Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is The Navy Replacing F-14 Tomcats  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3394 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 9313 times:

Why is the Navy replacing F-14 tomcats. They are faster than there F/A-18 replacement. If it because of the planes age, they could always build new model of the F-14. The F/A-18 been around for a while and the Navy still buy new model of it. In my opinion the F/A-18 superhornet do not cut it as a F-14 replacement.

PS I apologize if this topic been spoke of before.

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5345 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 9197 times:

The F-14 is being replaced because they're getting increasingly old and expensive to maintain, both in terms of maintenance hours and cost. As for why no new model F-14s can be built, the tooling and machinery to construct F-14s was destroyed back in the early '90s, thus any "new" models of the F-14 would simply be upgraded F-14A/B/Ds. The USN did examine several F-14 upgrade programs, most notable the F/A-14D, Quickstrike, and Super Tomcat 21.

Next, while the F/A-18 has "been around for a while" it's continued to evolve. The F/A-18As that entered service back in 1982 are fairly rare in the fleet, having been replaced by new-build F/A-18Cs. Now, in turn, we have new build F/A-18Es. To contrast that, many of the F-14Bs and F-14Ds in existence were upgraded/remanufactured F-14As.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineUSAir1489 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 9187 times:

If you want to look at maintenance numbers, from what I heard from a Super Hornet pilot is that for every HOUR of flying, it takes 80 hours of maintenance for an F-14, whereas for the F/A-18E/F its about 15 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.


Zinger Aviation Delta Oscar Tango Charlie Oscar Mike
User currently offlineCurlyheadboy From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 9161 times:

I think another reason for its retirement is that the F-14 was built as a high-speed/high altitude interceptor to contrast the soviet bombers, it was(is) the only available launch platform for the Phoenix missile that will probably be retired together with the aircraft (correct me if I'm wrong but the F/A-18E isn't able to employ the phoenix).
Even if the aircraft has proven to be a good fighter, doesn't have enough air-to-ground capabilities. The Navy has to cut costs and needs only one type capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground. The F/A 18 Hornet and Super Hornet will do the job with the max. commonality available.
Sad to see the Tomcat go, but it was inevitable...  Sad



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9138 times:

I believe the Phoenix has already been retired... No point in keeping the F-14 without the Phoenix, sad but true.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9101 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The other thing to consider here is that they could have decided to build the F-14D SuperTomcat in the early 90's. They decided in favor of building the F/A-18E/F Superhornet due to the perceived value of commonality and expandability.

The Tomcat is faster and has longer reach, but the Navy decided that long range interception no longer has the value previously seen. The Superhornet was to be the answer to the Navy's need for three or four different aircraft. It will meet the need for the interceptor, using the AIM-120...the EA-6B with its upcoming EA-18 pkg, it will perform fleet in flight refuelling now done by S-3's (derated as Subhunters) and as long range attack craft. The F/A-18 A thru D replaced several types itself, including the A-4, A-7, F-8, as well as supplementing the F-14's in their fighter role.

The military also had to contend with politics in the selection considering where the aircraft were to be built, to the point that Grumman offered to build the new build F-14's in Florida. Many in the Navy were unhappy with the compromise laden Superhornet, while others are happy about the new airplanes that require less maintenance and fewer headaches.

I would rather have seen the SuperTomcat, since we were choosing between two derivatives, but I was not in charge. SECDEF at the time was CHeney, and here is an area where I did not agree with the guy. He also tried to kill the Osprey, which did not sit well with me either.

As it sits, we no longer enjoy one-on-one superiority at sea with our aircraft over any other air power. We are able, however, to still put an airforce off of pretty much any coastline equal to or greater than whatever is on that particular nations airforce with just one carrier. When we finish the long range AAM we will be where we need to be as far as fleet air defence goes.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3394 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9072 times:

First USS Constellation then F-14, it is sad to see a cool ship and plane go out of serves.

