Why no more Tomcats?

[+Typhoid]

Read the chapter called 'The Acid Test' in 'Tomcat! The Grumman F-14 Story' by RADM Paul Gillcrist. I'll try to post some details later.

 

thanks but, I read the detailed tactics manuals and after-action reports from the Navy Fighter Weapons School. I'll stick with that.

[MAKO69]

We are beating a dead horse again it comes down to the ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR, Time is money. Same stuff when the F-18A,C replaced the A-4,A-6, A-7, F-4, soon the best plane eva the EA-6, and the list just gets longer. Tomcat had average 14 man-hours maint. for 1 hour flight time compared to average of 4 man-hours maint. 1 hour flight time on superbug. Do the math it makes sense the F-18 family may not be the "BEST" Interceptor, the "BEST" Dogfighter, the "BEST" Air to ground strike plane, but w/training it does all of the above extremely reliable and well. With all the modern asistance from intel satilites, AWACS, and AEGIS The F-18 Family is very well supported which is probably some of the best on the "GOOD" guys side. I would put my faith in her and her Amazonian big sisters (superbugs) to do the job. And a small reminder the F-18 SuperHornet is a stop gap which is taking on many jobs. Just to list 2 the retired Tomcat's and the failed A-12's till the Navy's JSF comes online ........someday.

 

Later be safe

Edited August 26, 2008 by MAKO69

[JediMaster]

The JSF won't replace the Super Bug though. Not really. It will replace all the old Hornets still around and may eventually replace the E model, but seeing as there no 2-seat JSFs planned the F will never be replaced. I think it will soldier on for a long time to come like the Tomcat before it did.

[rovert97]

tomcats cost too much to maintain, therefore they were retired... just like the F-117's. too much time spent on maintaining them, as compared to flying them. its a shame that they retired the 117's, they have only been around a relatively short time.

[MAKO69]

The mid to late 70's right thats about 25-30 years thats pretty long for 1st gen stealth

tomcats cost too much to maintain, therefore they were retired... just like the F-117's. too much time spent on maintaining them, as compared to flying them. its a shame that they retired the 117's, they have only been around a relatively short time.

[FastCargo]

Mabey someone should design a Ficticious F-14E variant with 1-2 seats, glass cockpit, HUD/HMD single piece canopy and all that other good stuff.

 

Like this?

 

 

FastCargo

[commander]

Like this?

 

 

FastCargo

Hell yeah

just instead a one-piece canopy, like the raptor's, and 3d TVC. what could be considered is a blended intake/wing to cut down on radar sig.

But, whatever, amazing pic.

[+JSF_Aggie]

but seeing as there no 2-seat JSFs planned

 

There is some talk of one. We're going to start some simulation studies before the year is over.

[Talos]

If we were to "rebuild the tomcat" using modern technology but with a mostly similar design, it would be cheaper, easier to maintain, lighter, faster, stronger, and more survivable. Mabey someone should design a Ficticious F-14E variant with 1-2 seats, glass cockpit, HUD/HMD single piece canopy and all that other good stuff.

 

How about something like these:

 

F-14E

 

F-14F

 

EF-14G

Edited August 1, 2008 by Talos

[gbnavy61]

Speaking of more Tomcats, anyone heard any word on the MF F-14B?

[column5]

Speaking of more Tomcats, anyone heard any word on the MF F-14B?

 

It'll be a winter release most likely. Going to take a bit of time to get the cockpit ready.

[Silverbolt]

It'll be a winter release most likely. Going to take a bit of time to get the cockpit ready.

 

wow

 

new cockpit?

cool

[column5]

wow

 

new cockpit?

cool

 

 

High Definition

[turkeydriver]

Nice Macross cross breed Talos. The AST-21 program was already on the way to making the tomcat an incredible machine. Grumman also had ideas about an F-14 jammer-with no pods on the wings but carried ventrally in a big belly pack. The navy has already submitted its requirements for a SUperbug replacement at around 2015-2020 and Boeing is putting designs together.

 

Man we need a tomcat-centered sim. Too bad it aint gonna happen. Thanks Iran and superuptight security measures.

