F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
Originally Posted By: Tdog02
Kevin Costner did a movie in the 90's called Revenge where he was a retired Tomcat driver. Do you know who flew for that footage?
My understanding is that it was leftover footage from the filming of "Top Gun". But that's heresay, I've got no insider information on that.
Kevin Costner did a movie in the 90's called Revenge where he was a retired Tomcat driver. Do you know who flew for that footage?
My understanding is that it was leftover footage from the filming of "Top Gun". But that's heresay, I've got no insider information on that.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Grumman met the VFX proposal with design 303E, which became the Tomcat. It was radical for its time, able to outmaneuver the F-4 or any other fighter in the world, while able to track and shoot multiple targets simultaneously. It was a huge leap forward in fighter performance, outperforming, and out shooting the USAF's new F-15 Eagle, that had similar performance requirements.
Now THIS is a strong statement.
To be clear: are you saying the F-14 is better air-to-air than the F-15?
Seen this debate play out here and there on the Internet, but would love to hear your thoughts on the comparison!
The first iteration of the Eagle was out-performed by the F-14. The F-15A was lacking in a lot of areas, including radar performance. During the opeval of the F-14, some F-15 drivers at Nellis were anxious to try out their new jet against the Navy.
Here is the story, told by the guy himself, Joe "Hoser" Satrapa.
Now, this is no ****! Towards the end of the AIM/ACE -- EVAL, things had heated up between the Eagle and Turkey pilots. At the Nellis O’club many innuendoes and challenges had been thrown out as a result of the high profile dog fights between the Tomcat/Eagle Blue Force and the F-5Es. The Blue Force F-15 drivers were threatened with a court martial, flying rubber dog **** outta Hong Kong and having their birthday taken away if they even thought about locking horns with ACEVAL Tomcats.
When the test sorties were finally over, a couple of F-15 instructors in the 415th training squadron took the bait. “Turk” Pentecost and I were a section. Turk was not nearly as cocky, arrogant and boisterous as D-Hose, but just as aggressive, smart, devious and just as good a stick. We briefed a very wide hook, an altitude split of 10k ft. and a radar sort @ 25nm by Bill “Hill Billy” Hill and “Fearless” Frank Schumacher. All pre-merge heat and radar missiles didn’t count. It was GUNS only at the merge. The wide hook enabled Turk and D-Hose to split the fight into (2)1v1’s, with one Turkey high, one low and lots of lateral separation.
As Hill Billy and D-hose closed for a 250ft, guns kill on their Eagle, the comm went like this:
D-hose: "Where are you Turk?"
Fearless: "Right above you Hoser"
D-hose: "We got two cons! Who’s out front?"
Turk (mildly offended): "Who do ya think?"
Both Eagles were gunned, “knock it off” was called, and the Tomcats RTB’d with a 500 knot, 6.5g, half second break at Nellis…cuz
that was our salute and tribute to our fine VX-4 maintenance personnel.
Knowing the gun camera film would be destroyed by the Nellis Photo lab, it was covertly sent to a secret contact at Grumman for processing. Bout a month later, December 6, the door slams open and General Knight, with 2 of his staff, doggie wobble heads entered demanding to know “who and where are Hoser and Turk?” Falcon (J.W. Taylor), OinC, stepped up asking if he could be of assistance. The General respondes with, “Your fighter jocks have no idea how their playful antics affect important political decisions!” Well, as General Knight proceeded to explain, Japan had contracted for twenty one F-15s, but an article in Aviation Week had talked about the F-14 being superior to the Eagle. With gun camera film to prove it, Japan was considering buying F-14s instead.
The General told JW he wanted ALL copies of the gun camera film, the TVSU/VCR tapes, and audio recordings on his desk by 0900 the next day. He was obviously [censored] when he arrived, but as a result of the humility and contrition displayed by Turk and D-hose, he was satisfied that his mission was accomplished. Of course, D-hose and Turk didn’t want to embarrass the F-15 community, and they never mentioned the incident again…UNTIL NOW! ……. A few months later at a VX-4 at JW’s , D-Hose sez “Hey Falcon, I know ya got a copy of that 16mm gun film,,,, how bout it? JW bugs for a few and returns with film I have in my hand right now.
PS: The 8” x 10” single frame of the 16 mm gun film on my bulkhead in my ‘ war room’ shows a F-15 thru a F-14 HUD, radar lock, @250ft, Vc zero, piper on the pilot’s helmet, gun selected, No X over the ‘G’ = master arm on = half detent on trigger depressed, (which activates gun camera and opens the gun gas purge doors) with… Zero rounds remaining……. Good Thing!!!
