F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

[Astro14]

I agree that the Tornado GR3 was an excellent ground attack airplane.

You're spot on about the attrition rate, it was due to the weapon delivery requirements that put them at much higher risk than any other coalition airplane in that conflict.

I've got buddies that flew the F3 out of RAF Coningsby on exchange. They had a wonderful time. They loved the RAF and they loved their time in England.

They didn't love the airplane....some parts of it were more advanced than the F-14 (it was newer) but the performance was inferior...Good jet. Not great. Wouldn't fare well against the newer threats.

 

[Tikka]

Hi Astro14
Thanks for the reply. Also it's nice to read they enjoyed their time in England.

Yes i think the F3 may have struggled with a Mig 29 in the hands of a good pilot. Interesting that now the Luftwaffe inherited Mig 29 from unification, these can be used to help NATO Pilots.

Do you think that the modern Russian air defence systems such as S-400 and S-500 make any future Battlefield unsurvivable for anything but aircraft with stealth capability?

Many thanks.

 

[Tikka]

Hi.
I am sure Astro is aware of the following link. I thought it would be of interest to others. An RAF Phantom shoots down an RAF Jaguar over Germany in 1982. A massive blunder. Can you imagine what went through the Phantom pilot's mind when the sidewinder left his rail. Fortunately the only casualty was a very expensive aircraft.

 

[Astro14]

Never heard of that one, Tikka...wow...it’s happened a couple of times...where a fighter pilot shot down a friendly during training...but I hadn’t heard about that one...

 

[edyvw]

Hi Astro14
Thanks for the reply. Also it's nice to read they enjoyed their time in England.

Yes i think the F3 may have struggled with a Mig 29 in the hands of a good pilot. Interesting that now the Luftwaffe inherited Mig 29 from unification, these can be used to help NATO Pilots.

Do you think that the modern Russian air defence systems such as S-400 and S-500 make any future Battlefield unsurvivable for anything but aircraft with stealth capability?

Many thanks.

MIG29 in German hands was definitely something else due to resources available. Mostly when it comes to Russian aircrafts it is not aircraft per se that is an issue, it is logistics. Anyone who worked on these systems (I did) will tell you that the biggest obstacle is getting parts, and then once you get them, whether parts are working. To prove the point I always tell story of my friend from Serbia who was at the Air War College with me, and they acquired 10 jet engines for MIG29. 7 did not want to start in testing facility. Then they spent a year arguing with Russians over replacing those replacements. That is the problem with Russian airplanes.
As for AA systems, Serbia again is good example. Well trained crew can pose threat to an aircraft regardless of system and when it is made. They shoot down F117 with S-125 Neva that saw service first time in 1961, and same battery shoot down F16 that was flown by Gen. David Goldfein, recently retired USAF Chief of Staff.
On other hand they had batteries that made basic mistakes like radiating for too long etc. So, S400 or S500 is definitely extremely dangerous system, but:
1. Logistics
2. Training.

 

[IndyFan]

MIG29 in German hands was definitely something else due to resources available. Mostly when it comes to Russian aircrafts it is not aircraft per se that is an issue, it is logistics. Anyone who worked on these systems (I did) will tell you that the biggest obstacle is getting parts, and then once you get them, whether parts are working. To prove the point I always tell story of my friend from Serbia who was at the Air War College with me, and they acquired 10 jet engines for MIG29. 7 did not want to start in testing facility. Then they spent a year arguing with Russians over replacing those replacements. That is the problem with Russian airplanes.
As for AA systems, Serbia again is good example. Well trained crew can pose threat to an aircraft regardless of system and when it is made. They shoot down F117 with S-125 Neva that saw service first time in 1961, and same battery shoot down F16 that was flown by Gen. David Goldfein, recently retired USAF Chief of Staff.
On other hand they had batteries that made basic mistakes like radiating for too long etc. So, S400 or S500 is definitely extremely dangerous system, but:
1. Logistics
2. Training.

And of course, leave the radar on too long and HARM may come to you!

 

[Tikka]

MIG29 in German hands was definitely something else due to resources available. Mostly when it comes to Russian aircrafts it is not aircraft per se that is an issue, it is logistics. Anyone who worked on these systems (I did) will tell you that the biggest obstacle is getting parts, and then once you get them, whether parts are working. To prove the point I always tell story of my friend from Serbia who was at the Air War College with me, and they acquired 10 jet engines for MIG29. 7 did not want to start in testing facility. Then they spent a year arguing with Russians over replacing those replacements. That is the problem with Russian airplanes.
As for AA systems, Serbia again is good example. Well trained crew can pose threat to an aircraft regardless of system and when it is made. They shoot down F117 with S-125 Neva that saw service first time in 1961, and same battery shoot down F16 that was flown by Gen. David Goldfein, recently retired USAF Chief of Staff.
On other hand they had batteries that made basic mistakes like radiating for too long etc. So, S400 or S500 is definitely extremely dangerous system, but:
1. Logistics
2. Training.

