FARK.com: (2305063) Last F-14 Tomcat to see combat gets retirement home in Florida just like most of its pilots

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)		Last F-14 Tomcat to see combat gets retirement home in Florida just like most of its pilots (theledger.com)		146
		More: Florida

• • •

11153 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Sep 2006 at 8:13 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/2305063

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

146 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

Errk		2006-09-21 07:15:36 PM

It's hard to imagine the F-14 as old and busted.

JerseyTim		2006-09-21 07:33:06 PM

Highway to the old folk's home!

A Gentile in Boca		2006-09-21 08:18:37 PM

Last seen on I-75 far right lane with it's blinker on for the last 75 miles. Welcome home!

Confabulat		2006-09-21 08:21:33 PM

The local news covered this story with an almost-exclusive emphasis on the role of the F-14 in the success of Tom Cruise's career.

Detour		2006-09-21 08:21:54 PM

I hear they are going to replace it with Colonial Vipers.

Squatchmo		2006-09-21 08:22:18 PM

Negative, Ghostrider, Pattern is full.

Cassiopeia		2006-09-21 08:22:44 PM

Errk - maybe because it's not.
But there's no money in old planes, is there?

Detour		2006-09-21 08:23:03 PM

Confabulat

Tom Cruise had a career?

/lol

forfark		2006-09-21 08:23:43 PM

A total of 675 Tomcats were built.

from the article, I would have thought that number to be way higher

/love that plane

wildsilverfox		2006-09-21 08:25:35 PM

baby xenu cries

vincentfox		2006-09-21 08:26:10 PM

SORRY GOOSE, BUT IT'S TIME TO BUZZ THE TOWER!

vodka		2006-09-21 08:26:52 PM

What does the Navy use instead of the F-14?

Isn't the F-18 mostly air-to-air only? What do they use as a strike fighter?

sbobz		2006-09-21 08:28:03 PM

"...The plane is a veteran of 1,762 catapult launches from carrier decks, made 1,769 carrier landings..."

Uh.. that doesnt add up. There's another way to launch off the deck of an aircraft carrier that we havent been told about? Does the F14 have VTOL capabilities that we, the public, have been kept in the dark about?

AnthraxRipple		2006-09-21 08:29:03 PM

They need to preserve as many of these as possible. If I hear about a QF-14, I'm going to go on a murdering spree.

*Q stands for remote-controlled drone, usually used as an aerial target.

AnthraxRipple		2006-09-21 08:30:33 PM

sbobz: Uh.. that doesnt add up.

There is a sort of "land-based" carrier deck called an "air field" from which airplanes can "take off" under "normal power." We have a couple of them.

imakidatheart		2006-09-21 08:32:24 PM

vodka

Isn't the F-18 mostly air-to-air only? What do they use as a strike fighter?

Harriers?

Dave The Slushy		2006-09-21 08:32:26 PM

vodka

F/A-18 - it was designed from the get go to go air-to-mud as well. Still a fugly PoS compared to the F-14....

84Charlie		2006-09-21 08:33:04 PM

Don't feel too bad. The Air Force retired its last F4 Phantom in 1996 IIRC. The F4 was running Wild Weasel missions in Gulf War Sr.. Not bad for a plane that was introduced in the late 1950s.

"Tomcat" still sounds meaner than "Raptor". Even though the F22 is a swell plane in its own right.

vincent_blackshadow		2006-09-21 08:33:26 PM

sbobz: they CAN land on an airstrip, the carrier-based tomcats just usually don't. the missing 7 maybe had mid-flight problemas requiring a landing at the nearest land base after a close-to-mainland training flight?

as long as there's a need for speed...

Epsilon		2006-09-21 08:34:13 PM

Errk: It's hard to imagine the F-14 as old and busted.

The F-14 is outperformed by at least three planes, the F-15, the F/A-18D and the F-22. There is no need for it anymore. The F-14 doesn't do anything that another plane can't do better.

snowman44		2006-09-21 08:36:19 PM

2006-09-21 08:26:52 PM vodka

What does the Navy use instead of the F-14?

