F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

[Astro14]

Much of what McNamara did was good; consolidation, cost management, and planning. I did not realize that he pushed to USAF to adopt the F-4, or the A-7.

The USAF use of the A-7 and F-4 was very successful. Those airplanes served the USAF well. TFX was a huge disaster, a bridge too far in shared programs, mostly because the fighter and medium bomber requirements were so very different.

 

[y_p_w]

Much of what McNamara did was good; consolidation, cost management, and planning. I did not realize that he pushed to USAF to adopt the F-4, or the A-7.

The USAF use of the A-7 and F-4 was very successful. Those airplanes served the USAF well. TFX was a huge disaster, a bridge too far in shared programs, mostly because the fighter and medium bomber requirements were so very different.

Of course including the eventual use of the TF30 in the F-14. I thought it was supposed to be a stopgap until they could put in something that didn't stall as much.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

F-4, A-7 and the A-4 were Navy origin planes used to great effect by the Air Force.
In the '50s and early 60s, the Air Force was run by the Bomber/Strategic Air Command clowns. The tactical side was not emphasized. That resulted in interceptors like the F-102, F-106, and F-104, then fair weather bombers like the F-105. As Vietnam proved, none were very capable as fighters. I hate to think of where the Air Force would have been without the F-4.
The AF initially ignored the Navy concept of operations in the Phantom (pilot and Radar Intercept Officer - RIO) in favor of a Pilot in Command and back seat Pilot Systems Officer (PSO). The AF versions were different than Navy as they had complete flight controls in the back. Standard conversation in an F-4 after take off:
PSO: "Can I fly?"
Front seat pilot: "No"
Followed by a long period of silence. PSOs were probably the most unhappy people in the military.
After a while the AF recognized the value of putting a navigator Weapons System Officer (WSO) in the back seat similar to the Navy's RIO concept.

 

[Tikka]

Sorry - missed this. Too busy moderating, lately, it seems...

So, "weaponeering" is the art of matching weapon selection (bomb, etc.), weapon performance, and delivery method to the desired effect on the target.

You've got a choice in type of bomb/weapon, bomb size, bomb composition, guidance, fusing, and number - optimizing all of those allows you to get the desired effect on a target.

There is a very comprehensive manual for this art, known as JMEMS - Joint Munition Effectiveness Manual.

You can tell how things are going to work against various target types - Bunker, oil tank, armored vehicle, regular house, whatever, and then optimize the weapon.

For example, you want to hit a bunker. The bomb has to penetrate 5 meters of concrete. That narrows the bomb choice down to one that can survive the impact. You'll need a delay fuse that senses the impact and goes off XXX milliseconds after so that the bomb explodes inside the bunker. You'll want a guidance package that allows precision impact, laser or GPS, depending on the operational environment. You'll want a delivery method - dive, toss, simple release, etc. - as well as fins, or stabilization, that allows the weapon sufficient energy on impact to penetrate the concrete.

It's not simple. It's actually very complex and it's part art, part science, part testing and research. One of the more important considerations is collateral damage. We mitigate that by using just enough weapon to destroy the intended target, and not everything around it, as well as ensuring sufficient precision in delivery to ensure that the target is struck, without the weapon being off target and causing unintended damage or consequences.

It's also not done well by other nations, who just drop dumb, unguided, impact fuzed weapons without regard to target accuracy, desired effect, or collateral damage.

Hi Astro.
I realise you are a very busy man. I am grateful for you answering as and when you can.

So is the 'weaponeering' peculiar to the U.S. Navy Pilots? Would a U.S.A.F. Pilot be assigned a weapons package, unlike a Navy Pilot who would select his/her own?

I really enjoy the Ward Carroll videos on youtube. The latest one, he talks with a Gentleman called Okie Nance. Mr Nance explains the Dogfighting techniques he used when flying the F14. Particularly the use of the 'vertical'. They are great for someone like myself, that no matter how much i read and how many videos i watch, my real knowledge can only be veneer thin.

 

[Astro14]

I apologize for making you wait, @Tikka - I'll try to check on this thread more often.

Okie Nance was an instructor of mine in the F-14. A bit gruff, but a good stick. Used to like coming into the break with the glove vanes out. As his wingman/student in Key West a couple of times, I had the pleasure of being quite low, very fast, glove vanes out, on Okie's wing.

You would have to ask a USAF pilot about who weaponeers/plans their munitions and deliveries, but I will say that after extensive experience at that CAOC, that there is some centralized planning.