VR
D-Hose.
So, here is that picture: F-14 gun pipper sitting exactly on the helmet of the F-15 pilot.
Advantage: Tomcat.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Grumman met the VFX proposal with design 303E, which became the Tomcat. It was radical for its time, able to outmaneuver the F-4 or any other fighter in the world, while able to track and shoot multiple targets simultaneously. It was a huge leap forward in fighter performance, outperforming, and out shooting the USAF's new F-15 Eagle, that had similar performance requirements.
Now THIS is a strong statement.
To be clear: are you saying the F-14 is better air-to-air than the F-15?
Seen this debate play out here and there on the Internet, but would love to hear your thoughts on the comparison!
The first iteration of the Eagle was out-performed by the F-14. The F-15A was lacking in a lot of areas, including radar performance. During the opeval of the F-14, some F-15 drivers at Nellis were anxious to try out their new jet against the Navy.
Here is the story, told by the guy himself, Joe "Hoser" Satrapa.
Now, this is no ****! Towards the end of the AIM/ACE -- EVAL, things had heated up between the Eagle and Turkey pilots. At the Nellis O’club many innuendoes and challenges had been thrown out as a result of the high profile dog fights between the Tomcat/Eagle Blue Force and the F-5Es. The Blue Force F-15 drivers were threatened with a court martial, flying rubber dog **** outta Hong Kong and having their birthday taken away if they even thought about locking horns with ACEVAL Tomcats.
When the test sorties were finally over, a couple of F-15 instructors in the 415th training squadron took the bait. “Turk” Pentecost and I were a section. Turk was not nearly as cocky, arrogant and boisterous as D-Hose, but just as aggressive, smart, devious and just as good a stick. We briefed a very wide hook, an altitude split of 10k ft. and a radar sort @ 25nm by Bill “Hill Billy” Hill and “Fearless” Frank Schumacher. All pre-merge heat and radar missiles didn’t count. It was GUNS only at the merge. The wide hook enabled Turk and D-Hose to split the fight into (2)1v1’s, with one Turkey high, one low and lots of lateral separation.
As Hill Billy and D-hose closed for a 250ft, guns kill on their Eagle, the comm went like this:
D-hose: "Where are you Turk?"
Fearless: "Right above you Hoser"
D-hose: "We got two cons! Who’s out front?"
Turk (mildly offended): "Who do ya think?"
Both Eagles were gunned, “knock it off” was called, and the Tomcats RTB’d with a 500 knot, 6.5g, half second break at Nellis…cuz
that was our salute and tribute to our fine VX-4 maintenance personnel.
Knowing the gun camera film would be destroyed by the Nellis Photo lab, it was covertly sent to a secret contact at Grumman for processing. Bout a month later, December 6, the door slams open and General Knight, with 2 of his staff, doggie wobble heads entered demanding to know “who and where are Hoser and Turk?” Falcon (J.W. Taylor), OinC, stepped up asking if he could be of assistance. The General respondes with, “Your fighter jocks have no idea how their playful antics affect important political decisions!” Well, as General Knight proceeded to explain, Japan had contracted for twenty one F-15s, but an article in Aviation Week had talked about the F-14 being superior to the Eagle. With gun camera film to prove it, Japan was considering buying F-14s instead.
The General told JW he wanted ALL copies of the gun camera film, the TVSU/VCR tapes, and audio recordings on his desk by 0900 the next day. He was obviously [censored] when he arrived, but as a result of the humility and contrition displayed by Turk and D-hose, he was satisfied that his mission was accomplished. Of course, D-hose and Turk didn’t want to embarrass the F-15 community, and they never mentioned the incident again…UNTIL NOW! ……. A few months later at a VX-4 at JW’s , D-Hose sez “Hey Falcon, I know ya got a copy of that 16mm gun film,,,, how bout it? JW bugs for a few and returns with film I have in my hand right now.
PS: The 8” x 10” single frame of the 16 mm gun film on my bulkhead in my ‘ war room’ shows a F-15 thru a F-14 HUD, radar lock, @250ft, Vc zero, piper on the pilot’s helmet, gun selected, No X over the ‘G’ = master arm on = half detent on trigger depressed, (which activates gun camera and opens the gun gas purge doors) with… Zero rounds remaining……. Good Thing!!!