Isn't the F-18 mostly air-to-air only? What do they use as a strike fighter?

naw the f-18 is a strike /air to air/troopsuport/do anything fighter+ shes faster

we_hates		2006-09-21 08:36:50 PM

watching in slow motion as a turn and blah blah blah
TAKE MY BREATH AWAY

sbobz		2006-09-21 08:37:05 PM

AnthraxRipple: OMG SRSLY?

Still impressive to land a plane more times than it took off.

MrSnrub		2006-09-21 08:38:30 PM

Epsilon: The F-14 is outperformed by at least three planes, the F-15, the F/A-18D and the F-22. There is no need for it anymore. The F-14 doesn't do anything that another plane can't do better.

Except carry the Phoenix.

Dave The Slushy		2006-09-21 08:38:32 PM

AnthraxRipple

Gods, that would be like shooting the family dog. How many people joined the US Navy or Air Force because of the F-14? The effect on a pilots morale would be devastating.

Mothball the lot. We'll need 'em some day....

YouPeopleAreCrazy		2006-09-21 08:38:58 PM

vodka: What does the Navy use instead of the F-14?

Isn't the F-18 mostly air-to-air only? What do they use as a strike fighter?

The F-14 was almost purely A/A. They did convert some into Bombcats, but not many. The F-18 in its many variations is multirole.

Shadow Blasko		2006-09-21 08:39:03 PM

This months F-14 article.

/Queue the A-10 pics

Darthmalt		2006-09-21 08:39:39 PM

@vincent_blackshadow
When the carrier comes into port to resupply / refit they transport all of the planes from the carrier to ground facilities. thus the discrepency between launches and landing on a carrier deck.

Mad_Radhu		2006-09-21 08:40:35 PM

Iceman unavailable for comment?

AnthraxRipple		2006-09-21 08:41:11 PM

sbobz: Still impressive to land a plane more times than it took off.

This will blow your mind: some of those landings are almost certainly on land.

jbrooks544		2006-09-21 08:43:16 PM

btw, they are bigger than you think. I saw the one that splashed Lybian Migs over line of death/gulf of Sidra. I saw it and touched it on the deck of the USS JFK. BIG plane!

sn stain		2006-09-21 08:43:17 PM

Cassiopeia

Would you prefer other nations match our capabilities, destroy more aircraft, and kill more pilots?

Hate the game, not the playa.

chaddsfarkprefect		2006-09-21 08:44:32 PM

You flyboys drone on and on about the Q...

/NO replacement for our pilots

YouPeopleAreCrazy		2006-09-21 08:45:07 PM

MrSnrub: Except carry the Phoenix.

Whose capabilities have been equalled or exceeded by other missiles.

The coolness of the Phoenix does not make up for the F-14 maintenance hassles.

bainsguy		2006-09-21 08:46:38 PM

What AnthraxRipple is trying to say, sbobz, is that you can take off from land and end up on a carrier or take off from a carrier and end up on land. Planes are really quite effective at this.

If you put down the cheetos and use your brain, things might work out better.

hammertime1984		2006-09-21 08:48:36 PM

F-14 is a missle platform/dogfighter...mostly missle platform..not a good bomber unless upgraded...and not particularly usefull against an insurgency.

Why they are mothballing them is beyond me. Granted they are vintage technology...but last time i checked there was no longer an arms race and the soviet block was not developing..or at least producing in any quantitiy fighters that can match our capabilities..

but go figure..military has always run on the philosophy of if its not broke, break it, so that politicians can give massive contracts to Lockhead....which has never had any affiliation to the Cheney's...cough...snort...whatever.

f-14 rox...never a fan of f-18...kind of jack of all trades airplane, master of none.

dj_spanmaster		2006-09-21 08:50:09 PM

I'm incredibly saddened by the end of the F-14's career. Its a hell of a bird.

ckellingc		2006-09-21 08:50:29 PM

/unavalable for comment
//RIP Goose
///Communicating. Keeping up foriegn relations. You know, giving him the bird.

shogun		2006-09-21 08:50:40 PM

AnthraxRipple:

There is a sort of "land-based" carrier deck called an "air field" from which airplanes can "take off" under "normal power." We have a couple of them.

Umm in the quote:

"...The plane is a veteran of 1,762 catapult launches from carrier decks, made 1,769 carrier landings..."

