-
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
The Tomcat Legacy; 35+ years from Fleet Air Defender to Recce to Precision Strike
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
vegita1220
User
A)I've heard(read:don't take my word for it) that all the Tomcat engine problems came from the old A variant engine, and that the re-engined Tomcats were much more reliable, not to mention they got almost double the thrust.
Anyway, I've seen really NASTY comments on the Super Bug though...like:
Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002):
° "The (F/A-18E/F) aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F SuperHornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"
Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the SuperHornet (in an Associated Press article in late 2001):
"Its the same old Hornet ****, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing, there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell."
I dunno if they're taken out of context, but those are quite damning words. But of course, what the hell do i know?
Anyway, I've seen really NASTY comments on the Super Bug though...like:
Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002):
° "The (F/A-18E/F) aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F SuperHornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"
Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the SuperHornet (in an Associated Press article in late 2001):
"Its the same old Hornet ****, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing, there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell."
I dunno if they're taken out of context, but those are quite damning words. But of course, what the hell do i know?
Ryoukai
The Chief doesn't like cheeky humor...at all
^Hmmm...you win the helpful award.
Patmack: I know (from reading, don't bite my head off) what I'm referring to. I didn't word it too clearly, my bad.
"The Defense Department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid"
Patmack: I know (from reading, don't bite my head off) what I'm referring to. I didn't word it too clearly, my bad.
"The Defense Department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid"
From what I hear, a piece of Top Gun was based off a portion of a true story. When the test pilots were trying to figure out the procedures for flat spin recovery, they had to punch out and the rear hit the canopy.
Another flat spin story. When a 14 pilot had to eject from the flat spin, the force from the ejection seat gave the plane just enough nose down to recover…just so the pilot could watch his plane fly safely into a crash as he parachutes down.
Sorry, no side by side comparison knowledge.
Another flat spin story. When a 14 pilot had to eject from the flat spin, the force from the ejection seat gave the plane just enough nose down to recover…just so the pilot could watch his plane fly safely into a crash as he parachutes down.
Sorry, no side by side comparison knowledge.
Straight from a current F/A-18F pilot who also flew the F-14D: The Super Hornet trumps Tomcat. The Super Bug is only 0.1 Mach slower than a regular Hornet (1.7 vs 1.8), it carries more fuel (i.e. doesn't have to tank right after launch, like the regular Hornet), and a larger payload, let alone more manueverable due to more control surfaces. Add this to the new radar she'll be getting that will outclass anything on any fighter out there in the world (can we say phased array? mmm).
For the ejection thing, the way I understand it, and the way I've been described, Goose could not have died. The seat would have impacted the canopy, not his helmet. Also, it'd be near impossible to hit the canopy in the first place. Any comments on that?
Fly Navy
ENS USNR
Oh, and despite all that, I'd fly a Tomcat over anything if I got the chance
Now if only they had A-6's or F-4's still...
Fly Navy
ENS USNR
For the ejection thing, the way I understand it, and the way I've been described, Goose could not have died. The seat would have impacted the canopy, not his helmet. Also, it'd be near impossible to hit the canopy in the first place. Any comments on that?
Fly Navy
ENS USNR
Oh, and despite all that, I'd fly a Tomcat over anything if I got the chance
Now if only they had A-6's or F-4's still...
Fly Navy
ENS USNR
vegita1220
User
wow...who to belive?
Some pilots hate it, some love it.
On the other hand, Adm Gillcrist and Bob Kress's article make it pretty clear that the Tomcat is tops by far for strike...which is what carrier aviation is now supposed to be. Also, I hear that some Super Super Tomcat programs like Quickstrike were gonna be cheaper than the development of the Super Bug. My two cents based on other people's two cents.
Some pilots hate it, some love it.
On the other hand, Adm Gillcrist and Bob Kress's article make it pretty clear that the Tomcat is tops by far for strike...which is what carrier aviation is now supposed to be. Also, I hear that some Super Super Tomcat programs like Quickstrike were gonna be cheaper than the development of the Super Bug. My two cents based on other people's two cents.
I had to go back and edit this post---
After reading the article I'd have to say that the F-14 seems to have the upper hand in some pretty important categories. I wonder what the future holds for such a powerful machine as the Tomcat? Maybe retirement from service isn't such a good idea...
After reading the article I'd have to say that the F-14 seems to have the upper hand in some pretty important categories. I wonder what the future holds for such a powerful machine as the Tomcat? Maybe retirement from service isn't such a good idea...