User currently offlineGOCAPS16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4338 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9039 times:

Garnetpalmetto is correct....at work, we log so many man hours just on these suckers. Hell, we work harder then the pilots who fly these damn birds and people saying being a pilot is hard, hah! Without us, pilots couldn't even fly them. Working on the F-14s is no joke compare to the F/A-18s which is why the Super Hornets are easier to maintain, cost-effective, and less manpower and hours while working on the F-14s, you need at least 5 people to work on what your doing.

Kevin


User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8984 times:

DL021: "The Tomcat is faster and has longer reach, but the Navy decided that long range interception no longer has the value previously seen. The Superhornet was to be the answer to the Navy's need for three or four different aircraft. It will meet the need for the interceptor, using the AIM-120...the EA-6B with its upcoming EA-18 pkg, it will perform fleet in flight refuelling now done by S-3's (derated as Subhunters) and as long range attack craft. The F/A-18 A thru D replaced several types itself, including the A-4, A-7, F-8, as well as supplementing the F-14's in their fighter role."

I think you have a good point here. I may exaggerate, but I have the feeling that the AIM-120 signed the end of the F-14 more than the F/A-18 did. This missile provided great BVR ability to almost every US aircraft and proved to be able to get a hit almost every time it has been launched. The Phoenix, in comparison, had wider range (80 nm head-on for the C variant), could travel Mach 4, had a ceiling of around 100,000 Ft but could be launched from just one aircraft and, if launched from a great distance, often missed the target (some were launched between Gulf Wars I and II to intercept Iraqi aircrafts violating the no-fly zones, and missed). The EA-6B is doomed as well, will be replaced in the EW role by the EA-18 as soon as it's ready.
I understand this is the only way to go for the US Navy, but I feel sorry seeing all those nice birds being phased out, even though it's not my home business (oh, I do miss that useless beauty the F-104 was Big grin ).



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineGrom365 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8977 times:


The military in general is looking for multi-role capability these days. (Think F/A-22!) While that does create compromises for individual platforms, it allows for an overall smaller cost when compared to multiple platforms geared to specific missions.

The F-15 was originally built under the slogan "not a pound for the ground" yet the 'E' model was specifically built as a multi-role aircraft (and should theoretically be designated F/A-15E).

The F-16 was built for air defense and dogfighting - the early models still being flown by the ANGs have limited air-to-ground capability - but have been converted into mini bomb trucks in recent history.

As for the F-14, the threat changed. You no longer have hordes of cruise missile-laden bombers coming to swarm the battle group, and the existing air forces or naval air arms of current potential adversaries are not as threatening in terms of numbers or capabilities as the Soviets were. And even though the F-14 has proven that it can drop bombs - and put them on target - it doesn't have the same carriage capacity as the F/A-18E/F.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7935 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8970 times:

At the risk of misusing this thread: What's going to happen to all those S-3 Vikings? I understand their primarily role is to combat submarines with a secondary role as carrier based tankers.
However, helicopters, such as the SH-60, are used to locate and attack submarines, too.
How old are those Vikings btw?



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5345 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8953 times:

NoUFO - The S-3s were stripped of all their ASW and mining gear was stripped beginning in November 1999 and consequentially, the crew reduced to 3. As of now, the S-3 serves a variety of roles for a CVW still, including Anti-Surface Warfare, Amphibious Warfare, Counter-Targeting, Over-the-Horizon Targeting, Airborne Reconnaissance, and Command and Control.

As for age, the S-3A first came into the fleet in 1974 and the last delivery in 1978. All LANTFLT Vikings were upgraded to the S-3B between 1987 and 1991 and all PACFLT S-3s were upgraded between 1992 and 1994.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7935 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8950 times:

Thank you, Garnetpalmetto. Last question on S-3s (I promise): Are there any successors in sight, the JSF maybe?


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5345 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8942 times:

It's planned to introduce an aircraft called the Common Support Aircraft (CSA) that would be produced in variants to replace the S-3, C-2, and E-2. However, the likelihood of this aircraft actually entering the fleet is uncertain since the USN has put off a formal acquisition plan while various other alternatives are being studied and a formal CSA proposal is drawn up.