Its talking about carriers, not airfields. Theres still 7 instances where it somehow was removed from a carrier without a catapult launch then took off again. Do they roll or crane them off sometimes while in dock to be maintained more than a carrier workshop can? I imagine it would be simpler to just fly to a Naval air base..

Dave The Slushy		2006-09-21 08:52:53 PM

Please tell me they didn't destroy the tooling....

fatassbastard		2006-09-21 08:53:34 PM

/me wonders if sbobz is a retired USPS employee. :)

I KEEEEED!!

YouPeopleAreCrazy		2006-09-21 08:53:49 PM

hammertime1984

Why they are mothballing them is beyond me.

The problem is, the F-14 IS broke. No mission that the F/A-18E can't do better, and with far less maintenance.

Nice aircraft, but its time has come.

RoyBatty		2006-09-21 08:54:54 PM

sbobz Wingardium Leviosa doesn't count as a carrier take off.

ReconGrunt		2006-09-21 08:55:53 PM

Sorry to see the F-14 go; it was one bad-ass airplane. RIP, Tomcat...

ckellingc		2006-09-21 08:55:58 PM

Yeah the Tomcat was an amazing aircraft. It has it's time, and our enemies are still trying to catch up with it. I just hope the JSF will be worth the investment.

Mad_Radhu		2006-09-21 08:56:25 PM

MrSnrub: Except carry the Phoenix.

AMRAAMs do a pretty good job, and are still fire and forget. They don't have the range of the Phoenix, but I honestly don't think the Navy is popping off too many missles at 100 nautical mile ranges, anyway. It just seems like in doing so you are asking for friendly fire losses and/or accidental civilian aircraft downings (the Vincennes incident, anyone?)

RoyBatty		2006-09-21 08:58:53 PM

So it's old, and costly to maintain, and not as fast as an F-18 (although it does have greater range.)

Is it really cheaper to buy a whole new fleet of Naval F-35s at $60M a pop or to just retrofit and upgrade our existing fleet?

Cultrguru		2006-09-21 08:59:42 PM

I think some other Farkers hit it, but we need to maintain air superiority...OK. But until the REAL WWIII starts with technicaly advanced nation vs. same could it make sense to build a fleet of old skool Volkswagons?

I mean, something like a fleet of A10s that could be built 50-1 in comparison with the JSF etc.

Lite on the super high tech avionics and counter measures, but way heavy in numbers, armor and armanent. Places like the ME, SE Asia, Africa...etc....

I'm no expert, but does this make sense to anyfarker?

Fly-Navy out there?

PsychoPhil		2006-09-21 09:01:27 PM

The plane is a veteran of 1,762 catapult launches from carrier decks, made 1,769 carrier landings.

Ok, I'm missing it too, because this thing landed on aircraft carriers more times than it took off from them (using the catapult). I could see fewer landings than takeoffs, but more landings than takeoffs...

Look at it this way:

* The carrier can hold the plane or it can't. Since the plane origionates from a factory on land, it's safe to say the carrier doesn't start in the 'holding the plane' state.

* Everytime the plane lands, the carrier assumes the 'holding the plane' state.

* Everytime the plane takes off, it loses this state.

* If the plane lands somewhere else, the carrier doesn't assume this 'holding the plane' state.

* If it takes off from somewhere else but lands on the carrier, it can.

* The carrier can be a set of n carriers, but only one can hold the plane at any given time.

There's still a fundemental mismatch here, The plane origionated on land and retired on land, thus every carrier landing should have been balanced by a carrier take off.

We're off by a few.

Thus, either the count is wrong, or there's another method of removing the airplane from the carrier that's not been mentioned, such as at port via a crane, or whatnot. Or, the F-14 can take off from a carrier without a cat shot somehow.

Still, I'm trying to figure out a way that you can land on a carrier more times than you take off from one, and still end up off the carrier in the end...

fatassbastard		2006-09-21 09:01:48 PM

shogun

> "...The plane is a veteran of 1,762 catapult launches from
> carrier decks, made 1,769 carrier landings..."

Its talking about carriers, not airfields.

Hoo boy...

Ok, I'm a-gonna type REEEAAALL slow:

No
where
in
that
sentence
do
they
say
that
these
carrier-
based
landings
and
take-offs
are
the
only
landings
and
take-offs
this
plane
ever
did
.

Displayed 50 of 146 comments