digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Navy retires F-14, the coolest of cold warriors

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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cma3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14FTA:

    F-14 VERSUS F/A-18

    COST:
    F-14: $38 million
    F/A-18: $57 million

    TOP SPEED:
    F-14: 1,320 mph
    F/A-18: 1,188 mph

    BUILDER:
    F-14: Northrop Grumman
    F/A-18: McDonnell Douglas

    RANGE:
    F-14: 1,840 miles
    F/A-18: 1,466 miles

    FIRST FLIGHT:
    F-14: December 1970
    F/A-18: November 1995

    TOTAL ARMAMENT:
    F-14: 13,000 pounds
    F/A-18: 17,750 pounds

    TYPE OF ARMS:
    F-14: Air-to-air missiles, conventional bombs, 20 mm cannon
    F/A-18: Air-to-air missiles, nuclear or conventional bombs, 20 mm cannon


    Amazing.
    • zwolfe12, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"FIRST FLIGHT:
      F-14: December 1970
      F/A-18: November 1995"

      Correction (source Wikipedia)
      F/A-18 Hornets (A and B variants) were first test-flown in 1978, and entered service in 1983, replacing the F-4 Phantom II and the A-7 Corsair II. The F/A-18 first saw combat action in 1986, when Hornets from the USS Coral Sea (CV-43) flew SEAD missions against Libyan air defenses during the attack on Benghazi.

    • zwolfe12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I remember being at El Toro Marine Air Base in California in 1985 or 1986 the day they flew in the first F/A-18s. It was awesome.
    • beorhthelm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6correction correction: they are refering to the currently in service F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
    • Ryetronics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article may have been referring to the Super Hornet's first flight being in '95, though I'm not certain.

      EDIT: Well there ya go, beorhthelm. : )
    • danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In many aspects the F-14 is a superior plane to the F-18, but the reason it is being retired is the thing is very costly and expensive to maintain. So even though it is almost $20 million cheaper to start with you make up the difference quickly.
    • Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sooo, does this mean we can buy one now? I really hate the San Diego traffic and Miramar is like a minute away from me.
    • Run4yourlives, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Some Corrections to above:

      F-14: $38 million
      F/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 Douglas

      Actually Boeing now.

      F-14: Air-to-air missiles, conventional bombs, 20 mm cannon
      F/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.
    • e2superman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The F-14 had a VERY HIGH cost for maintenance. The F/A18 series planes are designed to cost less over time. Far less. Also as someone said, the F-14 had terrible air to ground capability for precision strikes. They had a limited number of planes with lantirn pods however that tech is already outdated.
    • BadSenorRon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Run4YourLives

      All F-14's are capable of delivering air-to-ground ordnance. Dumb bombs and laser guided smart bombs alike with an attached LANTIRN pod. In its later years, the F-14B was upgraded to a "B+" with a package that included digital flight controls, upgraded avionics (although still retaining the A/B radar package,) and GPS navigation.

      Sorry, I had to join the site just to correct you.

      The F-14 B/B+/D is still capable of out performing the "Super"hornet any day of the week. I highly doubt those payload numbers. The F-14, when fully loaded out, was the heaviest aircraft on the deck, even heavier than a loaded C-2 (COD.) I know for sure the Tomcat has a longer range, more fuel capacity, and greater speed than the Hornet. When it all boils down, it's a pure budgeting issue. The Tomcat required more man-hours of labor to maintain it in a flight ready status.

      When I read of the Tomcat's imminent demise earlier this year, I shed many tears. These aircraft left me breathless after being around them for four years, and still do. I was selected as a potential Naval Aviator candidate in the spring, only to turn it down because I knew I would never be able to climb in the cockpit of a 'Cat again.

      Anytime, Baby.
    • bri638, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1actually many might not know the Navy has previously replaced some of the older F14s with F16s

      http://www.f-16.net/f-16_serials_airforce-USNAVY.html
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's what the F-14 could have become, a sort of F-14, F-22 hybrid.

      http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0132.shtml
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"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.
  • eddieo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This weekend is the official last flight.
    http://digg.com/search?s=f-14+farewell
  • DiggItJim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2One of the greatest fighter jets in military history! Saddened to see the end of her era, but just as excited knowing what the future of combat aircraft hold.
  • Nintendumb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3One of the most iconic military jets...they will be missed.
  • Li0nel1234, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I go to the US Air Force Academy and I remember when I was little and the first VHS tape my parents broght home was Top Gun. Since watching that movie I've always known that I wanted to fly and I'm sure that it was because of how cool those F-14's were. Although I knew that being in the Air Force I'd never fly an F-14, it makes me sad to see them go.
    • danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Interesting side note the Iranian Air-Force purchased like 80 of these just before the Islamic Revolution.
    • shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@daniel

      don't forget the US continued to sell weaponry to Iran AFTER the Islamic revolution too, surprisingly it was actually Israel in fact who delivered many of the shipments to Iran. I'd be shocked in F-14 parts were not part of those shipments. The Iran-Contra scandal was a glimpse at what was going on between US/Iran in the early-mid 80's.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They should sell them all to Iran now, to protect Iran from Bush! :p

      Plus, we'd get some of our $$$ back, instead of scrapping them, or leaving them to rot in storage.

      Are they going to use them as trainers now, or anything?
  • zevgreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'll never sing 'danger zone' again!!
    • sandrat44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This just makes me want to go watch "Top Gun" on full volume!

