Last flight of the F14-Tomcats today

[LarryD]

And we're still flying the EA-6B, much older design than the Tomcat.

We just had 2 squadrons of F-18's here for training and all I can say is I can't wait for the Growler...way less noise.

 

[Volfandt]

Man that almost makes me feel old
The F4 Phantom was the bad boy in my day when we made a Med cruise on the Rosey as they were just getting the Tomcat phased in and not all Naval fighter sqd's had 'em yet. Course we never got the Tomcat over in Marine air and we're still flying the Wild Weasels (F4's) last I heard.

Talking about the F/A18 Hornet, Marine air will be phaseing them out and replacing them with the JSF F35B VSTOL while the Navy will be keeping the Super Hornet in i's inventory along with the JSF F35C variant. When thats complete Marine tactical air fixed wing will be almost completely VSTOL with the exception of the KC130J and some smaller transports.

The Tomcat along with tthe Phantom were the kings of Navair in their day

Volfandt

 

[Tom_H]

HARD to see a good plane go out of service. but as with all good things the time has come for the tomcat, as i am am sure it will soon come for my favorite as per my name

From what I hear, the Eagle may be around for a long time as a backup fighter. Some say it will last as long as the B-52 and will replace all older fighters like the F-4 & F-111 Wild Weasles, etc. The Tomcat had to endure the stress of repeated catapault launches and cable arrest landings, slamming the deck hard at full throttle in case the driver missed the cables. That takes its toll on not just the airframe, but every component on the bird.

The Eagle may not have supercruise, stealth, or thrust vectoring, but it still is an amazing warbird. It has over 100 kills in combat and one has NEVER been lost in a dogfight, by SAM, or otherwise, even the models we sell to other countries, which are partially compromised in case we ever had to fight our own kind of plane. With the price tag of the Raptor and Lightning II, and the quality and quantity of Eagles still around, I would not be surprised to see the National Guard still flying F-15s for homeland security, and the USAF using it as a wild weasel forty years from now.

I predict your bird will be cruisin' longer than you ;-)

 

[dmccarty]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20060807.aspx

The page has an interesting article about F22's vs F15s and F22s vs SU27s/SU30s. They don't have details on the excercise which would be very interesting. But the F22 had 108 "kills" to no losses. Similar excercies with the F15 has a 2:1 kill ratio. Earlier in the year 8 F22s took on 33 F15s. All the F15s where shot down to no F22s.

The F22 is sounding like one very interesting plane.

Later,
Dan

 

[_RaT_]

Dan, I'm alittle confused on the cost of the F22. In sentence its 361 million per plane and in another its 274 million for two. Second to last paragragh.

 

[dmccarty]

Dan, I'm alittle confused on the cost of the F22. In sentence its 361 million per plane and in another its 274 million for two. Second to last paragragh.

Hmmm, its only a difference of a Hundred Million Dollars per plane, give or take.

My guess is that he had a typeo or was using different numbers. Sometimes they cost of the plane/equipment includes the R&D cost and sometimes they just have the cost of the plane. Its a whole bunch of money anyway you look at it. Not sure how he screwed up the numbers.
Later,
Dan

 

[_RaT_]

Hmmm, its only a difference of a Hundred Million Dollars per plane, give or take.

My guess is that he had a typeo or was using different numbers. Sometimes they cost of the plane/equipment includes the R&D cost and sometimes they just have the cost of the plane. Its a whole bunch of money anyway you look at it. Not sure how he screwed up the numbers.
Later,
Dan

It must be including R&D on the first one at 361 million since the other sentence you can get two, thats 2 planes for less. Maybe thats how they negotiate though in the congress for stuff like this. Lockheed offers them a deal they cannot refuse like two planes for the price of one less another 100 million and they opt for one instead. At any rate, it is obviously a very impressive plane. I want one, no make that two.

 

[Tom_H]

What they cite as the cost per plane is always changing based on their projection of how many planes will be built over the life of the assembly line. That's why the price of the B2 was so high. The R&D was high, but then they only made about 18 planes. The cost of R&D + mfg cost of 18 planes divided by 18 was a couple of billion per plane. If they'd left the assembly line in place and made another couple of hundred planes, the R&D cost would've been spread out over more planes, driving the average cost down.