VR
D-Hose.
So, here is that picture: F-14 gun pipper sitting exactly on the helmet of the F-15 pilot.
Advantage: Tomcat.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Nice!
Can you comment on what exactly the Tomcat did better than the Eagle at that time? And how do you think things would have gone if it had been F-14D vs. F-15C?
In the early days, F-14A vs. F-15A, the Tomcat had several advantages. First was radar. The AWG-9 had longer range, more power out, and better resolution/beamwidth. It could find and track more targets and resolve formations at longer range. When coupled with the AIM-54, which had nearly 4 times the range of the Sparrow and the ability to be fired at multiple targets simultaneously, The F-15s couldn't get near the F-14s in a BVR fight.
Once the fight became close, the weapons on both airplanes were the same: AIM-7, AIM-9 and M-61 cannon. So, it came down to maneuvering performance.
The F-15A had some engine issues early on. So did the F-14A. The TF-30 P412 had a habit of blowing up the turbine, causing the blades to shed, and as they went through the airplane, causing the loss of the airplane. But the TF-30 P412 had 20,900# of thrust. With that much power, the F-14 and the F-15 were close in power/weight, though the F-15 had a slight advantage.
The F-15 had a high-altitude maneuvering advantage because of its fixed wing. The Tomcat's wing would program aft as a function of mach, so at altitudes above about 25,000', the F-15 would have the advantage. Below 10,000 feet, the Tomcat was formidable, with a more efficient wing that had slats and slotted flaps and it would out-turn the Eagle due to aerodynamic performance, even though it gave up some thrust/weight.
Once the TF-30 P414A came out, with thrust reduced to 17,000# so keep it from failing, the Tomcat gave up a lot of performance to the Eagle. But down low, I am here to tell you that the Tomcat was the better slow speed, high AOA airplane and I've got gun footage of F-15Cs to prove it. The USAF guys knew not to get slow with F-14s...and they always asked to keep the the fights to Sparrow only...so as to negate the AIM-54 advantage.
The USAF did a much better job of keeping its fighter updated, and the F-15C had more power, better engine reliability, and a much-improved radar. Thrust/weight was improved.
Once the F-14B came out, first known as the F-14A+, with the F-110 engines, the thrust/weight was back on par with the F-15C version of the Eagle and the F-14 would out-accelerate that airplane and out-turn it considerably at low altitude. The Eagle still had an advantage in high-altitude maneuvering performance.
The Tomcat still enjoyed the AIM-54 advantage until that missile was retired. The AMRAAM introduction in the early 90s gave the F-15 multishot capability, but it didn't have the AIM-54 ultimate range. F-15 guys tended to dismiss the AIM-54, thinking it couldn't maneuver, but their data was based on the AIM-54A and the AIM-54C and C+ were huge capability improvements and still exceptionally long range. Shoot, even the acronym AMRAAM gives away the truth - it's a "medium range" missile, just like the Sparrow. Now, the AMRAAM was really fast off the rail, and once you were in a short-medium range environment, the AMRAAM would get to a target much faster than the AIM-54, or even AIM-7.
The F-14D had the -[censored] engines, but added the APG-71 digital radar (better processing) as well as the Television Camera Sensor and the IRST (infrared search and track) which allowed passive intercept and a few other interesting tactics. But the basic flight performance was like the F-14B and it was a formidable airplane at high AOA and slow speed as well as having the longest range missile in the world.
So, simply put, flown to its advantages: long-range radar fight, or short range gunfight with high-AOA maneuvering, the Tomcat would win. Flown to its advantages: high-altitude and high-speed intercept with medium altitude maneuvering, or in a environment without AIM-54, the Eagle would win.
And in the early days, the USAF thought their fighter was the best in the world, and it was really upsetting to them, the leadership in particular, to find out that wasn't the case. The Junior Officers wanted to butt heads and find out who had the best airplane, but the truth was very, very upsetting to the folks trying to justify the purchase of the F-15.
I will add that the F-15 has the best combat record of any fighter ever built. The Israeli experience, as well as our own, demonstrates that the F-15 is absolutely lethal.
The USN really never got a chance to flex the F-14s capability in combat. In DESERT STORM, the Iraqis weren't afraid of the F-15, but would run when lit up by the F-14s AWG-9. They quickly learned to run from the Eagle, too. Also, that entire air war was run by the USAF from Prince Sultan Air Base, and to be very honest, they kept all the best fighter missions for their guys. They had faith in the performance of the F-15, faith justified by its incredible combat record.