Hi Edyvw.
You make good points, thank you. Were these just issues relating to a cash starved Soviet/Russian military of the past or are they still relevant today?

 

[d00df00d]

So, not that my opinion on this means much, but...

I once read an analysis of the Su-57 that suggested it barely qualified as low-observable and thus wouldn't even approach parity with the F-22. The author also suggested that may not have been the point of the Su-57 in the first place. He thought the plane was more likely meant to pose just enough of a threat to Western millitaries to deter them. Just enough RCS reduction from some angles to let it threaten very expensive assets, like AWACS and tankers. Very good aerodynamic performance. Formidable weapons. Massive sensor suite. If you're on the American side, are you worried that it'll beat you? Not in the least. But nor will you feel free to fly where they might be operating. And for the amount they cost compared to what we're spending on our jets, that's plenty.

I kind of wonder if that's the point of all high-end Russian military hardware. It's almost like the whole thing is a large-scale demonstration of the 80-20 rule.

 

[edyvw]

And of course, leave the radar on too long and HARM may come to you!

Yep, but there is much more to that. IDK exactly how many HARM's were fired, but 2K12 Kub's were particularly vulnerable. S125 Neva's faired much better. There was a case where Serbian General went to visit crew of 2K12 battery and crew to show off was radiating almost 2 minutes. General and all crew died from HARM. I was on other side, so I found all this later from people I knew before war and I met after through work.

 

[edyvw]

Hi Edyvw.
You make good points, thank you. Were these just issues relating to a cash starved Soviet/Russian military of the past or are they still relevant today?

No, there is much more to it. In my opinion later USSR products were victim of the collapse of the system. Quality was much lower etc. MIG29 was envisioned very good, but execution was bad. Maybe Astro14 knows about this more, but it is interesting that many countries in Europe that did not inherit MIG29's after 1989, never bought one used for air policing purposes, they actually decided to upgrade MIG21's, which served its purpose very well, which is air policing. I know Serbian's before getting current batch of MIG29's as a "gift" (meaning they got it for free, but they have to pay for upgrades to Russians to SMT version) were interesting in buying MIG29M. So they had two of them in Belgrade and from what I know is that both had around 120-130hrs on frame, and fatigue was already visible.
Now when I mentioned those engines that did not fire up, that would be maybe 2007-2008. It is generally issue of workmanship, sloppiness. However, in many other weapons systems, they are really good. Things that Russians do good are generally related to ground warfare, more rudimentary technology.
It will be interesting to see how Turkey does with this S400 system.

 

[IndyFan]

Astro, let's talk Phoenix. It came out on the heels of Vietnam, where the Sparrow was known for being unreliable to the point they really weren't trusted. I've heard from some corners that the Amraam isn't what it was envisioned to be, but I've also heard from others that it is actually very good. (I think a couple Russian SU-27 pilots would tell you that Turkish Amraams work pretty well.) On the other hand, I've heard that the Phoenix was greatly feared by Iraqi pilots in the Iran-Iraq war.

So why did the Phoenix seemingly disappear from the F-14 inventory so early? At least I don't remember seeing photos of Tomcats carrying them as early as the late 80's. Or did they last longer, but just weren't carried often based on the common missions of the day? When did it actually go out of service, and did it live up to its promise of 100 mile range, six at a time from 1 Tomcat, going after 6 different targets, while the F-14 tracked even more?

I know it was big and heavy, but on paper, it was one badass missile and its rep in SW Asia seems to confirm that, if the stories are true. (Maybe Iranian propaganda??)

 

[Astro14]

I’m on my cell phone so I’ll be quick.

I’ve fired a Phoenix in training. It’s everything you’ve heard. Superior range, big warhead, active guidance, deadly.

USAF Eagle drivers used to bad mouth it. They’re lucky they never faced it in combat.

The Phoenix stopped being supported ($ cut) in the early 2000s, once the Tomcat was slated for retirement. We carried them all through the 80s and 90s.

 

[IndyFan]

I’m on my cell phone so I’ll be quick.

I’ve fired a Phoenix in training. It’s everything you’ve heard. Superior range, big warhead, active guidance, deadly.

USAF Eagle drivers used to bad mouth it. They’re lucky they never faced it in combat.

The Phoenix stopped being supported ($ cut) in the early 2000s, once the Tomcat was slated for retirement. We carried them all through the 80s and 90s.

