USCOLMRNE Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 On December 12, 2004. CVW-17 left the CV-67 USS Kennedy and headed home to NAS Oceana, VA. This was the last flight the Jolly Rogers flew the turkey before it transitions to the F/A-18F Super Hornet. Transition is supposed to be complete by early february. I never thought id see this day happen =/. By 2007 the last remaining tomcat squadron will trade in their Tomcats for new Super Hornets FOREVER LIVE THE TOMCAT! http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bb...c;f=32;t=008636 Forum with pictures of VF-103 landing at NAS Oceana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Never been a fan of the Hornet. To see it replacing the Tomcat really, really stinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seto Kaiba Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 You can only upgrade the ol' clunkers so many times before they're unable to be upgraded anymore, and the F-14 has more or less reached that limit. They really do need to trade them in, but I'd rather see them trading the Tomcats for Raptors (F/A-22) instead of the Super Hornet. I hear they're also being re-designated as VFA-103. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mule Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 (edited) I saw the new Super Hornet Jolly Rogers at Boeing in St. Louis a couple months back. The black tail above was still in the painting hanger at the time. Pretty cool. As far as the Tomcats being replaced by F-22s, It couldn't happen. The Raptor just isn't built for carrier operations. The landing gear is too weak, the wings don't collapse for storage and I really doubt the frame was built to handle the stress of carrier landings. The FA-18E/F is the newest and best thing the Navy has as far as fighters go until the F-35 makes its way into service. It is sad to see the end of the F-14 era, but their time has come, and the Super Hornet is more than a worthy replacement. Edited December 16, 2004 by Mule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightbat Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 (edited) It is sad to see the end of the F-14 era, but their time has come, and the Super Hornet is more than a worthy replacement. This is very much debateable (and this is in the wrong section BTW) Edited December 16, 2004 by Nightbat® Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 I can only imagine people feeling the same way when the Tomcat replaced the Phantom. We all knew the F-14 would be replaced sooner or later. As much as I love the Tomcat, I have no difficulties with them being replaced by the Hornet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seto Kaiba Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 I'm not so sure about the F-4 Phantom being missed. I've talked to a lot of pilots who were more than happy to see the damn thing go. (Something about the cockpit being claustrophobically small) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Enna Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 I'm not so sure about the F-4 Phantom being missed. I've talked to a lot of pilots who were more than happy to see the damn thing go. (Something about the cockpit being claustrophobically small) But it's nothing compared with the Bf-109's cockpit ... that thing is really small!!! I fell sad about the tomcat, I ever thinked it as the most wonderfull thing who could fly over the ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Johnathan Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 (edited) That's true, the Phantom wasn't all that adored. What it replaced was, the F-8 Crusader was beloved by it's pilots and it's very debateable the Phantom was an improvement over the Crusader. The Tomcat is the same way, the pilots adore the thing. Only the best of the best of the Navy's pilots get to fly the F-14, it's a badge of honor. Once the F-14 is all gone, you can expect the U.S. Navy to start getting challenged more brazenly. The Hornet can't carry the Phoenix missle, so there will be no long range air to air missle in the Navy's arsenal. Right now, if you want to send some fast bombers in with anti shipping missles and attack a U.S. Navy ship, you'll have a bad day because the Tomcat will shoot you down from 90+ miles away and the Tomcat is fast enough to intercept just about anything. The Super Hornet is signifigantly slower and carries missles that have a range of only 30 miles and I think that's generous, it might be 20+ miles. There is no answer about the Phoenix missles, it's the deadliest air to air missle in our arsenal and the Tomcat is the only plane that can deliver it, and 6 of them at one time. It's kill rate is exceptional too. I'm beating a dead horse here, but the 'Super' Hornet is slower, has much shorter range and carries less ordnance and did I mention it can't carry the Phoenix? I'm not against progress, the Tomcat is due for a replacement, but the general idea is your supposed to replace the old plane with not just a newer plane, but a better plane. Edited December 16, 2004 by Major Johnathan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Johnathan Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Actually, the poll is the crux of the arguement, How is the Super Hornet really more modern? That would infer it's more advanced or in some serious way it performs better than the Tomcat. Maybe the Hornet