Ward Carroll - "Mooch" - does a good job with these topics. I think making the videos is a bit of self-aggrandizement, as he is monetizing his F-14 experience, when most of us are not, but I think his treatment of various topics has been reasonable and fair.

 

[y_p_w]

Ward Carroll - "Mooch" - does a good job with these topics. I think making the videos is a bit of self-aggrandizement, as he is monetizing his F-14 experience, when most of us are not, but I think his treatment of various topics has been reasonable and fair.

That's consider a faux pas? I've heard in the special forces community, monetizing one's experiences is considered poor form.

 

[Astro14]

That's consider a faux pas? I've heard in the special forces community, monetizing one's experiences is considered poor form.

I consider it gauche. It’s crass.

It‘s self promotion for money.

It’s capitalizing on the popularity of, and interest in, an entire community when you were just one moderately successful member of said community, in order to make money.

You want to give free talks at a museum? Cool. Totally support that.

Spend a couple hours with the Boy Scouts talking about the airplane and answering questions. Cool. Done that.

But like his books, this is just shameless self promotion, as if he alone has been given the gift of communication to tell our story.

 

[y_p_w]

I consider it gauche. It’s crass.

It‘s self promotion for money.

It’s capitalizing on the popularity of, and interest in, an entire community when you were just one moderately successful member of said community, in order to make money.

You want to give free talks at a museum? Cool. Totally support that.

Spend a couple hours with the Boy Scouts talking about the airplane and answering questions. Cool. Done that.

But like his books, this is just shameless self promotion, as if he alone has been given the gift of communication to tell our story.

I see ex-military monetizing their experience indirectly. Pilots becoming airline or charter pilots. Some become private test pilots testing the same aircraft that military test pilots fly. Maybe forming a private security company. Or even working as a private security contractor overseas - practically mercenaries.

 

[Astro14]

I see ex-military monetizing their experience indirectly. Pilots becoming airline or charter pilots. Some become private test pilots testing the same aircraft that military test pilots fly. Maybe forming a private security company. Or even working as a private security contractor overseas - practically mercenaries.

My airline job is just that - I work for a living. I work. I get paid for that work.

I earn my money.

To earn my flight training, I served for several years. I did two combat deployments. I was selected for fighters ahead of everyone in my AOCS class.

I earned my flight training that led to my current job.

That’s dramatically different than making YouTube videos about myself and expecting people to pay me for talking about myself.

There’s no comparison between me and Mooch. His book was a rambling collection of sea stories in search of a plot. He used real people and their stories to build his characters, stealing from the community of which he was once part.

Now this. Talking about the community, and analyzing things like carrier landings, even though he has never, actually, landed an airplane on a carrier.

He clearly has an ego that needs feeding.

And, evidently, a wallet that needs feeding, too.

 

[y_p_w]

My airline job is just that - I work for a living. I work. I get paid for that work.

I earn my money.

To earn my flight training, I served for several years. I did two combat deployments. I was selected for fighters ahead of everyone in my AOCS class.

I earned my flight training that led to my current job.

That’s dramatically different than making YouTube videos about myself and expecting people to pay me for talking about myself.

There’s no comparison between me and Mooch. His book was a rambling collection of sea stories in search of a plot. He used real people and their stories to build his characters, stealing from the community of which he was once part.

Now this. Talking about the community, and analyzing things like carrier landings, even though he has never, actually, landed an airplane on a carrier.

He clearly has an ego that needs feeding.

And, evidently, a wallet that needs feeding, too.

I’m just thinking that like many other jobs, prior experience gets one through the door.

However, Ward Carroll is clearly not alone. But I get what you’re saying.

 

[Astro14]

Thanks - He’s earned his pension.

But I dislike the “leadership consultants” who prance on stage in a flight suit, using fighter slang, to mesmerized business leaders dumb enough to buy their trite message.

I dislike this channel for similar reasons.

It’s just distasteful to me.

 

[Astro14]

I’m just thinking that like many other jobs, prior experience gets one through the door.

However, Ward Carroll is clearly not alone. But I get what you’re saying.

Let me also add that you are absolutely right: the military is a great place to learn a technical trade. Everything from flying, ship handling, to electronics, vehicle repair and maintenance, and even healthcare. Some of what the military teaches you is not readily translatable into other careers, but leadership, accountability, and maturity are often byproducts of military service and a good foundation for future careers.

