digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at img253.imageshack.us

Fighter-Fashion: F-14D Super Tomcat Shows Off Its "New Tail"

img253.imageshack.us — At the controls of the fearsome U.S. Navy F-14D Super Tomcat fighter, for the air-power demonstration with the USS Constellation (CV 64) battlegroup on 10 July 1999, are U.S. Navy Pilot Lieutenant Commander David Burnham and U.S. Navy Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) Lieutenant Commander Bruce Defibaugh. Photographer: U.S. Navy Ensign John Gay.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • vroom101, on 05/14/2008, -3/+14Big: http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2004081 ...
    Biggger: http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2004081 ...
    via photo 10 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20040818.htm
    • OMnicient, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7Odd Stuff, or OLD Stuff?
      Does the US govt. still fly this plane, or is Iran the last place flying these?
      • NorthKorea, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2right - there's definitely nothing "new" about this
      • unreg, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Top Stuff

        And yes, the Iranians are the only ones left puttering around in these.
      • worldchanger, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2they definitely retired the F-14 last year.
    • fadetoone, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6Congratulations, this was news when I was still in high school. I could be a doctor by now.
      • NorthKorea, on 05/14/2008, -2/+5but you're not, are you? ur just a digg loser! now your loser friends are going to bury me!
        • michaelb323, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3You coulda made something of your life but no, you're just a delivery boy.
  • vroom101, on 05/14/2008, -6/+22#1. Via "GlobalSecurity.org: F-14 Tomcat Combat" at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air ... (www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-combat.htm)

    In 1985, F-14s were called upon in response to the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise liner. Arab terrorists had found and struck an Italian luxury liner, Achille Lauro. The ship had just departed Alexandria, Egypt, on a pleasure cruise of the Mediterranean. A few hours later, terrorists from the Palestinian Liberation Front hijacked the ship. After tense negotiations and the killing of an American tourist, the hijackers traveled in a battered tugboat to the city of Port Said, Egypt, after Achille Lauro anchored just off the coast. Egyptian authorities made hasty arrangements for the terrorists to depart the country. They boarded an Egypt Air 737 jumbojet at the Al Maza Air Base, northeast of Cairo.

    On orders from President Ronald Reagan, on 10 October 1985 seven F-14 Tomcats from the VF-74 "Bedevilers" and VF-103 "Sluggers" were launched from Saratoga. Supporting the Tomcats continuously were VA-85 KA-6D air tankers and VAW-125 E-2C Hawkeye aircraft. Off the coast of Crete, the F-14s, without the use of running lights, eased up beside and behind the airliner. On command, the Tomcats turned on their lights and dipped their wings -- an international signal for a forced landing. The E-2C Hawkeye radioed the airliner to follow the F-14s. Realizing they were in a "no-win" situation, the hijackers allowed the pilot to follow the Tomcats to Naval Air Station, Sigonella, Italy. One hour and 15 minutes later, the jumbo jet landed and the hijackers were taken into custody. Seven hours after the fighter jets were scrambled, all Saratoga aircraft returned home without a shot fired.