carries XM sattelite or something? Or maybe it has a built in Game boy? Besides, the Tomcat is beatiful and the Hornet is fugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 ... sigh, do we have to have this argument YET again? Round and round the mullberry... The Tomcat is an obsolete fighter that was intended for a mission that doesn't exist anymore. Only Russia posseses Long range air launhed SSMs that you speak of MJ, and its not selling them due to the MTCR. Moreover if the navy would have wanted something to cover this role they would have asked for it to be in its first spiral development. They asked for the growler instead. Keeping tomcats going was fast becoming a money pit for the USN. Its extremely difficult to upgrade a 30 year old fighter to modern standards. They can do that with the F/A-18E/F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 ... sigh, do we have to have this argument YET again? Round and round the mullberry...The Tomcat is an obsolete fighter that was intended for a mission that doesn't exist anymore. Only Russia posseses Long range air launhed SSMs that you speak of MJ, and its not selling them due to the MTCR. Moreover if the navy would have wanted something to cover this role they would have asked for it to be in its first spiral development. They asked for the growler instead. Keeping tomcats going was fast becoming a money pit for the USN. Its extremely difficult to upgrade a 30 year old fighter to modern standards. They can do that with the F/A-18E/F No one is arguing that the Tomcat's time isn't up and that it shouldn't be replaced. We are arguing, however, that the Tomcat should be replaced by a newer, more superior fighter, of which the Super Hornet is neither. Hornets went into production only a few years after the Tomcat as a supporting fighter. It's debatable if the Super Hornet is any real improvement of the older Hornets, let alone fit to take over as the Navy's superiority fighter. And nevermind the fact that the proposed Super Tomcat would have smoked the Super Hornet in every way. And as for the whole Navy Raptor thing, it's true that the F/A-22 in its current configuration isn't suited for carrier use... but Lockheed had plans for a Raptor variant that was, and it would have replaced the Tomcat. Budget concerns/pressure from Congress caused the Navy to abandon that project, though, and all we're left with is the Bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 We are arguing, however, that the Tomcat should be replaced by a newer, more superior fighter, of which the Super Hornet is neither. The word fighter is what's confusing you. For the rest, http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=8543 http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=12053 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 This is like saying a bitter goodbye to an ol' friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 We are arguing, however, that the Tomcat should be replaced by a newer, more superior fighter, of which the Super Hornet is neither. The word fighter is what's confusing you. For the rest, http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=8543 http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=12053 Oh, I'm not confused in the slightest. The Navy is. You don't replace air superiority fighters with mutli-role attackers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I think you should have had three choices in the poll. I'm all for progress, and as sad as it is, the F-14 is past its prime. But IMHO, so is the F/A-18, and the Bug is not a suitable replacement for the Tomcat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 not when you're out of cash and the need for air superiority fighters is not very pressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 not when you're out of cash and the need for air superiority fighters is not very pressing. Said it before I could Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrow Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 They should have kept a squadron. What's the rush? With all the F-14s they have retired, they can keep cannibalizing for spares. Besides, the F-14 is a great fighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Hmmn wha? Some sort of Hornet/Tomcat debate? Anyways: Well, if there was no pressing need for long-range high-speed air superiority planes, but instead wanted multi-role attackers, MDC would have a huge F-15E order right now, and the F-22 wouldn't be spending all its test time trying to get the absolute max range from a supersonic-launch AMRAAM attack... Anyways, VF-31 is still scheduled to be the last Tomcat squadron. Remaining squadrons and type: VF-143(B), VF-11(B), VF-31(D), VF-32(B), VF-213(D). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Not sure why this was posted in the Macross Movies & TV SEries forum? Moved to Other Anime. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Ideally, any plane that replaces a older type SHOULD outperform it in EVERY major area. That is what SUCCESSION is about. You don't replace an F-4 with an F-86. And you can't replace a A-7 with a A-1. The phantom to tomcat transition wasn't barked at much since the tomcat was a better plane in every way. more manueverable, GUN, similar if not faster speed(max speed still classified), bubble canopy, more range, phoenix, swing wing, better radar etc. The super bug is not the "definitve" tomcat replacement. doen't outdo the tomcat except in the less maintenance hour thing. David brings up a good point about the max out AMRAAM tests on the F-22. The super bug was supposedly cheaper, but sometimes I wonder does the majority buy into what the navy and hornet mafia says about teh super bug? I mean its like everytime we post something buy pilots quoted in world air power or the smithsonian magazine criticizing the super bug in comparison to the tomcat and the legacy bug, we get more members coming back quoting super bug suppporters in the navy talking about how good it is and how ideal it is. Lets face it. EVERY OTHER navy fighter one way or another has inferiorities in comparison to the fighter it is replacing. The phantom lacked the manuverability of the crusader and the gun. The phantom was suppposed to eliminate the need to dogfight but as you all now this went horribly wrong. The hornet lacks the range and punch as well as speed and weapon carry distance of the tomcat. I have said this before and I wil say it again. The NEXT fighter that replaces the super bug will more than likely be the greatest naval fighter ever created. That outodes the tomcat and super bug. Don't get me wrong, I know the tomcat is getting old. And if a new fighter with BETTER capabilities altogethere(not some better tons worse) was replacing it I seriously wouldn't be debating this, but as it stands the super bug is just a compromise replacement. I've heard a bunch of navy guys say the same. One of the navy guys over at arc also said that the future of long range intercept will be handled with the airforce. A similar thing happened back when the navy was fighting to have a carrier and the whole egg in basket theory. And we still have carriers. Wanna bet the next navy fighter is a kick ass interceptor too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) Look at it this way: if the Super Hornet wasn't built, then they'd be replacing the Tomcats with NOTHING. You almost might as well be complaining that the Montana class BB's were never built. Edit: About the Raptor being built instead of more F-15E's, please note that the people pushing the Raptor had to promise that it would be developed as a fighter-bomber (thus the switch from F-22 to F/A-22) in order to keep the program alive. Edited December 17, 2004 by ewilen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Well see that was the point I was trying to make. It's more so an interim replacement because it was the only option they had left. I always thought the raptor would eventually be multirole. I mean the F-15 was originally a2a only but even the C's got some bombs on them every now and then. (more so in israel than over here). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Meh, I wouldn't be suprrised if Navy & Air Force volunteering dropped noticably. I know the only thing that would ever get me to join a military service would be to fly an F-14... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) That's true, the Phantom wasn't all that adored. What it replaced was, the F-8 Crusader was beloved by it's pilots and it's very debateable the Phantom was an improvement over the Crusader. The Tomcat is the same way, the pilots adore the thing. Only the best of the best of the Navy's pilots get to fly the F-14, it's a badge of honor. Once the F-14 is all gone, you can expect the U.S. Navy to start getting challenged more brazenly. The Hornet can't carry the Phoenix missle, so there will be no long range air to air missle in the Navy's arsenal. Right now, if you want to send some fast bombers in with anti shipping missles and attack a U.S. Navy ship, you'll have a bad day because the Tomcat will shoot you down from 90+ miles away and the Tomcat is fast enough to intercept just about anything. The Super Hornet is signifigantly slower and carries missles that have a range of only 30 miles and I think that's generous, it might be 20+ miles.  There is no answer about the Phoenix missles, it's the deadliest air to air missle in our arsenal and the Tomcat is the only plane that can deliver it, and 6 of them at one time. It's kill rate is exceptional too.  I'm beating a dead horse here, but the 'Super' Hornet is slower, has much shorter range and carries less ordnance and did I mention it can't carry the Phoenix?  I'm not against progress, the Tomcat is due for a replacement, but the general idea is your supposed to replace the old plane with not just a newer plane, but a better plane. Actually, the poll is the crux of the arguement, How is the Super Hornet really more modern? That would infer it's more advanced or in some serious way it performs better than the Tomcat. Maybe the Hornet carries XM sattelite or something? huh.gif Or maybe it has a built in Game boy? Besides, the Tomcat is beatiful and the Hornet is fugly. laugh.gif The Phoenix is great at what it's designed for, blowing huge high altitude bombers out of the sky before they can launch thier cruise missiles at the fleet. But against a modern threat like an exocet armed Mig-21 skimming low over the ocean I'd rather take a Rhino with an AESA radar and 8 AMRAAMS hanging from the wings. THe Super Hornet is signifgantly more advanced than the Tomcat, it's far more maneuverable (how many times have you seen a Tomcat pull a Cobra seconds after take off?), it has better sensors (the APG-79 radar in the Hornet is