With China on the rise, it would seem we'd wish we now had the capability the Tomcat/Phoenix offered.

Thanks for the info. I never read or heard anything from anyone saying other than it was one badass missile.

 

[Tikka]

No, there is much more to it. In my opinion later USSR products were victim of the collapse of the system. Quality was much lower etc. MIG29 was envisioned very good, but execution was bad. Maybe Astro14 knows about this more, but it is interesting that many countries in Europe that did not inherit MIG29's after 1989, never bought one used for air policing purposes, they actually decided to upgrade MIG21's, which served its purpose very well, which is air policing. I know Serbian's before getting current batch of MIG29's as a "gift" (meaning they got it for free, but they have to pay for upgrades to Russians to SMT version) were interesting in buying MIG29M. So they had two of them in Belgrade and from what I know is that both had around 120-130hrs on frame, and fatigue was already visible.
Now when I mentioned those engines that did not fire up, that would be maybe 2007-2008. It is generally issue of workmanship, sloppiness. However, in many other weapons systems, they are really good. Things that Russians do good are generally related to ground warfare, more rudimentary technology.
It will be interesting to see how Turkey does with this S400 system.

Hi
Yes, it will indeed be interesting to see how the Turks go on. I can't understand the logic behind them buying it though as it ultimately cost them the F35. I would have thought a state of the art strike fighter is better than a state of the art air defence system.

I have always had my doubts about F35. Maybe the Turks did too?

 

[edyvw]

Hi
Yes, it will indeed be interesting to see how the Turks go on. I can't understand the logic behind them buying it though as it ultimately cost them the F35. I would have thought a state of the art strike fighter is better than a state of the art air defence system.

I have always had my doubts about F35. Maybe the Turks did too?

Nah, it is geopolitics. Gas lines, perception of power in Turkey for Turkish people. This is the least of their issues. It is shame what is happening in Turkey.

 

[Chester11]

Thanks for doing this Astro. For years I have been interested in aviation - and have been thinking about getting a PPL - but life has just happened.

One probably dumb question - how do the military checklists compare to the civilian versions? I have to imagine that things happen quickly in a fighter, and the checklists are abbreviated. (Just from looking at youtube - the military trained guys seem to have a different "workflow", and was wondering if this was related to training or usage of checklists).

Thanks again.

 

[Astro14]

You can get an idea on systems, normal procedures, and how the airplane was meant to be flown, from reading through this: https://info.publicintelligence.net/F14AAD-1.pdf

Fighter checklists are a lot different than the checklists we use at an airline.

Airline checklists are read, challenge and response, from a card. No memory items for normal checklists and a very few memory items for emergency procedures.

The checklists for fighters were done from memory. Emergency procedures were all memory items, and then reference items were found in a small "pocket checklist", or PCL, carried, usually, in one's G-suit pocket.

Here is a link to the PCL, which contains the normal and emergency checklists.

https://info.publicintelligence.net/F14AAP-1B.pdf

Right on the top of the index is a bold box, which says,

CRITICAL PROCEDURE
Procedures marked with an asterisk are considered to be time
critical and are so identified to emphasize their importance.
Pilots should be able to accomplish these procedures without
reference to the checklist.

We called those steps "boldface".

In fact, if you hadn't flown in two weeks, you had to complete a six page, closed book, bold face memory test. It was a pain. Lots of writing. Spelling and punctuation had to be exact.

As a result, 23 years later, I can still recite steps, in the proper order, for most of the bold face in the F-14...

 

[Jetronic]

Hi
Yes, it will indeed be interesting to see how the Turks go on. I can't understand the logic behind them buying it though as it ultimately cost them the F35. I would have thought a state of the art strike fighter is better than a state of the art air defence system.

I have always had my doubts about F35. Maybe the Turks did too?

Think of it like this... the S-400 is meant to protect Erdogan against his own air force. Last uprising against him and his government the air force tried to kill him.

 

[edyvw]

Think of it like this... the S-400 is meant to protect Erdogan against his own air force. Last uprising against him and his government the air force tried to kill him.

I do not buy it. That attempt was sooooooo amateurish that it looked like bunch of thugs from neighborhood tried to overthrow government.
I worked in the end of 1990's in Bosnia with the guy who was their commander of the air force during that "coup." There is no way he or other Turkish officers are so incompetent. They never secured TV signal, repetitors, satellite uplinks, Ataturk airport. That is coup 101! Turkish military is one of the most regimented and competent force, and to do what those guys did? IMO, it was coup by Erdogan to cement his status and has excuse for purge that came after.

 

[Jetronic]

Well, i think so too actually, but it doesn't mean he isn't scared someone might try...