PDA

View Full Version : No Tomcat No Phoenix



Stoner
30 Jun 04,, 08:59
The US Navy will be retiring the F14 Tomcat in 2006 and with it the long range Phoenix missile. Do you know of any new long range weapon system that will at least mimic the Phoenix's awesome standoff capability?

Bill
30 Jun 04,, 16:18
The AIM-120C-5 fired from a supercruising F-22 comes fairly close to the range of the Phoenix.

Of course the USN doesn't have F-22s either...

GabRaz
03 Jul 04,, 17:32
The AIM-120C-5 fired from a supercruising F-22 comes fairly close to the range of the Phoenix.

Of course the USN doesn't have F-22s either...

My first post here so here goes:

The Navy is looking at eventually using the AMRAAM C-8 (AKA AIM-120D) to close the gap created by the lack of the AIM-54C, it's a modified AIM-120C-7 (which has a londer range than the standard C model). A change of motor and propellant is supposedly to extend the range by more than 50% without changing the airframe, the upgrade is to come with the introduction of the Block II E/Fs and would reach IOC in 2006.

Bill
04 Jul 04,, 07:07
That would certainly be excellent news indeed if true.

Hk40
28 Aug 04,, 12:54
It's really a shame to see the Tomcat retiring. It's too bad the production line couldn't have remained open in a limited capacity resulting in newer airframes being allocated to the 'wings'. I think the Super Hornet comes up short as a replacement.

Hk40
28 Aug 04,, 20:48
A Fine Piece of work (The F-14)!

FleetAdmiralJ
30 Aug 04,, 19:30
The Tomcat was one of my favorite aircraft. I will be sad to see her go. :frown:

Mr_Aryan
18 Jan 05,, 12:12
O God no….the F-14 was one of my favourite planes too, reminds me of my ‘Topgun’ schoolboy days lol. Since then whenever I’ve thought of anything American, the picture of an F-14 pops up in my mind. Having served US carriers worldwide – Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Libya, etc., it sure was America’s symbol of supremacy the world over. They should consider inducting them into the USAF instead of getting rid of what is THE finest American fighter. Absolutely ridiculous that the US should be putting their Tomcats to sleep while keeping those ageing single engined peashooter F-16 ‘Fighting Chickens’ alive :mad:

Rhodan
25 Jan 05,, 04:18
O God no….the F-14 was one of my favourite planes too, reminds me of my ‘Topgun’ schoolboy days lol. Since then whenever I’ve thought of anything American, the picture of an F-14 pops up in my mind. Having served US carriers worldwide – Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Libya, etc., it sure was America’s symbol of supremacy the world over. They should consider inducting them into the USAF instead of getting rid of what is THE finest American fighter. Absolutely ridiculous that the US should be putting their Tomcats to sleep while keeping those ageing single engined peashooter F-16 ‘Fighting Chickens’ alive :mad:

You have to remember what the F-14s (and Pheonix's) original mission was - to shoot down soviet bombers over the ocean. That particular delivery platform has gone the way of the Dodo so the F-14 has no role. Sure, it was re-tasked to air-superiority but it has some big drawbacks. First, its fuel hungry and second, it requires two crew. In time of war, aircrew are typically more critical than the planes themselves so one-person aircraft are preferred. The F-16 and FA-18s are less demanding both logistically and personel wise.

Gotta admit though, the F-14 is an awesome looking plane. Those moving wings are cool! I was out with a Carl Vinson battlegroup back in the 80s when they had a dependants cruise and all the ships gave a "firepower" display. A6's dropping bunches of 500lb iron bomb and making huge holes in the ocean, cruisers and destroyers whipping past firing AA shells (air burst), it was all pretty cool. The finale was two tomcats flying supersonic at about 200ft past the ships then going vertical through some clouds with afterburners roaring. When they hit a cloud there was a sudden "mist" around the exhausts that is best described as being like the "turbo boost" of a Battlestar Galactica viper fighter.

My only misgiving was that all shocks from those explosions salted up my evaporators and I had to spend a few hours coercing them back to normal...

But, times change 8(

Bill
26 Jan 05,, 07:30
One person aircraft are not preferred, at least not by the aircrews themselves. 2 seat fighters have huge tactical advantadges over single seaters in WVR engagements.

Also, the F-14D has one of the best loiter times of any modern fighter in the world, and it's still one of the longest legged F- series aircraft the US has ever made.

Rhodan
26 Jan 05,, 08:05
One person aircraft are not preferred, at least not by the aircrews themselves. 2 seat fighters have huge tactical advantadges over single seaters in WVR engagements.

Also, the F-14D has one of the best loiter times of any modern fighter in the world, and it's still one of the longest legged F- series aircraft the US has ever made.

Thats true, modern war plane systems present the pilot with huge amounts of information which can be overwhelming - particularly during a real engagement where the pilot can become target fixated and not pay enough attention to the cockpit. Having a RIO takes a huge load off the pilot.

From a strategic viewpoint though, two aircrew means half as many planes. This is why the F16 keeps getting refitted and the F/A-18 is taking over. The more modern combat and control systems are highly automated, taking a lot of the load off the pilot, letting them concentrate on the target instead of the cockpit. Advanced surface to air missile systems are making long loiter times less crucial and advanced combat systems are making large weapon loadouts less necessary - from a strategic standpoint at least.

My favorite plane of all time is the A10. It irks me that the Apache (and now Comanche) have supplanted the A10 for CAS and tank busting. Sure, I know they can use that longbow mast to fire from (mostly) complete cover and stuff but, you can shoot the hell out of an A10 and not bring it down. Both these helicopters are quite a bit more delicate. Besides, I've yet to see an Apache or Comanche with that cool looking sharksteeth paintjob 8)

troung
01 Feb 05,, 23:19
"You have to remember what the F-14s (and Pheonix's) original mission was - to shoot down soviet bombers over the ocean. That particular delivery platform has gone the way of the Dodo so the F-14 has no role. Sure, it was re-tasked to air-superiority but it has some big drawbacks. First, its fuel hungry and second, it requires two crew. In time of war, aircrew are typically more critical than the planes themselves so one-person aircraft are preferred. The F-16 and FA-18s are less demanding both logistically and personel wise"

It was an air superioty fighter given the role of bomber killer. Two crew are often better then one for long patrols, deep strike and other such demanding work.

The F-14 still has a mission to bad because of corruption they are giving its role to an inferior plane.

Bill
06 Feb 05,, 07:24
The main reason a two man crew is better is because you have four eyes constantly scanning the sky...instead of two.