second only to the Raptor's APG-77 on which it is based), and yes it's easier to maintain (I've said it before and I'll say it again: a plane sitting in the hangar getting an overhaul is useless). Edited December 17, 2004 by Nied Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Johnathan Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I remember a quote from an F-14 pilot where he said something like the F-14 looks dangerous just sitting on the ground. The Hornet lacks that aura severly. As far as replacing the Tomcat with nothing, well, without a superior replacement, I'd order more F-14's to replace the old F-14 airframes. Namely F-14D's. It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to do that than to totally redesign the Hornet into the Super Hornet and mass produce them. Also, the F-14 was developed with the ability to drop bombs way back in the early 70's, multi role is not a new concept. The 'Bombcat's' used in Afghanistan and Iraq did exceptional in that role. When special forces needed air strikes in a hurry, the F-14 could get there quicker, it could drop more bombs and it could loiter over the area much longer than any F-18 could dream of doing. The guy's on the ground noticed that and even went so far as to request F-14's when possible. (They even ground based some Tomcats for this role). The F-18 isn't just an inferior fighter, it's an inferior bomber to. I really do wonder what it's good for.(Besides Boeing and they're congressmen) Oh, and it's blasphemy to see the Jolly Rogers on the tail of the Super bug... makes me ill. Just like seeing Black Aces etc. on their tails... who do they think they're fooling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) I'd have no problem with the F-14 being replaced as long as it was by a plane that that could totaly out perform it. Like the F-15 being replaced by the F/A-22. The Hornet overall certainly doesn't out perform the F-14. Too bad the X-02 isn't a real plane. Edited December 17, 2004 by Druna Skass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Of course, I'm sure what we all really want is for the F-14 Tomcat to be replaced by the VF-1 Valkyrie! Besides, the Tomcat is beatiful and the Hornet is fugly I don't think the Hornet is ugly at all. In fact, I like the design second to only the Tomcat. Well, actually maybe 3rd if you count the fictional YF-19 from Macross Plus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryHolmes Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Be thankful that you people get all the cool planes to begin with. Us Canuckleheads are stuck with a decades-old dream and that's it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feyd-Rautha Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 are we forgeting the air dominator: raptor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USCOLMRNE Posted December 17, 2004 Author Share Posted December 17, 2004 (edited) Ah for the record, the AIM-54C Phoenix is retired, I guess the Navy is going to make another long range air to air missile that would fit the F/A-18's and the JSF. I would of upgraded the Tomcat, just how the F-4 Phantom did, it got upgraded up to an S, I am not too sure. All in due time like someone said before, the greatest naval fighter will replace the the Super Hornet and it will be Stonewell Bellcom's VF-1 Valkyrie Edited December 17, 2004 by USCOLMRNE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mule Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 It is sad to see the end of the F-14 era, but their time has come, and the Super Hornet is more than a worthy replacement. Never mind. After reading this thread, I did a little research on comparsions between the planes. The Super Hornet just ain't all that great compared to the Tomcat. Anyone interested in starting a company with me to extensively rehab and upgrade F-14s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I dont understand the bitching going on. I mean regardless how much we complain/debate this issue, the US Navy isnt changing their minds. Yes, I agree the F-14 is by far superior in every aspects including bombing role over the F/A-18E/F. And who says the F-35 will be better? All we got to see is the prototype being used and Lockheed Martin won the contract. Doesnt mean jack until they do more testing. The F-14 is an old design but the Hornet is too. The hornet was designed in the mid-70s. So they improved on the F/A-18 to give us the E/F version. They could have done it with the Tomcat. The only reason why we got the F/A-18E/F is b/c of the actual maintenance cost is less than a Tomcat. And to those who are saying the F-14 is too old and should give way to the Hornet, then are you saying we should give way the A-10 to the F-16 as the new CAS? Frankly, the newer isnt always better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 True which is why I think the next naval fighter will kick mucho ass over anything else in existence. Its been done before and it can happen again. BTW ASF-14 could NEVER be made from an existing tomcat, so provided grumman still has the blueprints, perhaps they can still make it if the need arises. Hell the tooling destroyed was all for the old cat. ASF-14 was totally new altogethere. And heck I think the only thing it shares is aesthetic similarities. More so a new plane than the super bug to the legacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.