Nice!
Can you comment on what exactly the Tomcat did better than the Eagle at that time? And how do you think things would have gone if it had been F-14D vs. F-15C?
In the early days, F-14A vs. F-15A, the Tomcat had several advantages. First was radar. The AWG-9 had longer range, more power out, and better resolution/beamwidth. It could find and track more targets and resolve formations at longer range. When coupled with the AIM-54, which had nearly 4 times the range of the Sparrow and the ability to be fired at multiple targets simultaneously, The F-15s couldn't get near the F-14s in a BVR fight.
Once the fight became close, the weapons on both airplanes were the same: AIM-7, AIM-9 and M-61 cannon. So, it came down to maneuvering performance.
The F-15A had some engine issues early on. So did the F-14A. The TF-30 P412 had a habit of blowing up the turbine, causing the blades to shed, and as they went through the airplane, causing the loss of the airplane. But the TF-30 P412 had 20,900# of thrust. With that much power, the F-14 and the F-15 were close in power/weight, though the F-15 had a slight advantage.
The F-15 had a high-altitude maneuvering advantage because of its fixed wing. The Tomcat's wing would program aft as a function of mach, so at altitudes above about 25,000', the F-15 would have the advantage. Below 10,000 feet, the Tomcat was formidable, with a more efficient wing that had slats and slotted flaps and it would out-turn the Eagle due to aerodynamic performance, even though it gave up some thrust/weight.
Once the TF-30 P414A came out, with thrust reduced to 17,000# so keep it from failing, the Tomcat gave up a lot of performance to the Eagle. But down low, I am here to tell you that the Tomcat was the better slow speed, high AOA airplane and I've got gun footage of F-15Cs to prove it. The USAF guys knew not to get slow with F-14s...and they always asked to keep the the fights to Sparrow only...so as to negate the AIM-54 advantage.
The USAF did a much better job of keeping its fighter updated, and the F-15C had more power, better engine reliability, and a much-improved radar. Thrust/weight was improved.
Once the F-14B came out, first known as the F-14A+, with the F-110 engines, the thrust/weight was back on par with the F-15C version of the Eagle and the F-14 would out-accelerate that airplane and out-turn it considerably at low altitude. The Eagle still had an advantage in high-altitude maneuvering performance.
The Tomcat still enjoyed the AIM-54 advantage until that missile was retired. The AMRAAM introduction in the early 90s gave the F-15 multishot capability, but it didn't have the AIM-54 ultimate range. F-15 guys tended to dismiss the AIM-54, thinking it couldn't maneuver, but their data was based on the AIM-54A and the AIM-54C and C+ were huge capability improvements and still exceptionally long range. Shoot, even the acronym AMRAAM gives away the truth - it's a "medium range" missile, just like the Sparrow. Now, the AMRAAM was really fast off the rail, and once you were in a short-medium range environment, the AMRAAM would get to a target much faster than the AIM-54, or even AIM-7.
The F-14D had the -[censored] engines, but added the APG-71 digital radar (better processing) as well as the Television Camera Sensor and the IRST (infrared search and track) which allowed passive intercept and a few other interesting tactics. But the basic flight performance was like the F-14B and it was a formidable airplane at high AOA and slow speed as well as having the longest range missile in the world.
So, simply put, flown to its advantages: long-range radar fight, or short range gunfight with high-AOA maneuvering, the Tomcat would win. Flown to its advantages: high-altitude and high-speed intercept with medium altitude maneuvering, or in a environment without AIM-54, the Eagle would win.
And in the early days, the USAF thought their fighter was the best in the world, and it was really upsetting to them, the leadership in particular, to find out that wasn't the case. The Junior Officers wanted to butt heads and find out who had the best airplane, but the truth was very, very upsetting to the folks trying to justify the purchase of the F-15.
I will add that the F-15 has the best combat record of any fighter ever built. The Israeli experience, as well as our own, demonstrates that the F-15 is absolutely lethal.
The USN really never got a chance to flex the F-14s capability in combat. In DESERT STORM, the Iraqis weren't afraid of the F-15, but would run when lit up by the F-14s AWG-9. They quickly learned to run from the Eagle, too. Also, that entire air war was run by the USAF from Prince Sultan Air Base, and to be very honest, they kept all the best fighter missions for their guys. They had faith in the performance of the F-15, faith justified by its incredible combat record.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, thanks Astro!