    #2. How did the U.S. Navy find the Egypt Air 737 airliner? Read the chapter "You Can Run But You Can't Hide" in the book "The Achille Lauro Hijacking: Lessons in the Politics and Prejudice of Terrorism" by Michael K. Bohn -- start at page 23: http://books.google.com/books?id=vbX2tuKIkYcC (books.google.com/books?id=vbX2tuKIkYcC).
    • ISEEDEADPEOPLE, on 05/14/2008, -2/+9Dude talk about Hijack your own thread!
      • RealmDown, on 05/14/2008, -0/+9That's not a hijack, that's a self-jack.
    • colin8651, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Weren’t they release a short while later because the Italians thought their group would retaliate against them? I could be getting my hostage situations mixed up.
    • RationalXubrnce, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2 Richard Marcinko said that SEAL Team 6 followed the hijackers to Italy and there were some tense moments between them and the Italian Special Forces on the tarmac. you can read about it in Rogue Warrior.
      • colin8651, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I think I remember also reading it in Shadow Warriors by Clancy.
  • tchynerd, on 05/14/2008, -9/+4Kind of reminds me of a betta fish :)
  • TheVirus, on 05/14/2008, -11/+7Supersonic. Electronic.
    • racerx8413, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2I want to be your spaced invader
    • Harbinger67, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Above us, there is nothing, but the stars, above.
  • noahhoward, on 05/14/2008, -2/+22Nothing else comes close. Really wish they would have built a modernised version instead of sticking the F-18 in.
    • PJ1967, on 05/14/2008, -1/+8Could you imagine an F-14 completely re-designed with the latest avionics, stealth materials, vectored thrust, etc? Imagine a black F-14 bearing down on you...it would be mean as *****!
      • Alreadyinuse99, on 05/14/2008, -0/+8That's called the F-22
        • noahhoward, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2No it's not, close, but not quite.
          • Alreadyinuse99, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Well, not quite. But since the F-22 is the first gen 5 fighter and it indeed has the latest avionics, is very stealthy, has vectored thrust, and is set to replace most if not all of the current gen 4 fighters it's essentially the same thing. Of course you could say it is a new version of the F-15, F-16, F-19 etc. since it has taken all of the best aspects of these and updated them and rolled them into one "super jet"
      • jwoelmer2, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3***** is mean? I always thought it was a bit passive coming out of my ass...
        • longbow486, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2not after i eat some chili, damn its mean then
        • Spuy767, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Some sage-like advice: That genre of joke is NEVER funny.
    • mijelh, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3The f-18 can do the same trick! http://www.sonicbooms.org/images/imagesf18.gif
      • noahhoward, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Yes, yes it can, and of course that was the only thing I thought that separated the two planes.
    • Spuy767, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7The F14 was a monster. It was a huge aircraft, and the VSW system was expensive to maintain, but it will always hold a special spot in my heart.
      • unreg, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Cue Top Gun theme song.........fade to shot of Maverick.
    • vroom101, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1HUGE, Graceful, Deadly, and Beautiful: http://www.flyandfight.com/images/f14flyby.jpg
      via http://digg.com/politics/ALL_RISE_His_Awesomeness_ ... (digg.com/politics/ALL_RISE_His_Awesomeness_F_14_Tomcat_Flies_By_ALL_RISE)
    • DrDragun, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6With all of the electronic networking technology, I think we have seen the end of the "big fighter" design. The tomcat suffered from being a bigger target, but had the advantage of a huge weapons payload and division of labor in the cockpit with a crew of 2.

      With modern electronics, both of these advantages disappear. With modern electronics, you can have a "mission control" crew assisting the pilot remotely from a nearby base or ship. Also, with respect to weapons payload, modern missiles can be "networked" so that the forward jets act as sort of an "artillery spotter" and target designator while you have a heavy duty "mule" aircraft with a huge weapons payload lobbing missiles from a greater distance. The missiles then connect+communicate with the radar target designations of the forward interceptor jets.

      The last advantage of the "big fighter" design was range and huge fuel capacity. The "supercruise" ability of 5th-generation fighters such as the F22 raptor essentially eliminate this advantage as well.

      So basically, I think fighter design will continue to trend towars small+difficult to hit, highly maneuverable and stealth. I believe that the F22 Raptor has a theoretical 10:1 kill ratio against MiG-29 and F14 designs, and around a 3:1 thoeretical kill ratio against modern 4.5 gen fighters like the Euro Typhoon or Super Hornet.

      RIP Tomcat, you were awesome in your day.
      • DrDragun, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Oops, one typo. In that study, the Super Hornet was near 30:1 against the F22, not 3:1. So super hornet rated much worse that F14 or MiG29. Eurofighter Typhoon rated better than F14 or MiG29 significantly though.
      • unreg, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Big Jet. Is that a new aerospace term?

        The Guy in the Back will never be replaced by some geek sitting thousands of miles away. When it comes to situational awareness, 4 eyes are better than 2.

        How's "that"?