Just stories from instructors. I suppose the ejection seat could have been improved from the A model? With a rocket launching you into the air, I would make the assumption that even the back of the seat slamming into the canopy would be enough to snap your neck. If anybody knows of a site, or a library that has archives about such things, please share. If I ever have time to waste that could be an interesting way to do it.
Vegita,
I don't have any supporting evidence, but I've heard that the article you quoted was written by 2 guys now/once employed by Grumman (the maker of the F-14) so it might be a little biased. Someone please clarify if I'm wrong.
-Greg
I don't have any supporting evidence, but I've heard that the article you quoted was written by 2 guys now/once employed by Grumman (the maker of the F-14) so it might be a little biased. Someone please clarify if I'm wrong.
-Greg
Dave Shutter
Registered User
I don't think the Tomcat vs. Hornet debate will ever end. Anyway...technically the Hornet, and it's apparent shortcomings that are often pointed out, doesn't need to apologize for anything. It was originally aquired by the Navy (after losing to the F-16 for the AF, and then gaining 5 tons to make fight weight) who thought it would be a nifty replacement for...anyone...anyone...the A-7, whose mission was light, daytime bombing. It was never intended to be a replacement for everything as it's now turned out. The Hornet was a great idea. Besides, at the time in the 80's SuperTomcat production was in full swing to replace all A & B models, as were developments of Tomcat 21 (sick...just sick!), Navy ATF (YF-22 vs. YF-23, winner gets a tailhook), A-12 Avenger, a stealth, flying wing bomber to replace the A-6 right around the time the SuperIntruder (which also never happened) was seeing the end of service. That was the Reagan Administrations whole idea: a Navy no one in their right mind dares to f*&k with, or hopes to compare to. Then the Dem's came along and all of it went out the window, leaving us with the Hornet and JSF somewhere in the future...hopefully. RADM Gillchrist, who worked in the Pentagon as well as in development for BOTH Tomcat and Hornet says the F-14 is hands down the most lethal object to ever depart from a US carrier. Is he biased? With over thirty years of Navy flying...he just might be.
there is a former Tomcat Driver who was just assigned to hornets around here somewhere. Last I heard he got his orders to report to VFA-125 to begin the transitioning. I wish I could remember what his forum handle was....
vegita1220
User
hey airgreg that article is by Bob somethang or whatever(who is the ex Grumman engineer)
However, the other writer is Rear Admiral Gilcrist, who retired in the 80's. Chances are he's from the era where the Tomcat rocked and the Hornet was this dinky funny looking machine that couldn't do anything particularly well...although it could do them.
Hope nobody jumps on my back for this but I'm gonna say it anyway. From all things I've heard secondhand here and from others, fixed wing naval aviation is not looking good right now or any time in the near future.
Strike is all fluxed up once the Tomcat leaves, according to the Tomcat fans.
Maritime is...well John the Webmaster/P-3 man should be able to tell you about that. But I hear the P-3 airframes are too old and the replacement is in trouble.
There aren't enough S-3s to do all its assigned missions according to reports, less than 300 to do ASW, cargo, AND refuel for all the battle groups.
Helos is OK I guess...I've heard no complaints there.
It also seems a bit unfair that the branch which is being asked and is expected to do the most in the war on terror has to deal with this, most of which are due to mismanagement/"budget considerations." But what the hell do I know? I'm just shooting my mouth off, don't shoot my head off for it.
However, the other writer is Rear Admiral Gilcrist, who retired in the 80's. Chances are he's from the era where the Tomcat rocked and the Hornet was this dinky funny looking machine that couldn't do anything particularly well...although it could do them.
Hope nobody jumps on my back for this but I'm gonna say it anyway. From all things I've heard secondhand here and from others, fixed wing naval aviation is not looking good right now or any time in the near future.
Strike is all fluxed up once the Tomcat leaves, according to the Tomcat fans.
Maritime is...well John the Webmaster/P-3 man should be able to tell you about that. But I hear the P-3 airframes are too old and the replacement is in trouble.
There aren't enough S-3s to do all its assigned missions according to reports, less than 300 to do ASW, cargo, AND refuel for all the battle groups.
Helos is OK I guess...I've heard no complaints there.
It also seems a bit unfair that the branch which is being asked and is expected to do the most in the war on terror has to deal with this, most of which are due to mismanagement/"budget considerations." But what the hell do I know? I'm just shooting my mouth off, don't shoot my head off for it.