Love reading this stuff! Thank you, Astro!
Originally Posted By: DriveHard
Love reading this stuff! Thank you, Astro!
Thank YOU!
Glad to know that the effort was worth it.
Love reading this stuff! Thank you, Astro!
Thank YOU!
Glad to know that the effort was worth it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: DriveHard
Love reading this stuff! Thank you, Astro!
Thank YOU!
Glad to know that the effort was worth it.
It is great when experts in their field share their knowledge and experiences! Thanks!
Originally Posted By: DriveHard
Love reading this stuff! Thank you, Astro!
Thank YOU!
Glad to know that the effort was worth it.
It is great when experts in their field share their knowledge and experiences! Thanks!
I should add two important points on the F-14 vs. F-15 discussion.
First: the F-15 had better AIM-7 (Sparrow) employment capability. The missile itself liked speed and altitude and the F-15s always came in high and fast. So, on a sparrow v. sparrow fight, the F-15s always shot first. We had identical missiles (AIM-7M) but the F-15 had better employment. The AIM-120 (AMRAAM) was a game-changing weapon. While the AIM-54 was longer range, the AIM-120 was deadly at medium range because of the velocity it reached after launch.
All missiles accelerate during motor burn. The impulse (force over time) varied, and the thrust varied, so the acceleration varied. The AIM-54, for example, accelerated slowly, but the rocket motor burned for 27 seconds as the missile climbed into the stratosphere and reached ridiculous speed and altitude. The AIM-120 accelerates at a blinding rate. It literally disappears instantly when off the rail.
All missiles decelerate once the motor burns out, and airframe drag and altitude profile are what matter here. The AIM-54 flew so high that drag mattered little and it had a lot of potential energy. The AIM-120 is slick, low drag, and has excellent range because it just keeps going... In most scenarios, it's just a fantastic weapon, and the F-15 had it while the F-14 didn't.
Second, and this point is key, the pilot makes all the difference in a high-AOA/maneuvering fight. I've seen the Tomcat, an F-14A, with the lousy engines, and flown by a master, just whip an F-16N, which had every advantage. The F-16N was a stunt plane: big engine, older, lighter airframe, and no gun installed, saving on weight. It should crush the F-14 every time...but not when the F-14 was flow by a real pro.
When comparing airplanes that are close in performance, skill matters more than platform.
First: the F-15 had better AIM-7 (Sparrow) employment capability. The missile itself liked speed and altitude and the F-15s always came in high and fast. So, on a sparrow v. sparrow fight, the F-15s always shot first. We had identical missiles (AIM-7M) but the F-15 had better employment. The AIM-120 (AMRAAM) was a game-changing weapon. While the AIM-54 was longer range, the AIM-120 was deadly at medium range because of the velocity it reached after launch.
All missiles accelerate during motor burn. The impulse (force over time) varied, and the thrust varied, so the acceleration varied. The AIM-54, for example, accelerated slowly, but the rocket motor burned for 27 seconds as the missile climbed into the stratosphere and reached ridiculous speed and altitude. The AIM-120 accelerates at a blinding rate. It literally disappears instantly when off the rail.
All missiles decelerate once the motor burns out, and airframe drag and altitude profile are what matter here. The AIM-54 flew so high that drag mattered little and it had a lot of potential energy. The AIM-120 is slick, low drag, and has excellent range because it just keeps going... In most scenarios, it's just a fantastic weapon, and the F-15 had it while the F-14 didn't.
Second, and this point is key, the pilot makes all the difference in a high-AOA/maneuvering fight. I've seen the Tomcat, an F-14A, with the lousy engines, and flown by a master, just whip an F-16N, which had every advantage. The F-16N was a stunt plane: big engine, older, lighter airframe, and no gun installed, saving on weight. It should crush the F-14 every time...but not when the F-14 was flow by a real pro.
When comparing airplanes that are close in performance, skill matters more than platform.
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing I'd like to mention is a comparison between Blue (US) systems is often not complete, since we don't design our aircraft and air defense systems to go against ourselves. Thus radar warning receivers and electronic countermeasures systems often work poorly if at all against other blue systems. It can become an apples and oranges comparison, and have a great impact on "training" battles.
