• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

One Last Cruise...Again?

heyjoe said:
The guy who wrote the article (LAURENT L.N. BONCZIJK) apparently didn't do any fact checking....blatant errors include:
Click to expand...

I really don't think Tom Cruise was flying D model Tomcats either... but I suppose we can let that one go, huh? ;)
 
heyjoe said:
Glad I got that off my chest...think I'll blast this to the managing editor of the NewsRegister.com as well. This single bit of erronous reporting has set off waves of rumors and emails and posts.....the folks in in McMinnville, Oregon may not care what he feeds them, but it's about time the press started getting responsible about the impact of their reporting...that will be the day, huh?:icon_rage
Click to expand...

Yeah, my pop has tons of pics from his PAX Strike days with the Tomcat dropping bombs...
 
Someone posted an e-mail they recieved this afternoon on another board:

---------
"The F-14D Tomcats belonging to Fighter Squadron Thirty One (VF 31), based
at Naval Air Station Oceana, VA, are not deploying in support of any action
in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. ********DELETION OF FUTURE INTENTIONS***********.

VF 31 (the Tomcatters) is the Navy’s last F-14 Tomcat squadron. They
returned from a deployment to the Arabian Gulf last March and are scheduled
to transition to the F/A-18E Super Hornet in October. The squadron's eleven
F-14s will be retired from the Navy by September 30."

CDR Chris Sims
Force Public Affairs Officer
Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet
---------------------

Guess it's a wait and see game. But I wouldn't be surprised if the dumba$$ who wrote the article misstook the JTF Exercise for heading to Israel...Figures...

Adam
 
Someone should tell CAG that his air wing is going to the Gulf. That reporter obviously knows what he's talking about.;)
 
pilot_man said:
Someone should tell CAG that his air wing is going to the Gulf. That reporter obviously knows what he's talking about.;)
Click to expand...

I was at AIRLANT for lunch today...Slider Day is always a treat...article had lots of folks chuckling and wondering if the McMinnville NewsRegister is being outsourced to write the Carrier Rainbow Schedule. Other juicy comment was proposal to send Monsieur Laurent a nametag with "NTAC" on it.
 
heyjoe said:
The guy who wrote the article (LAURENT L.N. BONCZIJK) apparently didn't do any fact checking....blatant errors include:

[...]
3)The F-14 was designed to provide air superiority over Soviet fighters in dogfights staged in defense of U.S. aircraft carriers. Thus, it did not transition well to other roles, such as the precision bombing called for in Iraq.
An disgruntled USAF driver must have told hm that because even Hornet drivers acknowledge Tomcat precision strike performance. The F-14 was designed Fleet Air Defense against threat of Soviet bombers and their deadly cruise missiles hence its large size due to large radar and Phoenix Missile system.
Click to expand...

Heyjoe – I was equally upset by that reporter's ignorance. And although you have, I believe the most experience in, and certainly the best overall understanding of the long and wonderful F-14 story here, let me add just a couple of tidbits.

As you have previously stated, the F-14 was an aircraft that was built as a solution for a weapon system, rather than the other way around – it was indeed, a horse after the cart!

SecDef (and A4's friend:) ) McNamara's TFX (the F-111) was rightly rejected by the Navy. Therefore, the Phoenix missiles, and especially the AWG-9 needed another platform. The July 1968 RFP said the Navy needed a 2-man crew, twin-engine fleet air defense (interceptor) aircraft capable of Track-While-Scan radar and Phoenix missile employment. North American Rockwell, LTV, Grumman, McD and GD were announced finalists in December 1968. Finally, (inside track) Grumman was awarded the contract to build said aircraft in January of 1969.

Just as more than a decade or two earlier with the F-4, the later F-14 was similarily designed as a high airspeed, high altitude fleet air defense aircraft. But this time, things would be different – the operators would finally have a say in how their aircraft is designed!

1. Although supposedly designed as a fleet air defense aircraft (read, against long range Soviet Bear and Backfire aircraft, and their cruise missiles capable of firing at long and extended ranges), the operators still demanded a gun! And they got a good one. Obviously not appropriate for fleet air defense, but no one wanted to make the same mistake again as with the gun-less, F-4. And like the F-4, the F-14 would be more, and much more... it would be a multi-mission, fleet air superiority aircraft, and not just an "interceptor."

2. This was the first aircraft that incorporated "human factors engineering." Indeed, many JO's managed to tell Grumman where they wanted things placed and how they wanted things operated. 1st time ever! (That the transponder is located in the aft cockpit is no accident :) .)

3. The F-14 was originally designed to be also, Air-to-Ground. This was because Grumman initially had hoped to also sell it to the Marines as a CAS aircraft to replace the F-4. (They also marketed it overseas) Indeed, there were a number of Marine F-4 crews who got orders to NAS Miramar to be the initial cadre to stand up the Marine F-14's and its close air support role. Except for one or two extraordinary RO's, they quickly disappeared when the Marine F-14 buy fell through. But that is why we initially had a "bomb" wing position switch, a "bomb" switch position for the HUD, etc. but no AG capability. The Marines (perhaps wisely) said "no" to the F-14. (It was still nice to go to the Bomb Switch position to get the glove vanes out, and then sweep the wings full aft for high speed, low-level stuff. Those glove vanes really gave us greater stability. I understand that feature was later disconnected.)

There's more, but that's all for tonight.
 
The folks in McMinnville have posted a corrected story now they are aware of greater knowledges concerning the Tomcat. Of course, they blame the museum, which curiously has made no public statement (other than to NewsRegister) or posted anything on their website other than fact that Tomcat arrival has been delayed.

NewsRegister latest: http://www.newsregister.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=210574

Passing the buck for their lack of fact-checking: "Nicole Wahlberg, the museum's director of marketing and public relations, said, "I am very sorry for the false information." She said museum officials did not realize it was a second-hand account when they put it out".

Museum website (news) and future home of a VF-31 Tomcat: http://www.sprucegoose.org/news_events/news_releases.html

evergreencoupon.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top