      • Euph0rik, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2Wow. And all these modern electronics are developed and deployed with the single intent of KILLING HUMAN BEINGS. Think if we were to develop and deploy equal efforts and economies into technology that HELPS human beings. Wouldn't that be keen? $450B towards education, health, alt. energy - this amount could possibly have a Positive impact, as opposed to a Negative one (read: death & destruction).
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_th ...
    • Blitzenn, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3It's is out there and is called an F-22. Two big integrations in the new platform are sensor consolidations (One device denotes information from multiple sensors) and a new version of 'stealth' where the tact is no longer absorbtion but what is called 'lensing' away of the detection beams. Some argue this is not an extension of the F-18. They are stupid (idiot/moron etc, take your pick). That suggests that everything was thrown away and started from scratch. That is not the case.
      • unreg, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Could you restate that in something a little more comprehension?
  • MMaster23, on 05/14/2008, -13/+11Hmm .. why is this on Digg front page? It really is a slow day .. hopefully the GTA4 ZP will brighten up the day...
    • slundal, on 05/14/2008, -9/+9Hmm .. why is it that some ass hat is always asking the same ***** stupid pussy question every ***** stupid pussy time some article appears on digg that they don't consider "worthy" off digg or something. I'll give you an answer: BECAUSE YOUR MOM SMELLS BAD AND IS SLEEPING WITH THE MAILMAN!
  • tgarza17, on 05/14/2008, -1/+22I feel the need...
    • blueomega137, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I went through the danger zone?
    • orangefly, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1speed causes scientology....???....
    • GiJoeBob, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3There's a big reason "Goose" sat in the back if you know what I mean.
      • blueomega137, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Because Maverick gets motion sickness I do hope.
    • zadadka, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1...the need for amphetamines...
  • asusavp3, on 05/14/2008, -3/+11its a shame that they decommissioned it, just like the SR-71 Blackbird. Just because they were too expensive to maintain, really holds a soft spot in many hearts
    • Profiler38, on 05/14/2008, -3/+15SR-71 blackbird was a beast of an aircraft but thanks to satellites spy planes kind of came irrelevant.
      • BelatedHero, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Strangely enough they still use the U-2.
      • mijelh, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Satellites cannot provide the same resolution as spy planes. That's why the US maintains it's fleet of U-2. They will be replaced one day, but not by satellites, but by UAV's like Global Hawk.
      • chevyorange, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure an aircraft that can fly anywhere in the world in 8 hours and get the intel you need isn't irrelevant. I know satellites are getting better and better but one of the reasons the '71 was brought back after its first decommission is because satellites can't always be re-tasked anywhere, anytime.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/14/2008, -2/+9SR-71 was fueled on the runway, with fuel leaking everywhere. When it got into the air the heat would expand the fuel tanks stopping the leakage, but it would then need in-air refueling. This was always the case, since this is how the aircraft worked.

      The entire purpose was to fly high and fast, snapping pictures of foreign territory. Things that satellites do far better, making it completely and utterly obsolete.
      • BelatedHero, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2It's something else to see one up close. If you take the tour to the Presidential/Experimental hangar on the base at Wright-Pat you can walk around one with no restrictions. Definitely worth checking out if you ever visit the Air Force Museum there in Dayton, OH.
      • unreg, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Satellites have a predictable orbital timetable. Aircraft can come and go at their leisure and loiter for hours.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Satellites can stay undetected in the war theatre for many hours. An aircraft which is manned runs the risk of being shot down, operates for a much shorter time frame, and uses more fuel.
    • lycurgus30, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0We wouldn't have decommisssioned it if we didn't have something better in service to take its place. These were seriously range-limited. They were fast, but expensive and not the ideal tool for the job. The Super Hornet is a worthy successor. There is a successor to the SR-71 -- we just don't know about it, and it's not a satellite.
  • maldovix, on 05/14/2008, -8/+5how is this new? show me the new F22 doing it!
  • LeRenard, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7Such an amazing machine with its ability to carry the Phoenix and AMRAAM weapons packages on top of various combinations of Sidewinders, Sparrows, HARMs, etc. and still be fast enough to intercept and agile enough to dog fight.
  • OriginalLucid1, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Tomcats baby!
  • AttackGypsy, on 05/14/2008, -11/+2Dugg down for being old. The Tomcat went out of service last year. Although it was one of the best combat planes ever made.
    • mijelh, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2They are still in service in Iran. those from the US navy where retired from service two years ago (september 2006)
  • kowalzki, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5older than mankind
  • nightsky07, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4When I heard that the Navy was retiring the Tomcats, I was shocked. I could not believe the Navy would give up use of the most versatile fighter jet for the "Landdart" jet fighter (aka F-18). The F-14 Tomcat not only can do everything with style; it also looks good doing it. When I was in the Navy (aviation side), everyone had pride in the Tomcat.
    • Shrooms27, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2unfortunatly...the F-18 is easier and cheaper to fix...
      Of course a redesign could fix all that, it is after all a badass bird
      • sharkd, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3The "redesign" already happened. It's called the Super Hornet, and it's the biggest waste of money since the original Hornet.