While I have never personally flown against an F-14, I have made mock attacks in a training scenario against a U.S Fleet, and worked with both air and ground Navy controllers on a number of occasions. As to attacking the U.S. Navy in real life, I would have to make sure my life insurance was fully paid up before I ever initiated said attack, and as to the Navy controllers, I wish all Air Force controllers had to graduate from Navy schools. I would place the average Navy controller in the top 10% of Air Force controllers. That may be a misstatement, as I never worked with any "average" Navy controllers - they were all outstanding. Dated information, and the in the last 20 years of conflict, the Air Force may have overcome the institutional limitations that resulted in what I consider their poor performance.
Two things I would like to add to Astro's observations concerning comparison between the fighters. The first is they were purpose built. The F-14 was primarily built as a fleet defense weapon, with a secondary role of providing air to air protection for the associated attack aircraft. For the primary role, long range missile capability, long range radar etc., designed to reach out and touch somebody well before they were in a position to launch their own attack on the fleet was required. As such, it had to be bigger and heavier than a purpose built air superiority fighter like the F-15.
Astro addressed some incidents where the F-14 was flown from a neutral position to a gun solution against F-15s, but if you honestly compared just the airframe, I believe the F-15 had a significant advantage in that scenario.
When you look at the missiles, the AIM-54 was amazing, but it had some disadvantages. If launched at a long range, the target had a lot of options to avoid it if he knew it was coming, to include something as simple as making a heading change. Of course then, the attacker wasn't in a position to threaten the fleet, so the F-14 was successful by definition. If the missile was retained on the F-14 to a close in fight, it had a serious impact on the maneuvering ability of the aircraft, and would almost guarantee a loss in that arena.
The second thing was number of seats in the aircraft. In a visual arena, 4 eyes are better than 2. The Air Force is and was controlled by the single seat fighter mafia. Advantage F-14 over the F-15, unless flown against the Strike Eagle, which, although purchased as a ground attack aircraft, was possibly the most potent air to air F-15 purchased by the Air Force.
As to the F-16, I'm prejudiced having been in one of a handful Air Force flying slots for back-seaters in an F-16 wing. I do not think there is a better aircraft in the world for a close in maneuvering air to air fight.
While I have never personally flown against an F-14, I have made mock attacks in a training scenario against a U.S Fleet, and worked with both air and ground Navy controllers on a number of occasions. As to attacking the U.S. Navy in real life, I would have to make sure my life insurance was fully paid up before I ever initiated said attack, and as to the Navy controllers, I wish all Air Force controllers had to graduate from Navy schools. I would place the average Navy controller in the top 10% of Air Force controllers. That may be a misstatement, as I never worked with any "average" Navy controllers - they were all outstanding. Dated information, and the in the last 20 years of conflict, the Air Force may have overcome the institutional limitations that resulted in what I consider their poor performance.
Two things I would like to add to Astro's observations concerning comparison between the fighters. The first is they were purpose built. The F-14 was primarily built as a fleet defense weapon, with a secondary role of providing air to air protection for the associated attack aircraft. For the primary role, long range missile capability, long range radar etc., designed to reach out and touch somebody well before they were in a position to launch their own attack on the fleet was required. As such, it had to be bigger and heavier than a purpose built air superiority fighter like the F-15.
Astro addressed some incidents where the F-14 was flown from a neutral position to a gun solution against F-15s, but if you honestly compared just the airframe, I believe the F-15 had a significant advantage in that scenario.
When you look at the missiles, the AIM-54 was amazing, but it had some disadvantages. If launched at a long range, the target had a lot of options to avoid it if he knew it was coming, to include something as simple as making a heading change. Of course then, the attacker wasn't in a position to threaten the fleet, so the F-14 was successful by definition. If the missile was retained on the F-14 to a close in fight, it had a serious impact on the maneuvering ability of the aircraft, and would almost guarantee a loss in that arena.
The second thing was number of seats in the aircraft. In a visual arena, 4 eyes are better than 2. The Air Force is and was controlled by the single seat fighter mafia. Advantage F-14 over the F-15, unless flown against the Strike Eagle, which, although purchased as a ground attack aircraft, was possibly the most potent air to air F-15 purchased by the Air Force.
As to the F-16, I'm prejudiced having been in one of a handful Air Force flying slots for back-seaters in an F-16 wing. I do not think there is a better aircraft in the world for a close in maneuvering air to air fight.
Last edited by a moderator:
Astro
How many different Tomcats did you actually get to fly?
Was there any particular one that felt better screwed together than the rest?
