What's the significance of this?

[Nikademus]

Can the F-18 preform long range Fleet Defense?

[DuckofTindalos]

Yes, it can... And since the threat is no longer multi-regiment attacks of Backfires with big-ass anti-ship missiles, well...

[Nikademus]

Can the F-18 lug a Phoenix?

[DuckofTindalos]

Doesn't need to. They got this new-fangled thing called an AMRAAM now... Besides, can a Phoenix hit a maneuvering fighter, or a light suicide plane packed with explosives? That remains highly doubtful. The AMRAAM has a proven track record, the Phoenix didn't...

[Nikademus]

true....suppose we are past the era of massed bomber attacks on CV TF's.....still, I find it a bit disturbing that the F-14 is being retired for some reason.

[DuckofTindalos]

That's because it's such a cool machine. I felt the same way when I heard it, but hey-ho...

[Nikademus]

Hiiiiiiiighway tooooo the DANNNNGER ZONE....da da da da

[DuckofTindalos]

I feel the need...

The need for speed...

[Mynok]

You've lost that...lovin' feelin'........

It is curious that the Navy is getting rid of air superiority capability and going with strike aircraft that defend themselves. Can't really argue against it because with limited numbers on a CV, one absolutely wants multi-function aircraft. Just seems like one would want some kind of air superiority capability, even if not a dedicated model.

[DuckofTindalos]

The F/A-18E/-F is more than capable of providing fleet defence and air superiority. Long legs, large missile load, very advanced radar, data links, etc...

[ChezDaJez]

I guess the Backfire/Bear threat is gone, and the Navy needs to keep up with the times. But a CVN without F-14's? It's just not MY Navy.

That's what I said when they took the last of the F-4s off the carriers![:D]

Chez

[DuckofTindalos]

Wonder if the F-14 would have become such an icon without Tommy C.?

[Nikademus]

Chez is OLD.

[:'(]

[MorbiusStorm]

I lived on the Roosevelt (CVN-72) for a couple of years and that picture looks wrong. I don't care if its taking off from the agle deck or not, the people aren't where they should be. They would all be toast if that was correct. You don't have the flight controllers standing around off to the sides of the cats while the air planes zoom past them. That's a load of bull and there is no way those people would be on that deck where they are if the agle deck was in use. Something is wrong with that picture. Its doctored. If it did a touch and go, same thing, those people would not be standing around in the middle of the planes trajectory and its hook would be extended. It's hood is not extended. But its landing gear is down. Similar to taking off. But all those people on the flight deck are simply in the wrong places for it. After living on one, I can tell you without a doubt that something is very definately wrong with that picture despite what anyone think it looks like. Everyone on the flight deck would be looking at court martial if they stood around like that during air ops on the flight deck. If that picture is absolutely real, which I seriously can't believe, then the only way is if it was some kind of presentation showing the aircraft fly by. Nothing else is realisic. It's a bogus picture.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Eloryn

I lived on the Roosevelt (CVN-72) for a couple of years and that picture looks wrong. I don't care if its taking off from the agle deck or not, the people aren't where they should be. They would all be toast if that was correct. You don't have the flight controllers standing around off to the sides of the cats while the air planes zoom past them. That's a load of bull and there is no way those people would be on that deck where they are if the agle deck was in use. Something is wrong with that picture. Its doctored. If it did a touch and go, same thing, those people would not be standing around in the middle of the planes trajectory and its hook would be extended. It's hood is not extended. But its landing gear is down. Similar to taking off. But all those people on the flight deck are simply in the wrong places for it. After living on one, I can tell you without a doubt that something is very definately wrong with that picture despite what anyone think it looks like. Everyone on the flight deck would be looking at court martial if they stood around like that during air ops on the flight deck. If that picture is absolutely real, which I seriously can't believe, then the only way is if it was some kind of presentation showing the aircraft fly by. Nothing else is realisic. It's a bogus picture.

Are both pictures bogus?

[MorbiusStorm]

Despite the fact that the angle of the picture is above and behind the aircraft. Its simply not realistic for real flight ops.

[DuckofTindalos]

Hey, maybe the whole "The Tomcat retires" story is bogus! Maybe it's just a clever ruse...[8|]

[m10bob]

Well...After WWII some of the most common planes ceased to be in our skies.. The Martin B 26, P 38 and P 47 come to mind, and they sat in the desert for years, just basking "in case".. Planes are still there, (till the torch comes.)
Veteran groups usually get "first dibs" for static display planes.
I do not believe I have ever seen a Tomcat in real life.......

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, most planes aren't meant to be Methuselas like the B-52.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Hiiiiiiiighway tooooo the DANNNNGER ZONE....da da da da

I just wanted to say that, Maverick.