usatoday.com— Today the Navy holsters the F-14 Tomcat, the top gun in its Cold War arsenal and one of the most recognizable warplanes in history.
Sep 22, 2006View in Crawl 4
Some Corrections to above:F-14: $38 millionF/A-18: $57 million-dollars not adjusted for inflation... 14A/B were purchased in the 70's, 18A/C's in the 80's (not at that price) and the 18F "super" hornet in the mid 90's.-F/A-18: McDonnell DouglasActually Boeing now.F-14: Air-to-air missiles, conventional bombs, 20 mm cannonF/A-18: Air-to-air missiles, nuclear or conventional bombs, 20 mm cannon-um, the 14 doesn't carry bombs, only the modified D version does, and it's not exactley the best platform for air to ground.the 18 is a dual role fighter through and through, and can also carry guided air to ground weapons. I've never heard of nuclear ordinace being carried on a hornet before, but perhaps the F has this capability.
Nothing says a fighter like a Tomcat. The Russians were just in awe of this fighter. You just look at it and know you it's a fighter, something you don't want to mess with.Only a few other fighters in history, like the Spitfire or Mustang, could make your enemies get that sinking feeling in their gut when they were facing a flight of F-14s heading their way. I read this and felt like when you lose a friend.
They aren't being replaced by the F/A-22. The F/A-22 is the Raptor, a would-be Air Force jet. However, it's faced a rough history by being over budget in its development stages.The Tomcat isn't being replaced, so much as it is being phased out. Its original mission no longer exists. Over the years, it has gone through several upgrades in order to maintain mission effectiveness. The SuperHornet is the Pentagon's idea of what the Navy's transition aircraft should be while waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter.
I could br wrong but I thought the variable swept wing on the F-14 enabled it to have relatively good low speed handling capability specifically so it could fight with subsonic aircraft.@chatwithaninja, the Cobra Rattler was a different plane with the same airframe, specifically the weapons systems on the rattler were non-lethal laser cannons with exceptionally poor accuracy :)
"Also as someone said, the F-14 had terrible air to ground capability for precision strikes."That wouldn't be surprising, considering it was never designed for that. It got ground-strike capability as an end-of-life upgrade, just to give the planes something to do.The F-14 never really did see much action in air to air combat for which it was designed for, except perhaps in the Iranian air force during the Iran-Iraq war. It did ok there, but took quite a few losses. The Iranians didn't have the use of any Phoenix missiles, which would have greatly improved its chances.
run4yourlivesSep 22, 2006
Some Corrections to above:F-14: $38 millionF/A-18: $57 million-dollars not adjusted for inflation... 14A/B were purchased in the 70's, 18A/C's in the 80's (not at that price) and the 18F "super" hornet in the mid 90's.-F/A-18: McDonnell DouglasActually Boeing now.F-14: Air-to-air missiles, conventional bombs, 20 mm cannonF/A-18: Air-to-air missiles, nuclear or conventional bombs, 20 mm cannon-um, the 14 doesn't carry bombs, only the modified D version does, and it's not exactley the best platform for air to ground.the 18 is a dual role fighter through and through, and can also carry guided air to ground weapons. I've never heard of nuclear ordinace being carried on a hornet before, but perhaps the F has this capability.
sandrat44Sep 22, 2006
Nothing says a fighter like a Tomcat. The Russians were just in awe of this fighter. You just look at it and know you it's a fighter, something you don't want to mess with.Only a few other fighters in history, like the Spitfire or Mustang, could make your enemies get that sinking feeling in their gut when they were facing a flight of F-14s heading their way. I read this and felt like when you lose a friend.
badsenorronSep 22, 2006
They aren't being replaced by the F/A-22. The F/A-22 is the Raptor, a would-be Air Force jet. However, it's faced a rough history by being over budget in its development stages.The Tomcat isn't being replaced, so much as it is being phased out. Its original mission no longer exists. Over the years, it has gone through several upgrades in order to maintain mission effectiveness. The SuperHornet is the Pentagon's idea of what the Navy's transition aircraft should be while waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter.
pavelftSep 22, 2006
end of an era, good bye to the most beautiful plane i ever saw and the reason i want to earn my pilot's cert
raitchisonSep 22, 2006
I could br wrong but I thought the variable swept wing on the F-14 enabled it to have relatively good low speed handling capability specifically so it could fight with subsonic aircraft.@chatwithaninja, the Cobra Rattler was a different plane with the same airframe, specifically the weapons systems on the rattler were non-lethal laser cannons with exceptionally poor accuracy :)
yakoffSep 23, 2006
This was the best group of comments I have ever seen on Digg. Thank you.
retardotronSep 23, 2006
Thanks to PRB... you took the words right out of my brain. As the man would say, the F-14 is a gold-plated piece of s**t.
obkenobiSep 23, 2006
Here's what the F-14 could have become, a sort of F-14, F-22 hybrid.<a class="user" href="http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0132.shtml">http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0132.shtml</a>
obkenobiSep 23, 2006
"Also as someone said, the F-14 had terrible air to ground capability for precision strikes."That wouldn't be surprising, considering it was never designed for that. It got ground-strike capability as an end-of-life upgrade, just to give the planes something to do.The F-14 never really did see much action in air to air combat for which it was designed for, except perhaps in the Iranian air force during the Iran-Iraq war. It did ok there, but took quite a few losses. The Iranians didn't have the use of any Phoenix missiles, which would have greatly improved its chances.