Because of high use on tv and movies I fell in love with Tomcats of VF-84. Being up close with the one at the Museum of flight in Washington was surreal. Such a cool looking machine as good as any jet I had seen which is saying a lot considering dozens of USAF and Coastguard planes flew about 200 feet above my house literally every day living right outside McClellan AFB. I saw a lot of planes and Tomcats are right up there with SR-71 as far as a e s t h e t i c s
as a child of the 1980s what really put me over the edge was waking up early during the week to watch "Robotech"
How many different Tomcats did you actually get to fly?
Was there any particular one that felt better screwed together than the rest?
Because of high use on tv and movies I fell in love with Tomcats of VF-84. Being up close with the one at the Museum of flight in Washington was surreal. Such a cool looking machine as good as any jet I had seen which is saying a lot considering dozens of USAF and Coastguard planes flew about 200 feet above my house literally every day living right outside McClellan AFB. I saw a lot of planes and Tomcats are right up there with SR-71 as far as a e s t h e t i c s
as a child of the 1980s what really put me over the edge was waking up early during the week to watch "Robotech"
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
As to the F-16, I'm prejudiced having been in one of a handful Air Force flying slots for back-seaters in an F-16 wing. I do not think there is a better aircraft in the world for a close in maneuvering air to air fight.
I don't think there is either...
As to the F-16, I'm prejudiced having been in one of a handful Air Force flying slots for back-seaters in an F-16 wing. I do not think there is a better aircraft in the world for a close in maneuvering air to air fight.
I don't think there is either...
The -16 is the very definition of "fighter". I'm old enough to remember the development and fielding stages. It's not for nothing that many AF pilots started calling it "The Electric Lawn Dart". We lost enough that some of the dead crews' wives sued General Dynamics which had to be a first. It turned into a magnificent aircraft but the advancing flight control technologies exacted a high price in development.
I missed this question, please forgive the response.
I flew about 50 different airframes. Perhaps more. I'll have to check...
Some were "trucks" and always worked well. Some were troublesome, "hangar queens". It was random across building years. Luck of the draw, I guess. A good maintenance department could "groom" a jet, get everything fixed correctly, and it was back to being a "truck".
But good maintenance guys, guys who could do that, were rare. Worth their weight in gold...
I flew about 50 different airframes. Perhaps more. I'll have to check...
Some were "trucks" and always worked well. Some were troublesome, "hangar queens". It was random across building years. Luck of the draw, I guess. A good maintenance department could "groom" a jet, get everything fixed correctly, and it was back to being a "truck".
But good maintenance guys, guys who could do that, were rare. Worth their weight in gold...
Last edited by a moderator:
Astro14,
What where your thoughts during your first trap in rough seas at night?
What's your opinion of the F35? VTOL a disappointing compromise?
What where your thoughts during your first trap in rough seas at night?
What's your opinion of the F35? VTOL a disappointing compromise?
Last edited:
First night trap is hard to forget...aboard JFK, in 1989, in an F-14A. The difficult thing about night traps is the lack of visual reference. You can't imagine how black the ocean is at night, under an overcast sky, as it was that night. You can't tell wings level. You can't tell if you're high or low. Only the landing area of the boat is illuminated, a roughly 600 foot long, 80 foot wide bit of a ship surrounded in inky blackness. You can't tell anything from that short bit of runway, even left/right is hard to tell. You fly an instrument approach to 3/4 of a mile, then "call the ball" when you transition to the optical glideslope. The optical glideslope is precise. At 3/4 of a mile (which is about 20 seconds to touchdown), the center cell is +/- 10 feet. The whole lens is +/- 50 feet. So, if you're off by more than that, you can't call the ball, because you can't see it...and the LSO wouldn't be putting up with that gross of a deviation, anyway...
First pitching deck is even harder to forget.
As little reference as I described above, you have even less when the ship is moving up and down...and you have to fly the airplane in a steady, predictable manner, so that the LSO can work with you. Large power, or pitch, or line-up corrections will make it impossible for the LSO to keep you within parameters, and you'll get waved off. It's disconcerting. Everything looks wrong, and it keeps changing, and you're supposed to fly smoothly, with no reference except the MOVLAS*, while listening to the radio, and hope it all works out.
Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.
