I personally am not sure. because although they were no longer the hottest thing in the sky they could still be used in the close air support role. Much like the F4U-A1 Corsair after WWII. It was the hottest thing above the pacific when it came out but was no longer useful as a air superiority fighter but could still do the job of close air support and did it well. The F-14 carried a lot more firepower than the F-18 does today (those tomahawks are nasty) but then again they were getting pretty old... It might have cost more money to keep them flying than to simply build more F-18s. The thing is I am against just throwing perfectly good aircraft out but it may very well as have said before, cost more to keep the F-14s in working shape than to just build a new F-18.
What do you think?
Thank you for your time and attention. My regards go out to the United States Navy and all other branches of the service.
Retiring the Tomcat was a good economical choice, it was getting too much to operate. As far as being able to carry more then a F-18, no it could not, it could not carry the variety of weapons the Hornet/Super Hornet can. The Hornets don’t have the long legs like the Tomcat or the radar but times are changing and the need for the Tomcat have been superseded by current events. I would have loved for the Tomcat to stay around but it was getting old and tired and was just costing too much money and man hours to keep up. Rebuilding them and upgrading them would cost a small fortune and the DOD decided that they were going to put their money into cheaper, disposal aircraft.
The chief is right on the beam. The Tomcat was getting very long in the tooth. It was a very good aircraft, still is in some ways, but just like the aircraft it replaced, F-8 and F-4, the time comes when cheaper more capable aircraft come along. Fighters can be vey maintenance intensive even when new. As the bird ages, things start creeping up on you that you may not have to contend with on other aircraft. fighters are flown but agressively as a rule and things, like the airframe are subjected to more severe forces. I was always impressed with them and boy did they make noise on the flight deck. Wow! I remember being a trouble shooter on Prowlers and being used to F-4 launches. That first Tomcat launch was almost a reglious experience!
I think yall are on the right page. The F-14 was returning not because it was a obsolete design but because it was very costly to keep in the air. At least that is the impression I got.
I'm curious about the fare of the AIM-54 Phoenix's. Some manner of test ops I hope... I hate to see good hardware chopped up like so much scrap metal. I worked in radar ops & maintenance at Vandenberg when they would launch Bomarc missles there and the F-14's / Aim-54's would wax 'em at mach 2.5+ , 100Kft+. Man, I really love that **** !
I had talked with friends who had been in other commands with me and had gone to F-14s. The majority were not happy with the decision. I had one friend, an AMH, who just hated the Tomcat wing sweep mechanism and flaps. He said they were constantly giving them trouble. Another friend, an AD, was upset about re-enlisting and going to Tomcats. He told me one day that he regretted leaving A-6s. You really had to be upset to say that! I disliked A-6s with a passion! The Prowler was amuch better aircraft. Mant times I would look at the plexiglass board in flight deck control and see how many F-14s were up and down. I felt that it wasn't encouraging, the numbers of A/C availablity. But I was just a greasy wrench turning mech. I evidently didn't have the whole picture and will admitt so. Better heads than mine!!
The F-14 was always my favorite aircraft as a little kid. I wanted to be a Navy pilot so bad and I always dreamed of piloting one of those things. This video really got my attention I got a tear in my eye at the end.
It certainly was a mistake to retire the F-14 when they did. A new build F-14-D would have been better than any version of the super hornet is many ways. Long leggs being one of them. Not to mention flat out speed, maybe you don't use it much but it is nice to know it is there. It is hard to believe that a whole generation of Navy fighter pilots won't know what it is like to go mach 2!
I do not think it is fare to compare the maintenace rates of a new build super hornet to an old, often upgrades F-14-A/B. It stands to reason that a new build F-14 that could have been built using some to the same features that made the hornet less maintenance intenstive would have ended up better on that scale, maybe not as good but better.
Besides if you have a Corvette you pay a little more to keep it running.
At least until a "Navalized" veersion of the F-22 could have come along. It can be done, remember the F-18 started out life as an Air Force aircraft (YF-17)
As a former Tomcat airframer I can say they were a maintenance intensive aircraft, and I left Tomcats in 1990! I think economically the time was right, but in my heart I will miss them very much. Hornets are a good aircraft, but there was just something about that big @$$ jet that will never be replaced by any other bird. Maybe its the Top Gun starring role. It put the Tomcat in the public eye and whenever anyone thought of Naval aviation they thought of the F-14. Gone but never forgotten.
The F-4 a "built for the Navy" fighter first flew in 1958 only 12 years before the F-14.
I guess it depends on prespective. Compared to the previous 12 years and how many planes the Navy went through or on the other hand the Tomcats true "replacement" vice the one that we have "settled for" has yet to fly and it has been over three times that long.
At least until a "Navalized" veersion of the F-22 could have come along. It can be done, remember the F-18 started out life as an Air Force aircraft (YF-17)
I don't think it could be turned into a aircraft for naval aviaton its design is awesome but some how I think it will stay a land based aircraft.
That's different because in my book on American Carrier Aircraft, Fighters, it says the F-4 Phantom was originally started as an Air Force project and was called the F-110 Specter. When the redesignation of aircraft came along it was renumbered as F-4. Our famous American "Beancounter" MacNamara came along and told the military, that all these developments of separate aircraft used by the military will stop. You will use one type of plane as a fighter, all flying services. That was decided it would be the F-4. When it started development to be Navalized it was nicknamed "Phantom by the prime contractor and the name stuck. Or so says the info in the book.
ALL Never Fear, the LM folks have a DOD fighter in process, The variants of the F35. The LM books say these aircraft will be the DOD salvation for years to come. Now, a disclaimer, as I get my beer money from LM. So, we need to get the latest dope on the many variants coming on board, as the F18 is also getting long in the tooth. More to come. end
Everything I have ever seen/heard/read on the F-4 says this is not the case. This would include the May 2008 issue of "Air&Space Smithsonian" magazine. There is an article entitled "The Phantom at 50" on page 80.
The F-4 did turn out to be an all services fighter but that was never the plan from the start. Some said it was evidence of just how good the F-4 was/is.
Yes it still flies for some countries.
The McNamera one fighter for everyone project was the F-111, there was a Navy test version and it did do some CV landings but it turned out to be to big/heavy, ironically it was not that much bigger than the F-14 turned out to be. Further irony is that Grumman was the prime contractor for the the Navy version and they did incorporate the swing wing idea of the F-111 into the F-14 however they were manually controlled on the f-111.
You need to check again. Yes, the one fighter for everyone was the celebrated TFX, F-111 program, but the Phantom was in on that deal also. I know what that article says, but, I have seen articles like it and they seem to forget or just scratch at the F-110 Sepecter project. Too many times articles are written and leave our or include facts and items at the writer's whim. Ones they think are important or not. The F-4 Phantom/Specter was supposed to be the next generation of fighter to replace the Air Force F-101 Voodoo. which did not fulfill its full requirements. A smaller, faster, more reliable version of the Voodoo was the original plan. It was also a handful to fly. I know there can bwe a difference in articles about military equipment. not too long ago I was discussing the 1860 Colt revolver with someone and he gave me completely different production and procurement figures. Upon checking I found yet another source. A hundred anf fifty year old handgun and a jet fighter, well again, its what the author wants known and its not always everything.
Hey, what the hell, its Friday and a forty+ year old subject we're wrestling on. they got replaced all of them. Let's let it go at that. I'm tired of typing. Let's hoist a cold one instead!
Jpope. I agree. The last I saw of the F4 production line was a Twenty Year production rivet bucker putting the last rivet into the wing section. He transferred to the F 15c line and I suppose is still there. Hoist a cold one indeed. end