 

[y_p_w]

Let me also add that you are absolutely right: the military is a great place to learn a technical trade. Everything from flying, ship handling, to electronics, vehicle repair and maintenance, and even healthcare. Some of what the military teaches you is not readily translatable into other careers, but leadership, accountability, and maturity are often byproducts of military service and a good foundation for future careers.

But the heart of military operations is handling weapons and possibly firing them in anger. That’s got to be a tough road to transitioning to civilian life. I think we’ve all heard of resentment among active duty military for some of the “private contractors” who monetized their prior military experience into high paying jobs securing government facilities and employees.

The speaking circuit is full of former politicians, soldiers, pilots, etc. looking to monetize their stories. I personally don’t get it. Heck, around here, Chesley Sullenberger has turned his experience ditching a plane with no working engines into a lucrative career speaking at corporate events. But he does it in a normal suit.

 

[George Bynum]

Heck, around here, Chesley Sullenberger has turned his experience ditching a plane with no working engines ...

Commercial and instructors for gliders ... I credit much of his success on that.

 

[wwillson]

Very cool ship. Managed to get a tour of the plant, 8 nuclear reactors, 4 plants in all. Not easy to get down into the engineering spaces, you need to be added to the radiation monitoring program, wear a measuring device, and a host of other protocols. I knew a very senior officer aboard who facilitated the tour.

My next door neighbor was a nuclear officer on the Enterprise. He had been out for ten years when I first met him. The level of detail of the reactors and support systems he still remembers all these years later is astounding. To this day he can still rattle off procedures and checklists from his head. One of the smartest people I've ever known and it's no surprise that he's at the very top of the field he works in today.

 

[Doc8404]

Thanks - He’s earned his pension.

But I dislike the “leadership consultants” who prance on stage in a flight suit, using fighter slang, to mesmerized business leaders dumb enough to buy their trite message.

I dislike this channel for similar reasons.

It’s just distasteful to me.

agreed. Had this guy present to a few hundred of us once....everyone is like, "MAN, you must've loved it..."

No. Not even close. If anyone got anything out of his "presentation" I would love to know what it was.

Jim "Murph" Murphy: Business Speaker

James D. "Murph" Murphy, the Founder & CEO of Afterburner, Inc. and business speaker, has a unique and powerful mix of leadership skills in both the military and business worlds.

www.afterburner.com

 

[Tdog02]

Question about different models of the F-14.

I saw the pic of your log book (different thread) and saw you went between A and B models during a certain time frame. My question: is that normal in the military, and how challenging is that to the pilots when they switch between variants in the same platform?

 

[y_p_w]

Question about different models of the F-14.

I saw the pic of your log book (different thread) and saw you went between A and B models during a certain time frame. My question: is that normal in the military, and how challenging is that to the pilots when they switch between variants in the same platform?

My understanding was the primary difference was the engines, where the problematic PW TF30 was replaced with GE's F110. Apparently there were other systems upgrades that were engine independent, but it sounds like they were mostly handled by the RIO.

 

[Astro14]

Question about different models of the F-14.

I saw the pic of your log book (different thread) and saw you went between A and B models during a certain time frame. My question: is that normal in the military, and how challenging is that to the pilots when they switch between variants in the same platform?

The engines were the principal difference, but there were several, small systems differences.

RWR was different (ALR-67 was much better than ALR-45/50 and created a huge difference in tactical employment).

No glove vanes on the -B, engine inlets worked differently, ATLS was installed, as was RATS, and the procedures for an engine in SEC mode were something that had to be trained.

Emergency procedures ("boldface" or memory items) were slightly different between the jets, the result of different engine performance, and different engine malfunction types.

The training course for a -B or -A was the same, but with those differences trained during and identical training track, and only instructors would get trained in both models.

It's rare in the military to have pilots fly different models.

 

[Astro14]

agreed. Had this guy present to a few hundred of us once....everyone is like, "MAN, you must've loved it..."

No. Not even close. If anyone got anything out of his "presentation" I would love to know what it was.

Jim "Murph" Murphy: Business Speaker

James D. "Murph" Murphy, the Founder & CEO of Afterburner, Inc. and business speaker, has a unique and powerful mix of leadership skills in both the military and business worlds.

www.afterburner.com

Yep - a modest career (wing training officer? Trained 42 pilots? OK, so, he had a typical major's assignment) with 1,200 hours in the Eagle, and there he is, prancing about on stage in his flight suit.

"I flew an Eagle for six years, kept a couple dozen pilots trained, made major, and yeah, you should listen to me because I am a ROCK STAR!"

Sheesh...