BombCat
Guest
Posts: n/a
BombCat
Evening all,
Bit of a spotters question this but I'm bored at work.
On the news last week re the air campaign over Afganistan a reporter said that F14's were bombing Kabul.
Now we all know that the F14's were not bombing but does anyone know if anything ever came of the so called F14 'Bombcat' programme.
<Spotter mode Off>
Bit of a spotters question this but I'm bored at work.
On the news last week re the air campaign over Afganistan a reporter said that F14's were bombing Kabul.
Now we all know that the F14's were not bombing but does anyone know if anything ever came of the so called F14 'Bombcat' programme.
<Spotter mode Off>
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddo Formation Check in.
The US Navy realised a while back that the luxury of having dedicated aircraft for dedicated jobs on deck was one that could no longer be afforded. In addition, the main threat to the carrier group, the long-range, cruise missile-toting bomber is not a sight one sees every day, anymore.
Consequently, the role of the F-14 became an expanded one. The Tomcat has been integrated with the Lantirn targeting pod (ala F-16 and F-15E) and is generally able to tote a minimum of 2 LGB under fuselage. And this whilst maintaining some air-to-air capability.
The term 'fighter' in the air-to-air sense is becoming increasingly dated, and seems to be given to any design that is single or two-seat, has one or to large engines and carries AAMs. However, as we know, the JSF is primarily a platform for 2 x 2000lb-class PGMs. A more accurate term I'm not sure of, but one for debate.
Where did I put that box?
The US Navy realised a while back that the luxury of having dedicated aircraft for dedicated jobs on deck was one that could no longer be afforded. In addition, the main threat to the carrier group, the long-range, cruise missile-toting bomber is not a sight one sees every day, anymore.
Consequently, the role of the F-14 became an expanded one. The Tomcat has been integrated with the Lantirn targeting pod (ala F-16 and F-15E) and is generally able to tote a minimum of 2 LGB under fuselage. And this whilst maintaining some air-to-air capability.
The term 'fighter' in the air-to-air sense is becoming increasingly dated, and seems to be given to any design that is single or two-seat, has one or to large engines and carries AAMs. However, as we know, the JSF is primarily a platform for 2 x 2000lb-class PGMs. A more accurate term I'm not sure of, but one for debate.
Where did I put that box?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gainsy
Don't be soft - far too simple.
It'd have to be something like NCDCSAPTCLAI - Non-Collatoral Damage Causing Super Accurate Platform,That Can Look After Itself, surely?
OK - F/A then.
Don't be soft - far too simple.
It'd have to be something like NCDCSAPTCLAI - Non-Collatoral Damage Causing Super Accurate Platform,That Can Look After Itself, surely?
OK - F/A then.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As well as lots of laser-bombing, Tomcats are also being used as fast-FACs. They have much greater legs than the Hornet, enabling them to hang around (especially the Bs and Ds), and they have two pairs of beady littles on board. The LANTIRN seems to work pretty well on the F-14, too. They FACed a lot in Kosovo, and are doing the same over Afghanistan. Quite a few of the TV clips of 'Air Force jets circle overhead' etc etc have been of Cats doing their thang.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didntdoit: re your definition of a fighter in the last para.
It falls down when one considers the so called F117 stealth fighter, which, to the best of my knowledge does not and never has carried any AAM.
If fact it is a mystery to me why it was given the F designation in the first place.
Any suggestions ?
It falls down when one considers the so called F117 stealth fighter, which, to the best of my knowledge does not and never has carried any AAM.
If fact it is a mystery to me why it was given the F designation in the first place.
Any suggestions ?
Like F-111.
And like F-111 some A-A capability was envisaged when the aircraft was designated.
Also the Spams have a tendency to describe (if not designate) anything they can as a fighter - including such fighters as the A-10, and even the OV-10 Bronco (have an official brochure describing it as a 'ground support fighter' or somesuch)
And like F-111 some A-A capability was envisaged when the aircraft was designated.
Also the Spams have a tendency to describe (if not designate) anything they can as a fighter - including such fighters as the A-10, and even the OV-10 Bronco (have an official brochure describing it as a 'ground support fighter' or somesuch)
