F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

Didn't mean to imply that the vanes increased stability, but I can see that's how it sounded.

The increased stability for bombing, in the bomb mode, came from locking the sweep angle (no trim changes) and sweeping them aft. Vanes reduced the trim requirement and added surface area.
 
About stores separation, it brings back memories of old McDonnell-Douglas F-15/AV-8B/F-18 and older F-4 videos of flight tests. Some of them looked like the squibs only partly fired and/or the aircraft had a high alpha without enough positive g's.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
As far as alpha, bomb delivery (in the old days of dumb bombs) was done in a dive at relatively high speed. The alpha was quite low, regardless of wing position.

Further, the tunnel created some interesting aero effects, and the Tomcat needed a strong ejection charge to get the bomb clear of the tunnel...when we first started carrying bombs again in 1990...we had to go through a lot of testing with our new racks, to ensure that the weapons would clear...

Speaking of dumb bombs but smart tactics - Was the F-14 qualified for CCIP delivery? I ask due to the discussion of the energy, and maybe variable amounts of it, involved in the release mechanism.
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Speaking there about toss bombing as opposed to steady state.

CCIP? Thats for woooosies. This is REAL work for an F-14:
7t0SlH0.jpg


* "Operation Chastise", Royal Air Force No. 617 Squadron
 
Fighter jocks. Loved watching them take off the USS GW fully loaded off the coast of Bosnia. Sent my beloved A6 Intruder in the air to fuel them since they burned so much!
 
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
"Operation Chastise", Royal Air Force No. 617 Squadron

Ah yes, the rare Avro variant F-14.... Barrel bombs have taken on a much more sinister definition these days.
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: Astro14
As far as alpha, bomb delivery (in the old days of dumb bombs) was done in a dive at relatively high speed. The alpha was quite low, regardless of wing position.

Further, the tunnel created some interesting aero effects, and the Tomcat needed a strong ejection charge to get the bomb clear of the tunnel...when we first started carrying bombs again in 1990...we had to go through a lot of testing with our new racks, to ensure that the weapons would clear...


Speaking of dumb bombs but smart tactics - Was the F-14 qualified for CCIP delivery? I ask due to the discussion of the energy, and maybe variable amounts of it, involved in the release mechanism.


Let's define terms. CCIP = Continuously Computed Impact Point. That means that the HUD-displayed WIP (Weapon Impact Point) shows where the bomb will hit if it's released at this instant. So, walk that CCIP up the bomb fall line, and hit the pickle button, and the bomb goes where the WIP is at that moment.

The weapon system computes the CCIP based on dive angle, bank, G, Airspeed and altitude. It's like a rifle sight...only compensated for bomb fall and instantaneous range.

Now, what you're referring to is "Auto" delivery: designating a target, and pulling up with an automatic release. And yes, the F-14 was capable of that kind of delivery. Forward of the throttle was a slew switch. The pilot designated the target by using the slew switch to move a WIP up and down the bomb fall line. Bumping the switch forward designated the desired impact point along that bomb fall line.

The bomb pickle then became a "consent" switch. Hold it down, fly the airplane (including both level flight, and pulling up) up the bomb fall line, and the bomb would be released by the weapon system automatically to impact the designated point. As a practical matter, you got the best hits using CCIP and a stable airplane...just like shooting a gun...Auto mode worked, and the smoother your pull off, the fewer calculations and variables for the weapons system to calculate in real-time, and the better the hits...

Auto bombing allowed you to release a high-drag weapon whose CCIP would be below the HUD field of view...it also allowed a high-altitude delivery of a weapon to keep the airplane out of some threat envelopes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for that, I was always fascinated by that capability. Is it kosher to ask what kind of range was achieved in the highest energy release (altitude dependent I know but just an example)? Has the advent of GPS tail kits as well as winged kits reduced the need for that sort of toss? Lots of number crunching going on in the fire control system!
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Thanks for that, I was always fascinated by that capability. Is it kosher to ask what kind of range was achieved in the highest energy release (altitude dependent I know but just an example)? Has the advent of GPS tail kits as well as winged kits reduced the need for that sort of toss? Lots of number crunching going on in the fire control system!

You could get pretty good stand off range with a simple bomb if you were going fast enough. The A-6 Intruder was designed to deliver a nuke in a toss by designating the target and pulling up...that lofted the bomb towards its target while the airplane completed the loop (half Cuban eight, actually) and escaped outside the lethal radius before detonation...

PGMs made delivery much more simple...and being high and fast allowed them to reach targets that a simply bomb could not. There are limits, the impact angle becomes a factor (for some weapons/target combinations, you want the bomb going down, not coming in from the side)...but all that could be determined by good planning...and a good weapon system..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old article. Read it a while ago...good read...the Tomcat community was colorful...and unique, just like the jet herself.
 
I see it more as USN vs LAF... the Mig-23 is a competent airplane, if you have competent pilot.

Training and instruction is where the difference is really made, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
I see it more as USN vs LAF... the Mig-23 is a competent airplane, if you have competent pilot.

Training and instruction is where the difference is really made, IMO.

The Tomcat does a lot of things far, far better than the Mig-23. In fact, virtually everything. The tomcat has better energy addition, turn rate, turn radius, high alpha handling, altitude, range, weapon system range, radar discrimination, load out, cockpit visibility, sensors, IFF, and gun...and I'm leaving some stuff out deliberately...

Like comparing a Mercedes S class and a Trabant...I don't care how good the Mig driver is, he is a dead man against a competent Tomcat crew.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh I know, the tomcat was better, but it's not here anymore. The purchase price probably was also comparable to the S-class/trabant analogy...

now it's an F/A-18 or F-15 or F-16 against the Mig. or a eurofighter or rafale.

But I still would expect the western air forces to have superior training of their pilots. I fear that if we loose that edge, we're really in trouble though...
 
Completely agree.

The Mig-29 and SU-27 series are formidable airplanes, with great airframe performance and continuing weapon system upgrades.

Pilot Training provides the tactical advantage when looking at a 4th gen US airplane against those fighters...
 
Last edited:
Astro14: don't know if you can answer this but do you have a idea of what the kill/loss ratio was for the F-14? I see the Air Force f-15 ratio was or is like 50-0 if I recall


Thank you in advance
 
Back
Top Bottom