are getting rid of the f-14 after all. and to think i had the impression it was an awesome aircraft with both bvr capabilities, has been the only fighter aricraft capable of reliably tracking and engaging multiples of targets (well, maybe f-15), and because of adjustable wing geometry quite capable close in - especially for its size. goes to show what i know.

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 23 May 2006, 01:51

Personally, although such will never happen, I think swing-wing could have been an answer for the flight-stability issues of the F-117. The question being could they have incorporated that ability without sacrificing too much stealth? As for the reaching out and touching your enemy at long-range, well IMHO, I'd rather get the fight done and dusted before they can get close enough to even considerpowering-up their weapons!

daofcmacg · Post by **daofcmacg** » 23 May 2006, 06:04

I've seen that thing in action, and I have to say the F/A-18 pound for pound is a better aircraft especially now since they have increased the size of the craft and engines thus bigger payload and longer legs which in turn turns it into a true multi role aircraft. The F-14 wasn't suppose to fly gentlemen they just added an engine powerful enough to get it off the ground. Everyone why is the Hornet still around and the Tomcat isn't??? One is flexable and pliable and the other was built around its weapon instead of its weapon built around it. Case closed. (But I know you guys have comments.) Yes it was built for the cold war but its over and they tried they really tried to keep it in service but its like the big ass lumbering Aardvark when you take it away from its true calling hell what was the Aardvarks true calling anyway???? :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

DA

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 23 May 2006, 07:01

Erm . . . .ground attack through high-speed penetration of enemy airspace @ low level.
But the reason the F-18 is still around is because it was a later concept based on a different requirement. The original A-D models are being 'phased-out' already, in favour of the E/F models, and that will be supplemented by the naval variant F-35 in the next few years too. The E/F variants may be called Hornets, but they are really a different aircraft, hence their being referred to as Super Hornets.
But to use the phrase 'built for the Cold War' is a bit of a mis-nomer, because even the F-22 was designed for the Cold War. The original concept was well before the Wall came crumbling down.
I don't think weapons should be built around aircraft. Afterall the aircraft is a weapons platform, the weapon must be designed to achieve it's job, and a platform found to carry it successfully to where it can do it's job.

Jedi Master · Post by **Jedi Master** » 23 May 2006, 09:27

The F-117 is a specialized ground attack plane. Stability isn't a big concern thanks to it being FBW. If it was a fighter, it might be more pressing. Besides, it will be retired soon enough!

The Phoenix missiles were already retired. F-14s have been flying with SRMs and MRMs only (or bombs) for at least a year or 2 now. Although its radar was updated in the early 80s (AIM-54C thanks to us giving the Russians the 54A via the Iranians), this is still bascially a late 50's design that took almost 15 years to enter service, and then was in service over 30.

The F-14 was the fleet defender. While I agree that in its intended role it no longer has any major utility (the Super Bugs' AESA radars blow the Tomcat's away), its major strength in the past decade was ground attack. Better payload/range and low altitude performance than a Hornet along with 2 sets of eyes. Of course the USN is now buying a lot of Foxtrot Hornets instead of Echoes to replace them.

The sad truth though is the F-14 is old. It takes too much money and time to keep them flying. The newest plane is now over 15 years old.

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 23 May 2006, 09:54

There is definitely no mistaking the Soviets' capability with missile technology. But the people with the lead in missile tech at the moment has to be the Israelis and their IR seeker heads. Have to say, I'd even favour having their Python 4,5 IR series over even the AIM-132 AMRAAM or AIM-9X which is also integrated with their HMD set-up.

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 24 May 2006, 15:28

Awesome responses guys. I like what Jedi said because he articulated viable reasons to get rid of the tomcat; all of which, seemed perfectly reasonable explainations. I'm not sure why the AIM 54C's were phased out? I thought it was budgetary constraints? They are mighty expensive. Yes, the F-14s are old and at this stage would seem foolish to manufacture new ones given the superhornet's capabilities along with the inception of the F35. Still, for its day, and that day was not so long ago, the F-14 was a predator. The fleet defender had some real teeth and all the material I've read and the people I've talked to say that it could handle itself in merged situations nicely enough. This business about the cold war being over...well I think that is a matter of opinion. I really think that the names and faces have changed but the cold war is continuing with cameo appearances from Russia now and then. When you consider the players: North Korea, China, Iraq Afghanistan, Iran, parts of Africa and other third world nations that we don't hear about...yeah there is a lot going on that could turn hot real quick. I think the cold war is still going on and I just hope that we have the equipment and trained military to deal with it. I feel like we're stretched aweful thin.