        They fixed the short range by giving it bigger wings, but that slowed the plane down, so they gave it bigger engines which necessitated a new inlet design and new fuselage , all of which reduced range to nearly that of the A/B/C/D models. The F/A-18E/F has about 15% commonality with the A/B/C/D, when the program was pitched as providing 85% commonality.

        Compared with the F-14D, the new-build program which was cancelled (by Dick Cheney) in favor of what became the E/F Hornet, the Rhino costs 2-3 times as much, has half the unrefueled range, 80% bring-back load, 40% of loiter time, worse low-speed handling, lacks an organic real-time recon capability and the added bonus of a potentially fatal aerodynamic fault, which was solved by ordering pilots to avoid certain combat maneuvers.

        Oh, and it can't engage cruise missiles or bombers at standoff ranges, which was the primary role for the Tomcat. But then again, it's not like the Russians are aggressively posturing or flying Bears off our coastlines or over our carrier groups, these days.... oh, that's right, they are.
  • custerfluck, on 05/14/2008, -7/+2John Gay? [insert Gays in the Military Joke]
  • KhanneaNL, on 05/14/2008, -10/+4That showing off of the whole tail business could have powered 15 family average cars to and from work for a month.
  • zantos420, on 05/14/2008, -10/+4that's it? a picture of a plane breaking the sound barrier? there is no way in hell i am digging this
    • mattcurrie, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7thanks for your input
    • mijelh, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3It's not breaking the sound barrier, or at least there's no reason to think so. Flying with relatively high humidity can cause this effect well before sound barrier, especially when making hard maneuvers. Just look at this picture of a b2 (which have a maximum speed of 760 Km/h): http://rides.webshots.com/photo/106480170003020631 ...
  • emptyo, on 05/14/2008, -1/+34Amerrrrrrica....***** yea!
  • Poltron, on 05/14/2008, -0/+21if we were pilots, we would get all the bitches.
  • RaDeus, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1think thats called a "sonic-afro"
  • vroom101, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4The photographer, U.S. Navy Ensign John Gay, won the World Press Photo 2000 contest with the beautiful and now-famous photo: http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=1445

    Award info via http://wilk4.com/misc/soundbreak.htm
    • slashbot, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah I knew I saw a similar photo like that before. I've seen it on many posters.

      Oh well, this is still a nice picture of the F-14
  • BelatedHero, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Just as cool (and not a rick roll): http://youtube.com/watch?v=uQ2pkmISOLM
  • cslawren, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6Negative ghost rider, the pattern is full.
    • motivatedguy, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz the tower...
  • aajjcckk, on 05/14/2008, -6/+11As a British person, may I put these words into the mouths of any Americans viewing this picture:

    "AMERICA......***** YEAH!"

    Note to Americans: Respect to your military superiority, but with power, comes responsibility. While genuine self defence is all fine and dandy we do wish you'd stop beating middle eastern and third world countries over the head with your military hardware for geopolitical control, and access to oil.

    Your servicemen and women may largely be good and brave, but your politicians who control them are largely f**king c**ts.

