Super Tomcat 21,22
- Thread starter Malo83
- Start date
What would be the purpose? Wasn't the biggest maintenance problem on the Tomcat the hydraulics for the VG wings? Wasn't maintenance the biggest downside?
The wing sweep itself was very reliable and relatively low maintenance.
The problem with maintenance on that airplane was the sheer number of hydraulic moving parts - spoilers (8), flaps (6), slats, horizontal stabs, rudders, inlet ramps, glove vanes, gear, gear doors, hook, nose wheel steering, brakes, launch bar and nose strut, and oh yeah, wingsweep drive motors.
Take all that, spray it with salt water occasionally, slam it off the front of the ship, slam it into the deck, day in and day out for twenty years, and yeah, parts start to wear out.
15-20 year old Hornets are being retired because of maintenance reliability.
There were Tomcats flying that had far more time in service, more cats, and more traps. The structure held up far better, but the airplanes had been in service for a very long time, and parts like actuators were wearing out.
An overhaul was really needed. The low time F-14A models that were stripped, and converted into D models, were the last Tomcats flying, some nearly 30 years after they had been built. The overhaul/refit into the D model kept them going for a long time.
The decision to kill Tomcat production was purely based on bean counter thinking. MD promised the Super Hornet for a lower price, even though it was less capable.
Of course, it grew in price shortly after the 1991 decision was made and refitting all the Tomcats would’ve been much cheaper in the end.
But that’s not unexpected when accountants and lobbyists influence the decision.
Super Tomcat would’ve been orders of magnitude better in performance than the Super Hornet. For example, I’ve super-cruised* an F-14B for hundreds of miles coming back to Oceana from Key West
I could barely get a Hornet with tanks supersonic when descending out of 40,000’ in full AB. 1.1 IMN. In a descent. An F-14A, with the same stores, would do nearly 700 KIAS, 1.7 IMN in level flight. Not even close to the same performance.
The Hornet is a sweet little airplane. But slow. Simpler flight controls meant greater reliability, but lower top speeds, much faster approach speeds, and lower ability to land with ordnance.
The Hornet is a Camry, bought to replace an S class.
*Flown supersonic without AB.
The problem with maintenance on that airplane was the sheer number of hydraulic moving parts - spoilers (8), flaps (6), slats, horizontal stabs, rudders, inlet ramps, glove vanes, gear, gear doors, hook, nose wheel steering, brakes, launch bar and nose strut, and oh yeah, wingsweep drive motors.
Take all that, spray it with salt water occasionally, slam it off the front of the ship, slam it into the deck, day in and day out for twenty years, and yeah, parts start to wear out.
15-20 year old Hornets are being retired because of maintenance reliability.
There were Tomcats flying that had far more time in service, more cats, and more traps. The structure held up far better, but the airplanes had been in service for a very long time, and parts like actuators were wearing out.
An overhaul was really needed. The low time F-14A models that were stripped, and converted into D models, were the last Tomcats flying, some nearly 30 years after they had been built. The overhaul/refit into the D model kept them going for a long time.
The decision to kill Tomcat production was purely based on bean counter thinking. MD promised the Super Hornet for a lower price, even though it was less capable.
Of course, it grew in price shortly after the 1991 decision was made and refitting all the Tomcats would’ve been much cheaper in the end.
But that’s not unexpected when accountants and lobbyists influence the decision.
Super Tomcat would’ve been orders of magnitude better in performance than the Super Hornet. For example, I’ve super-cruised* an F-14B for hundreds of miles coming back to Oceana from Key West
I could barely get a Hornet with tanks supersonic when descending out of 40,000’ in full AB. 1.1 IMN. In a descent. An F-14A, with the same stores, would do nearly 700 KIAS, 1.7 IMN in level flight. Not even close to the same performance.
The Hornet is a sweet little airplane. But slow. Simpler flight controls meant greater reliability, but lower top speeds, much faster approach speeds, and lower ability to land with ordnance.
The Hornet is a Camry, bought to replace an S class.
*Flown supersonic without AB.
I too question the purpose and actual military need that this platform would fill? I would liken it to the B2, it would have been great to have back in the Cold War era but frankly in our time it does not serve a critical need. Advancing fighter aircraft is simply not going to add much to what is already the most overwhelmingly dominant naval force in the world. The US govt is likely not going to allow them to be sold to a foreign nation any time soon so that would lessen any incentive further.
I'm sure video gamers might cream over some super cool new F-14 but seeing one in reality is a pipe dream or something that would end up as a testbed ala Su-35/37.
In the world of aircraft design, there has been quite a discussion about swing wing design shortcomings. The increased weight and complexity of such a design is pretty obvious and necessitates ever larger engines. But what the discussion really centers on are the aerodynamics. The bulge creates drag that aerodynamicists would love to avoid, arguing that equal drag could be put to good use in wing design or additional fuel capacity. We see this way of thinking in today's fighter designs. Major Boyd was instrumental in the specifications of the light fighters of the '70's and 80's. The F16, F17 and F15 all grew out of this, as he hated the swing wing designs, right or wrong that generation of aircraft were products of his way of thinking and the competition it fostered. The F18 was a derivative of the F17, a light, cheap fighter concept. It was never designed to be an incredible machine. But instead to be a cheap, plentiful plane. Maybe in some ways, it matured into something better than it was originally designed to be (a light cheap fighter).
An absolutely fascinating book that goes into all of this:
https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883
An absolutely fascinating book that goes into all of this:
https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883
Last edited:
The F-15 was the antithesis of what Boyd proposed - Big, complex, heavy, and expensive.
The F-16, and to a much lesser extent, the F/A-18, benefitted from his thinking on energy maneuverability.
The F-16, and to a much lesser extent, the F/A-18, benefitted from his thinking on energy maneuverability.