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 25 May 2006, 02:33

Understand where you're coming from there Grifter. There are many hotspots around the World. Some bigger issues than others, some that would not remain quite so contained if they got out of hand, others you could ignore and they would have no true bearing on any of our lives, even as close as we are here in Europe.
But The Cold War is definitely over. Not saying that you don't understand, but there is/was definitely a different perspective being on your side of the Pond. Over here in Europe, The Cold War meant almost certain death for everyone, including the majority of Eastern Block countries. The destruction wouild have been total. Take for example my home town of Gourock, a small tourist town really. Located on the River Clyde. Two miles from Holy Loch - a US nuclear sub base, the same distance from Faslane - a RN equivalent, 5 miles from the main shipbuliding yards on the west coast, 20 miles from Glasgow - one of the main cities in Scotland. So, we were definitely goners and many towns and cities around us. Fifty miles away on the east coast down Firth of Forth was Rosyth and all the other shipbuilding yards and other naval presence. A couple of really good hits and we would have been seperated from the whole of the south of Scotland, and they would need to redraw the maps of UK, LOL! But the same story existed for the majority of people around Europe, because that is where the main battle would have been focused. But that tension doesn't exist the way it used to for everyone. Today our big problem though is the unseen enemy, who DOES strike. A new era, a new threat.

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 25 May 2006, 13:45

And you don't think we faced the same threat of MAD here? Most if not all of the Americas would be annihalated by Russin ICBMs; you know that very well Kodiak. The entire East coast, where I live, would be a smoldering slag of radioactive carnage. Anyway, I realize the dynamics of the war has changed to a large degree; still, the threat of doom would appear to be as omnipresent as ever. Terrorism may be smaller than nukes, but it packs an aweful big punch and seems even more unpredictable. We're adjusting to the new climate.

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 25 May 2006, 15:49

No Grif, you miss the point. Much as North America was prone to ICBM attack as the rest of us, the USA would still remain isolated as a whole. And even though coastal areas were of significant value as targets due to the importance the Soviets placed on naval capabilities. I think you'll find they placed little importance to the majority of inland area in North America. Which of course we all know is sparsely populated in relation to Europe. It was not to be the main battleground of WW3, that WAS the case for most of Western Europe. Whereas (although not pretty I admit) after the initial exchange, USA would generally have been left for dead. Europe would have continued to see much fighting. Once Europe was in their grasp, the Soviets would have turned their focus to North America. But given the logistics involved to attack North America, I think the Soviets would have settled for claiming mainland Europe at the very least. By the time they would have re-armed, and re-stocked all equipment necessary, and found sufficient manpower to mount a large enough scale attack, I think that the effects of radiation and all other nature of stuff would cause them to put those plans to bed for a while. The war may have continued to rage with small-scale skirmishes in the air and at sea, but the land war would not be of any great significance. Given the overall size (or lack of that is!) of UK, it would probably be given up as dead in the water. The number of individual (nukeable)targets in a small space I think you could say that no-one would want to venture anywhere near for a long time, with the levels of radiation.
We look at what we have now - terrorism. It's unpredictable, the enemy are among us as we say (hidden), we don't know the enemy's strength, his targets, his strategy. We consider the twin tower tragedy, and say how could it get any worse? Well, what if it had been done by detonation of a nuclear weapon? The old Warsaw Pact is rife with missing plutonium and nuclear warheads - who the hell has them? And what are their agendas? At least during the Cold War, you knew your enemy, you knew where he was, and what he intended to do if the balloon ever went up. Terrorists taking control of nukes is the biggest nightmare any of us could suffer, and that's only a matter of money IMHO!

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 25 May 2006, 17:15

Well no, Kodiak, I did'nt miss you point. I understood perfectly. What I meant was that it wouldn't matter to the US because we'd all be dead. Not just the east and west coastal regions either, but the whole country. I'm sure that if you take into account the fallout and the fact that some strategic targets that most of the midwest would be summarily contaminated as well. In any case, very few survivors left here to fight at all. If WW3 was to happen as you say, I guess you mean that the Soviets would not nuke Europe, but stick with conventional weapons? If so, then yes you're right, you guys would be alive and fighting what was left of the Soviets. I say "what is left," because most would be dead from MAD. Either way, you're right, the new enemy is much more dangerous in some respects. I still believe that there is a cold war going on nevertheless. While we are busy fighting the war on terrorism, Iran, China, and North Korea are dilegently working towards becoming nuclear superpowers in their own right. While we're distracted by Osama, they're busy reinforcing thier defenses, oppressing their people, testing their nukes etc. So that is what I meant by a cold war continuance. I'm not a military expert nor a politician so I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong. But I think I might be onto something here anyway. You know, I've even been suprised at how right I was on a few occasions that have come to pass. scary.

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 26 May 2006, 02:16

It shouldn't be a surprise to us though - China and Korea for example were bred with that communist background in recent decades, and it's ingrained in their culture - that necessity not to lose face or risk all, not the greatest of combinations really. Iran, well I dunno that region has always been fanatical with their religious beliefs being the final straw.
They are not designed the same way as us - take a basic outlook comparison. It's simple, but it conveys the people and who they really are.
Go out on a Friday night. There's a bit of unrest and suddenly you find yourself defending your better half's honour by having to confront someone physically. Take a Brit, an American, a Canadian, an Australian but to name a few - they will probably stand up and face the confrontation 1 on 1 or even 1 on 2. But these people cower away, begging forgivness, pleading that they would never do that etc., Take the same person half an hour later give him a dozen mates by his side and a knife or two, and he's ready to kick your arse all over town. They have no personal substance, they are basically cowardly natured people.

RLGaming.com

RLGaming's Forums

Tomcats...

Tomcats...