[JediMaster]

There is some talk of one. We're going to start some simulation studies before the year is over.

 

Well, the F-22B was planned from the start but they killed that so I'm not optimistic.

Frankly I could see a 2-seat version of the A and C F-35, but I think the B is out. I just can't picture any way to put a 2nd seat and keep it STOVL without a radical redesign of a large part of the fuselage.

[MAKO69]

why would you need a a backseater the tomcat had a backseater to operate the complex radar and weapon systems all that stuff have been simplified.

[DWCAce]

why would you need a a backseater the tomcat had a backseater to operate the complex radar and weapon systems all that stuff have been simplified.

 

 

Four eyes are better that two! Give each crew member a JHMCS, and the combat capability for both A/G & A/A goes up tremendously. Plus, it's nice to have some backup in an emergency.

[MAKO69]

in times of cost cutting the backseater is going away. With element of surprise of stealth even more so.

[DWCAce]

If anything, I'd say that the SH is bringing back the backseater back. The F & G versions both carry them. On the Growler it's a necessity.

[MAKO69]

The prowler had 4 of us the growler has 2 times, change makes people go away. money money money the allmighty dollar do more for less, planes and men.

Edited August 8, 2008 by MAKO69

[kct]

Even if it is all about the dollar, it is not the king most of the time. If that is the case then we would be fighting entire wars with UAVs and stuff now.

[JediMaster]

It's not "money", it's cost effectiveness. Right now, UAVs can't do all the jobs. The upcoming wave of true UCAVs might be able to, though.

[+Typhoid]

It's not "money", it's cost effectiveness. Right now, UAVs can't do all the jobs. The upcoming wave of true UCAVs might be able to, though.

 

I seem to be one of the few voices in the wilderness on the UCAV's who think that will never happen. UCAV's can do a lot and the ability to put something on station that is not limited by crew endurance has a lot of benefits.

 

the downside is the command and control of the UCAV, in particular the control link for the pilot flying it. That is pretty important and the achilles heel of UAS. See and Avoid is another key part.

 

The UCAV's can take a load off of manned aircraft, but will never replace them entirely.

[FastCargo]

The downside is the command and control of the UCAV, in particular the control link for the pilot flying it. That is pretty important and the achilles heel of UAS. See and Avoid is another key part.

 

Yeah, what he said. A good friend of mine is the squadron commander for one of the Global Hawk units. There are some significant limitations in the UAS system from what he was telling me...so I can't see UCAVs ruling the skies anytime in the near future.

 

Or does ANYONE like the idea of a totally autonomous armed air vehicle...

 

FastCargo

[+Typhoid]

Yeah, what he said. A good friend of mine is the squadron commander for one of the Global Hawk units. There are some significant limitations in the UAS system from what he was telling me...so I can't see UCAVs ruling the skies anytime in the near future.

 

Or does ANYONE like the idea of a totally autonomous armed air vehicle...

 

FastCargo

 

just to add to that a little bit,

 

one of my tasks is working the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) of the US and Canada.

 

See and avoid is a BIG problem!!

 

one that does not appear to be solveable in the near term (although we have been looking at some interesting technologies)

 

the control and responsiveness of the different UAS is also problematic. Taking the 737 sized Global Hawk as an example; (FC - let me know if I goon this one) the GH responds to commands in a way that the FAA does not particularly like. Most airplanes and even UAS, when the controller says to do something, the pilot reacts and the device responds. If voice contact is lost - the pilot will proceed to the limits of his last clearance. Most UAS with a loss of radio command link will continue to the last inputed command or in the absense of one stay straight and level (the latter part which the FAA does not care for either but can understand and comprehend). The GH has to have the operator type in the command and if it looses the command link will return to its previous command. That has resulted in at least one flight violation and a temporary grounding by the FAA of GH ops within the NAS.

 

so this stuff still has a loooooooooooonng way to go.

 

just imagine the thrill of boarding your 7XX7 Fantasy Liner someday with R2D2 and C3PO up front.............

 

Edited August 8, 2008 by Typhoid