    Cheers
    • JaNkz, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6It's just a picture of an airplane man. Do you really have to seize every opportunity you can possibly find to express your political and world opinions? Seriously no offense at all I have much respect for Great Britain, as they are one of our strongest allies. But I mean c'mon...
    • normalkid0615, on 05/14/2008, -7/+6as a USA citizen, I could not agree more. We have George Bush (who has NEVER seen war or ever had to wipe his own ass) controlling the worlds largest infantry. Look at how many Humvees are around the world. I hate the US.
      • buba1243, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3umm pretty sure china has the worlds largest infantry, and air force. We happen to make up for that with much better infantry and air force.
        • unreg, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1The Russians tried that whole quantity over quality tactic.
      • akamurph, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2normal kiddie - I'm sure you're not old enough to move out of your parent's house yet, but when you are that is the best part about your country, you can leave whenever you want!
    • Alreadyinuse99, on 05/14/2008, -5/+4We'll keep that in mind when the mullah's are forcing you and all other Limey's to kneel towards meccah for morning prayers.
    • Shrooms27, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4As an American I can easily agree with your ummm lets call it a speil. In terms of kickassery we rock, but politically well its like watching a bunch of monkeys throw ***** at each other.
    • magiclava, on 05/14/2008, -1/+9As a British person, be mindful of our own history before you start attacking another country. If its from the perspective of "we went through the same thing and regret our actions. Please don't make the same mistakes we did", then ok, but if you are trying to be morally superior, then please read a history book.
      • aajjcckk, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Totally fair point. It was said independently of British history - a comparison was not part of my argument. But sure, as a totally separate issue, I agree the UK has done plenty wrong in the past, no probs. So do other countries. But let that not distract you from what I said above, which still holds.
    • jiquester, on 05/14/2008, -5/+1As a USA citizen I could give half a ***** about the opinion of any Brit...now go bugger your mate.
    • supaklaw, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Duly noted. Oh wait, weren't the Brits involved with invading and occupying Iraq? Yes, yes they were. And numerous other nations in the past. Hypocrisy is fun isn't it?
  • Technoidatx, on 05/14/2008, -1/+0uhm ok weeeeeeeeeeee
  • chicofaraby, on 05/14/2008, -10/+3Oh goody, more right wing masturbation over pointless military waste.
    • Alreadyinuse99, on 05/14/2008, -3/+6Pointless? Really? Are you really that stupid?
      • chicofaraby, on 05/14/2008, -4/+3Yes. I really am so stupid that I think spending more than the rest of world combined on military crap that does nothing to help the nation is pointless. Silly me.
        • Alreadyinuse99, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0OK, as long as you acnowledge your stupidity then I guess it's OK.
    • elipabst, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3You must be awesome at parties.
  • normalkid0615, on 05/14/2008, -5/+2Masturbation lol
  • trconk, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5Cool, I was on the Saratoga assigned to VAW-125 as a Aviation Electronics Technician. We did more than Just catch Hijackers, we also screwed with Qaddafi's "Line of Death". Many fond memories of that 8 month cruise.

    Thanks, for the post.
    Tom
  • serif69, on 05/14/2008, -0/+9You never close your eyes anymore when I kiss your lips...
  • werkkrew, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Im just gonna search the web all day for photos of random ***** and post it here, at least 3 or 4 should make the frontpage each day. What a worthless post.
    • thedragon4453, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Digg just added this new feature: Bury. Try it some time.
  • Dan11023, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7glad to see my tax $ is going towards something COOL
    • Railz, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3A lot of what the military creates is cool. What isn't cool is how the people in charge use it.
      • supaklaw, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Agreed. I think every American deserves one free jet ride per lifetime of tax service.
    • izackcarson, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I'd rather see my money go towards fixing a bridge or funding better schools.
      • Dan11023, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1bridge?!?! why?????? to make more tolls?
        Schools are a waste of time

        are you a communist?
  • Gudath, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6The plane is not necessarily breaking the sound barrier. There are many pictures on the internet showing the vapor cone that forms when a plane flies through humid air at high speed. This effect is called the Prandtl-Glauert singularity. The Wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl-Glauert_Singu ...
  • quarby, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2just what we need!
  • AFJon, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Its condensation due to the pressure drop over the aerodynamic surfaces, not a sonic boom
  • kjdubuque, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2really old...
  • kidsix, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2buried 'cause the prandtl-glauert condensation cloud on an f-14 is about as fresh as the hampster dance.
  • kidathinnes, on 05/14/2008, -1/+0lame! shame on you who dugg this.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.