      ... and fast forward through all the mushy stuff in between...
  • Pirkel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1F/A 18E-F Super Hornet for the win!
  • chatwithaninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I feel the need...
  • ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13What will Maverick fly now?

    Oh yeah, DC-10s to get revenge on Lord Xenu.

    L Ron FTW.
  • franksmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I was in the navy in the late 70's and on the aircraft carrier Kittyhawk... I could watch those babies all day long if allowed. When we would have a ships party they would give us an aerial show of the plane (and others... didn't watch them much :) ) and it was truly amazing what they were capable of. From what I was told they were the first plane made that would accelerate while going straight up... and let me tell you... they would be out of sight in a few seconds when they did. Watching them take out three or four targets at once... turn on a dime and just going freaking FAST was an honor not to forget.
    • Run4yourlives, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0You were told wrong... the f-15 was the first fighter to accerate vertically, and still holds the time to climb record.
    • sandrat44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well said. The Tomcat will be missed.
    • BadSenorRon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They were truly beautiful. I was in VF-101 and VF-143 between 1996 and 2000. The F-14 couldn't accelerate straight up, but could climb vertically until bleeding off its energy. Usually they had an angle of climb that was off 90*.
  • catholicismwow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I think I'm going to jump up and down on the couch until they decide to bring it back.
  • kent1146, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Requesting permission for flyby."
    "That's a negative ghostrider, the pattern is full."
  • sailaaron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's a link to a Navy Times video of the final F-14 carrier ops with VF31. I remember watching carrier flight ops on a dependent's day cruise as a kid. What a thrill.

    http://www.navytimes.com/static.php?f=lastF14flight080206.php
  • santiago1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2 Screw that, gimme an A-10 Warthog ANY DAY!
    • raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed the Warthog kick ass, it's as good at it's job (Close Air Support) as the Tomcat still is it it's (Air Superiority)

      Though in a dogfight I think the Warthog would be at a slight disadvantage :)
    • fitogordo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Obviously the F-14 could strike the Warthog from miles away with it's air-to-air missiles, however if they were to go at it with their guns, it could make for an interesting fight. I've read somewhere that in the Falklands war, the Argentines had a very tough time engaging the British Harriers with their Super Mirages, which are air superiority fighters, and technically would have an advantage in dog fighting. It turns out that in order to engage the Harriers, the Mirages had to fly lower and slower than they were designed for, thus putting them at a disadvantage. Of course, the fact the British had more modern weapons systems and probably better training probably had a lot to do with it too...
    • chatwithaninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Its a Cobra Rattler, not a Warthog. Get it right.
    • raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I 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 :)
  • audioobsessed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"You never close your eyes anymore when i kiss your lips"...."Your friend was amazing"
  • racerfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Good golly this news makes me feel old.

    The F-14 was "it" when I was a teen (I'm 39) for air-to-air superiority fighters.

    When you realize how long ago the technology was developed that lead to the F-14, you just know there's some cool stuff flying out on Groom Lake, and that technology is already a few years old.
  • canyoudiggitman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Salute! To an awesome piece of machinery
  • OneStar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Too bad they couldn't make the Tomcat transform into a kick ass robot like on the RoboTech cartoon series. I bet they would have kept it then.


    Non the less, she will be missed.
  • jocknerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'll miss them only because while they have flown over my house in Hampton Roads for the last five years and shook my walls, they are quiet compared to the new F/A-22's that are replacing them.
    • BadSenorRon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0They 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.
  • sandrat44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nothing 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.
  • bobba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0first T Cruise gets dropped by his studio and now this? Where the hell did I put my tinfoil hat?
  • pavelft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1end of an era, good bye to the most beautiful plane i ever saw and the reason i want to earn my pilot's cert
  • mikemontana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Two years ago there was an air-show on the Atlantic City boardwalk. Various planes flew by including the Thunderbirds. But, the highlight of the day was a formation flyby of a P51 and an F14.

    I've seen P51s "up close and personal", and they're quite a sizable peice of eyecandy. When they flew side-by-side the F14 dwarfed the Mustang. It was a peculiar sight, and amazing to see the scope of change in only 3 decades: the P51's top speed is not far ahead of the F14's minimal swept-wing speed.
  • PRB_Ohio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please go read "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" by Robert Coram (ISBN: 031679688 ).

    I believe we (US tax payers) were sold a faulty bill of goods with the F-14 Tomcat.

    From Boyd's "Energy-Maneuverability Theory" - the weight of the swing wing mechanism makes the F-14 so heavy that it would NOT perform well in comparison to other fighters - even those of the same era. Supposedly, Grumman did a great deal to hide those results and make sure that all tests were strictly controlled to always give the Tomcat an insurmountable edge.

    Not surprising considering the loss in profits and prestige that would have befallen had these nasty secrets been widely known.

    Similarly, the "Fighter Mafia" worked hard to keep both the F-15 Eagle and the F-16 Falcon / Viper free from the requirement to be able to deliver a Nuclear Weapon. Why? Because the associated systems added a great deal of weight - weight which in a dog fight might make the difference between Life and Death.

    I am not a pilot, so I only speak here from what I have read - please don't shoot the messenger.

    Read the book and make up your own mind.

    Also check out the website "Defense and the National Interest" at:

    http://www.d-n-i.net/

    "Machines don't fight wars. People do, and they use their minds." - Col John R. Boyd



  • CyberGhost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So long F-14!

    Was a great plane, looked like an eagle(from behind) when it was flying up.
  • yakoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This was the best group of comments I have ever seen on Digg.

    Thank you.
  • Retardotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Thanks 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 *****.
  •  

    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.