The irony is that every time the bean counters say, "This plane costs too much; you have to buy fewer," they drive the cost even higher because the R&D is spread out over fewer planes. The same thing is happening with the cost on the F-35. If we decide to build fewer, the price goes higher, making our allies say, "We can't afford this plane now, we have to buy fewer." The dog just cases its own tail faster and faster. Airbus is facing this problem with the A380.

Obviously, the F-15 will lose to an F-22, and a group of F-15s is doomed to a group of F-22s due to the computerized integration of battle strategy. The F-15 will surely not dominate F-35s either. The thing is, we may not sell the F-22 to anybody else (maybe Australia and UK), and the F-35 only to our allies. Any F-15s kept in service would not be facing our own planes. Keeping old F-15s for homeland security is cost effective in that a hijacked commercial airliner will always be easy prey for an F-15. It would be a long time before most enemy countries would have something capable of engaging the F-15. (The Eurofighter will likely not get sold to our enemies. The SU-37 was only a prototype and was cancelled due to too high maintenance on the thrust vector device. Russia does have the Mig 29, and though sold to some of our enemies, third world pilots in a Mig 29 just don't have the skills to take down a USAF pilot in an F-15). The F-15 could still be useful in the wild weasel role, just as have the F-111, and until not too long ago, the F-4. So I do think in the roles of homeland security and possibly in a wild weasel role, the F-15 may still have a role to play for some time into the future.

Here's a great air combat site:

Air-Attack.com - News & Facts on Military Aviation and Space Projects

 

[_RaT_]

What they cite as the cost per plane is always changing based on their projection of how many planes will be built over the life of the assembly line. That's why the price of the B2 was so high. The R&D was high, but then they only made about 18 planes. The cost of R&D + mfg cost of 18 planes divided by 18 was a couple of billion per plane. If they'd left the assembly line in place and made another couple of hundred planes, the R&D cost would've been spread out over more planes, driving the average cost down.

The irony is that every time the bean counters say, "This plane costs too much; you have to buy fewer," they drive the cost even higher because the R&D is spread out over fewer planes. The same thing is happening with the cost on the F-35. If we decide to build fewer, the price goes higher, making our allies say, "We can't afford this plane now, we have to buy fewer." The dog just cases its own tail faster and faster. Airbus is facing this problem with the A380.

Obviously, the F-15 will lose to an F-22, and a group of F-15s is doomed to a group of F-22s due to the computerized integration of battle strategy. The F-15 will surely not dominate F-35s either. The thing is, we may not sell the F-22 to anybody else (maybe Australia and UK), and the F-35 only to our allies. Any F-15s kept in service would not be facing our own planes. Keeping old F-15s for homeland security is cost effective in that a hijacked commercial airliner will always be easy prey for an F-15. It would be a long time before most enemy countries would have something capable of engaging the F-15. (The Eurofighter will likely not get sold to our enemies. The SU-37 was only a prototype and was cancelled due to too high maintenance on the thrust vector device. Russia does have the Mig 29, and though sold to some of our enemies, third world pilots in a Mig 29 just don't have the skills to take down a USAF pilot in an F-15). The F-15 could still be useful in the wild weasel role, just as have the F-111, and until not too long ago, the F-4. So I do think in the roles of homeland security and possibly in a wild weasel role, the F-15 may still have a role to play for some time into the future.

Here's a great air combat site:

Air-Attack.com - News & Facts on Military Aviation and Space Projects

Very interesting and informative Tom, thanks.

 

[Tom_H]

With the cost of Lockheed-Martin's F-35 continuing to rise, and congress talking about delaying and/or slowing its production, Boeing just baited the Air Force by unveiling an F-15E+ "Super Eagle" and offering it to the USAF for $59M/ea., in Boeing's words, "in case there is a delay in F-35 production." Boeing is still building F-15SGs through 2009 for Singapore, so this "Super Eagle" wouldn't even start coming off the line until 2012 or 2013.

Read about it here:

Air-Attack.com News - Boeing F-15E+ Super Eagle unveiled

Frank-F15: this bird may outlast your GRANDCHILDREN!!