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8931 times:

A pity that they scrapped the tooling.

User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8910 times:

Shame to see the Tomcats going, but every era comes to an end. They're tough birds and did their job well. One of my favs.

Just curious, and I know this is gonna sound contradictory, but does anyone have a video available showing what I believe a Tomcat crashing on the flight deck of a carrier? Or was it rolling off of it? I think it might have been Enterprise on which this occured.

You can be sure I'm gonna be watching Top Gun as a tribute when the last squadron load of aircraft are retired.

And another question...is it possible to restart production by making new tooling? I mean, as long as the blueprints are there, I figure you can still physically make it (not speaking practically of course).

B4e-Forever New Frontiers


User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days ago) and read 8874 times:

Boeing4ever: That video is shown in the movie "Haunt For The Red October" if I recall correctly, you may also find it somewhere on the web... If you have some patience to search for it.
As for restarting production, I think it is of course possible, the plans still exist somewhere. But building a new assembly line for manufacturing an old-fashioned jet fighter is not something logic, is it? I'd like to see something like that done for the P-51. In my dreams, of course  Smile



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineGOCAPS16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4338 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8822 times:

Justin,

You'd make a great CNO someday since you know a lot of the Navy then I do, especially the history...Are you studying about military history in school?

Kevin


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8805 times:

It's planned to introduce an aircraft called the Common Support Aircraft (CSA) that would be produced in variants to replace the S-3, C-2, and E-2

CSA has been dead...stinkin' dead...for several years now.



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8803 times:

NoUFO - The S-3s were stripped of all their ASW and mining gear was stripped beginning in November 1999 and consequentially, the crew reduced to 3. As of now, the S-3 serves a variety of roles for a CVW still, including Anti-Surface Warfare, Amphibious Warfare, Counter-Targeting, Over-the-Horizon Targeting, Airborne Reconnaissance, and Command and Control.

The S-3 is rapidly going the way of the Do-Do. They are only tankers now.

There is a very good article in this month's Naval Institute Proceedings about the dismal state of carrier air. You have to register to read it, but registration for USNI is free. If you are in this forum then chances are you will end up going into the USNI site on a regular basis as well.

http://www.usni.org/proceedings/articles05/pro02stone.htm

Recent efforts to "balance" current and future readiness in naval aviation have cut too far into current capabilities. Operational and flight-training budget reductions and aircraft retirements—including the S-3 Viking, whose aerial refueling missions must be assumed by the Super Hornet—could leave air wings unprepared and ill equipped for action against enemies stronger than those they recently have faced.




the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8764 times:

But building a new assembly line for manufacturing an old-fashioned jet fighter is not something logic, is it? I'd like to see something like that done for the P-51. In my dreams, of course

Curly -- Someone else had that dream and tried to put a variation of the P-51 back in production. Google on Piper Enforcer for more info.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_14.html

Out of production aircraft can be put back in production if you have a lot of money and the original tooling. The C-5B is a good example.


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5345 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8766 times:

Curly - interesting factoid is that that's NOT an F-14 crashing into the deck in that flight deck video. While you initially do see video of a F-14 coming into land, the scene cuts to a reaction shot on Alec Baldwin and then back to the flight deck - from then on, the aircraft pictured is a F-2 Banshee

GOCaps - a civilian life for me, thanks. CNO's a military position. I'm just a political science geek who happens to be a military buff.

Sidi - last I checked the CSA was still listed as being "active" as of May, 2004, but as I said, the requirements put on hold, at least according to globalsecurity.org



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8758 times:

SATL382G - Wow!!!  Wow! didn't know that! That's an interesting story, thank you for sharing! So it seems good 'ol Tomcat still has a chance... Who knows...  Laugh out loud

Garnetpalmetto - Checked my DVD: You are absolutely right, that's a Banshee crashing, i stand corrected. But the video Boeing4ever mentioned do exist, i saw it not a long time ago on the Discovery Channel. There is this F-14 too low on approach crashing into the deck, bursting into flames and sliding all the way towards the camera...