On a Nimitz-class, the perfect approach will have you crossing with 14.1 feet of hook clearance over the ramp. When the ship is moving up and down +/- 20 feet, there are times when you lose sight of the deck, because even though your approach is in the right place in space...the deck has gone up by 20 feet, and you are below the apparent height of the deck....and unless that ship comes back down, you're just out of sync with its motion...below the edge of the deck, and going to crash horribly...so, the LSO will keep you coming if he can feel the deck (which moves in more or less steady cycles) is going to come back down...or he will wave you off. There are an equal number of times when you're more than twice as high as you should be...that deck has dropped 20 feet, and you feel really high, because you can see so much of the deck, and to land when the deck is that far down will result in a bolter (missing the wires) or a broken airplane as you double the descent rate to get back down. And again, your faith is in the LSO to work you into a safe position...or wave you off...
*MOVLAS = Manually Operated Visual Landing Aid System. The regular glideslope lens is turned off and replaced by a light bar that is controlled by the LSO. A good LSO can feel the deck going up and down and knows how high you should be above the horizon and the deck. The art, then is in working with that pitch cycle to get the airplane in a position to land safely, or to abandon that try. The LSO needs a predictable, smooth pilot, because a big power correction (especially off) when you're close to the deck has often resulted in terrible disaster...
F-35?
Too big to fail.
The -B model, which is the Marine VTOL, brings some interesting capabilities to the USMC that the AV-8B did not have. Good air-to-air. Stealth strike. But at tremendous cost. Over $100 million/airplane. So, without a reasonable alternative (i.e. non-stealth $25 million Harrier, which is no longer made, and was range limited and had rudimentary air-to-air) the USMC is all in... It's a better airplane, but it curtails every other USMC procurement program because it's so very expensive. What are the Marines giving up to buy this thing? New rifles? One, just ONE, of those airplanes would buy new rifles for every Marine...New Assault landing craft? More V-22s?
So, they're buying it as the Harrier wears out because it is the ONLY alternative...but while it brings new capabilities, the opportunity cost is very high.
First pitching deck is even harder to forget.
As little reference as I described above, you have even less when the ship is moving up and down...and you have to fly the airplane in a steady, predictable manner, so that the LSO can work with you. Large power, or pitch, or line-up corrections will make it impossible for the LSO to keep you within parameters, and you'll get waved off. It's disconcerting. Everything looks wrong, and it keeps changing, and you're supposed to fly smoothly, with no reference except the MOVLAS*, while listening to the radio, and hope it all works out.
Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.
On a Nimitz-class, the perfect approach will have you crossing with 14.1 feet of hook clearance over the ramp. When the ship is moving up and down +/- 20 feet, there are times when you lose sight of the deck, because even though your approach is in the right place in space...the deck has gone up by 20 feet, and you are below the apparent height of the deck....and unless that ship comes back down, you're just out of sync with its motion...below the edge of the deck, and going to crash horribly...so, the LSO will keep you coming if he can feel the deck (which moves in more or less steady cycles) is going to come back down...or he will wave you off. There are an equal number of times when you're more than twice as high as you should be...that deck has dropped 20 feet, and you feel really high, because you can see so much of the deck, and to land when the deck is that far down will result in a bolter (missing the wires) or a broken airplane as you double the descent rate to get back down. And again, your faith is in the LSO to work you into a safe position...or wave you off...
*MOVLAS = Manually Operated Visual Landing Aid System. The regular glideslope lens is turned off and replaced by a light bar that is controlled by the LSO. A good LSO can feel the deck going up and down and knows how high you should be above the horizon and the deck. The art, then is in working with that pitch cycle to get the airplane in a position to land safely, or to abandon that try. The LSO needs a predictable, smooth pilot, because a big power correction (especially off) when you're close to the deck has often resulted in terrible disaster...
F-35?
Too big to fail.
The -B model, which is the Marine VTOL, brings some interesting capabilities to the USMC that the AV-8B did not have. Good air-to-air. Stealth strike. But at tremendous cost. Over $100 million/airplane. So, without a reasonable alternative (i.e. non-stealth $25 million Harrier, which is no longer made, and was range limited and had rudimentary air-to-air) the USMC is all in... It's a better airplane, but it curtails every other USMC procurement program because it's so very expensive. What are the Marines giving up to buy this thing? New rifles? One, just ONE, of those airplanes would buy new rifles for every Marine...New Assault landing craft? More V-22s?
So, they're buying it as the Harrier wears out because it is the ONLY alternative...but while it brings new capabilities, the opportunity cost is very high.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks !
I can only imagine the stress level during those moments.
I can only imagine the stress level during those moments.