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8733 times:

Sidi - last I checked the CSA was still listed as being "active" as of May, 2004, but as I said, the requirements put on hold, at least according to globalsecurity.org

Just curious, where have you seen the CSA "listed as active"?
The CSA is dead and won't be coming back. Notice the use of past tense being used in quotes from a speech at the 2000 Tailhook convention by (then) VAdm. Nathman. This was in effect the CSA's obituary:

http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/issues/2000/Oct/Future_Flight.htm
During the past several years, the Navy had promoted its plan to develop a “common support aircraft” (CSA) to replace those three legacy platforms. The CSA was going to do aerial refueling, airborne early warning, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare. But trying to pack so many requirements into one aircraft doomed the project. “It was really hard for me to figure out, as a resource sponsor, what that airplane was going to look like, let alone how to build it,” Nathman said.
Worse yet, “there was no money in the budget to buy it.” A CSA platform would have required $22 billion for research, development and rocurement. “We made a pragmatic decision to not buy CSA,” he said.



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5345 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 8720 times:

Sidi - from this article

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/csa.htm

The Navy has deferred a formal acquisition plan for the Common Support Aircraft until the critical issues of resources, requirements and program timing are resolved. It may be more appropriate to call the program a Common Support Concept (CSC) which accommodates efforts to tailor CVW missions to the battlespace of the future. The support solutions of the future may not all entail a new aircraft. Current S-3 and C-2 airframe test articles will further define service life limits and SLEP alternatives. Support aircraft program initiatives such as the E-2 MYP, vertically cutting the ES-3A, and shedding S-3B mission areas have succeeded in pushing the requirement for a Common Support Aircraft further to the right than initially projected.

Although the CSA project is still active, the requirements for the CSA have been delayed by the US Navy. Lockheed Martin has been pursuing a number of modernisation initiatives to extend service life of the S-3B Viking, which is a candidate for eventual replacement by CSA.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
25 Sidishus : Sidi - from this article http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/csa.htm The Navy has deferred a formal acquisition plan for the Commo
26 SWAbubba : If Boeing4ever is talking about the video I'm thinking of, that pilot was in my E-6A squadron. After the crash he had to go through some physical ther
27 Garnetpalmetto : Note it is undated and probably dates from 2000 or 2001. Check the bottom of the page. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/csa.htm
28 Post contains links Sidishus : Check the bottom of the page. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/csa.htm Maintained by John Pike Last Modified: May 06, 2004 - 13
29 LMP737 : As someone who spent almost four years on the F-14A I can attest to it's need for a lot of TLC. There are several reasons for this. First, every gener
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Is The Navy Replacing F-14 Tomcats
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is The Phantom A Twinseater? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 23:31:58 by TheSonntag
Why Is The C-5 Such A Hangar Queen? posted Wed Oct 22 2003 15:29:59 by Cheshire
Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 06:15:08 by ERAUMcDlover
Why Did The French Navy Operate The F-8 posted Sat Mar 19 2005 18:58:58 by RampRat74
Is The U.S.C.G. Considered "Military" posted Sun Nov 12 2006 19:19:37 by UH60FtRucker
How Capable Is The North Korean Military? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 11:01:50 by CHRISBA777ER
What Is The Latest On Rutan's Space Ship 2? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 02:08:36 by CTR
What Is The Deadliest Russian Fighter? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 06:10:51 by ThirtyEcho
What Is The Loudest Jet To Get Lunch Off A Carrier posted Wed Jul 26 2006 20:58:56 by 747400sp
What Is The A400M Airlifter? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 16:57:38 by Mlglaw
Which Fighter Is The Most Automated? posted Wed Dec 7 2011 03:06:57 by Chamonix
Is The Pima Air & Space Museum Restoring An EC-121 posted Sun Aug 21 2011 18:27:55 by fanofjets
What Is The True Identity Of 99-6143? Analysis posted Mon May 2 2011 09:09:04 by RobK
Which Fighter Is The Easiest To Fly? posted Sun May 1 2011 13:23:31 by Chamonix

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format