F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I wish we were keeping the Ferraris...

The minivan, I mean, F-35, has sweet Bluetooth and "infotainment", and the DVD player for the kids, and lots of seats...but it's a pig. It's slow. It's ugly. It's got "issues".. But it's too big to fail, so we will buy this thing...even though it isn't worth what we are paying...


I am worried that the F-35 is the F-4 Phantom II all over again. They designed the latter without a cannon because missiles had made them obsolete...and then had to add them in external pods when the whole notion was proven silly by actual combat, at least until new marks with internal cannons could be introduced. Seems like the F-35 developers decided that maneuverability is obsolete...
 
Seems to me that the F-35 is in effect an F/A-18 replacement foremost.

Where does that leave the countries looking to replace their F-16 fleet? There really is no successor for such a plane.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Following all this brings up this rather personal question. How long are the flights and what if you have to urinate? I would need a plane with a bathroom. Coffee and microwave to heat up the donuts would be nice as well.


First of all a huge thanks to Astro for fielding this fantastic discussion from a fellow Naval Aviator I greatly enjoyed it!

CT8, it sounds like you would've liked my fleet aircraft(s) the Lockheed P-3 Orion and the Boeing P-8 Posiedon. Lots of room, fridge, galley, a place to relieve yourself after too much coffee. They aren't fast or sexy, but they get the job done protecting the flat deck especially since the sundown of the S-3.

Cheers Astro!

-Mouth
 
Thanks, Mouth!

Your career likely didn't have much intersection with the Tomcat, which is too bad...the airplane was iconic in the Navy and its retirement really was the end of an era. As I approach 30 years commissioned service in November, I realize that it's time for me to follow the big fighter into the sunset.

But I'll always be a Tomcat guy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Seems to me that the F-35 is in effect an F/A-18 replacement foremost.

Where does that leave the countries looking to replace their F-16 fleet? There really is no successor for such a plane.


It's the F/A-18 replacement for the USN...but since both the F-16 and the F/A-18 started out as competitors in the USAF lightweight fighter program (as the YF-16 and the YF-17), those airplanes are relatively similar: light weight, multirole, fighters. In the intervening decades, the F/A-18 got a lot bigger in the E/F variant "Super Hornet", but the C/D models of the Hornet, which are intended to be replaced by the F-35, are close to the F-16 in size.

So, for the F-16 and F/A-18, I see the F-35 design compromise as making sense...for the F-35A, the F-16 replacement, the additional structure in the fuselage and landing gear to handle carrier landings adds weight that it doesn't need, but it's not a killer. Ironically, the increased wing area in the F-35C, the F/A-18 replacement, adds more range and better slow speed handling, which appears to make it the better of the two F-35 variants...

Time will tell on that one...

But when you add the STOVL as part of the design, you make HUGE design compromises...and the F-35B is one ugly airplane...better than a Harrier for performance...but not as good as a dedicated design and the compromises made for the -B have compromised the rest of the line...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Kuato
This was referenced somewhere in the thread, thought it was apropos....apologies if already posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIUowqD0uY8


The footage is real.

I can't really comment on it (though I was flying the Tomcat on the time), because some of the details of this shoot down are still classified.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astro,

You're correct in your assumption that I didn't have much interaction with the Tomcat. I entered service in 2004 as an enlisted Nuke and by the time I got my commission it wasn't an option, heck there were only two EA6B slots to be had for the entire year I earned my wings. All of the COMPTUEX I've ever flown in have been supported by USMC C models and USN E/F/G models with the occasional USMC EA-6B. As a non organic air asset our role is highly dependent on a good controller, sub par ones usually don't know what to do with us and just push us out to a corner so they don't have to deal with us. I've only crossed paths with a few Tomcat drivers and no RIOs. CDR Chris "Meat" Gordon was the operations officer at my ROTC unit he flew F-14B as a JO with VF-211 from 94-97 and as a DH with VF-143 from 01-03. The only other F-14 pilot (who's name currently escapes me) I met as an instructor at Nuke school enroute to his tour as a CVN XO, that would have been about the 2006-2007 timeframe.

As an aside I find it extremely interesting that you also flew the E-2, how did that come about?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just found this thread and read all 24 pages. Super good read and having access to a real Tomcat driver is like being a kid on Christmas morning to me! Thanks Astro, for your service and your willingness to discuss the topic. Thanks also to all those who provided insight into all the factors it takes to make these fighters possible.

Certain planes will always be iconic in our history and the F-14 is one of them. I've always been a piston driven WWII era plane buff and wish I could have flown the Corsair or even the Thunderbolt. But for a Jet... the Tomcat is just plain sexy.

Well worth the time to read this thread, once again thanks to Astro!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Tdog02
Just found this thread and read all 24 pages. Super good read and having access to a real Tomcat driver is like being a kid on Christmas morning to me! Thanks Astro, for your service and your willingness to discuss the topic. Thanks also to all those who provided insight into all the factors it takes to make these fighters possible.

Certain planes will always be iconic in our history and the F-14 is one of them. I've always been a piston driven WWII era plane buff and wish I could have flown the Corsair or even the Thunderbolt. But for a Jet... the Tomcat is just plain sexy.

Well worth the time to read this thread, once again thanks to Astro!


I am very glad that you enjoyed it!

That was my hope in starting the thread.

Cheers,
Astro
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Our local warbirds museum has a F-14, I didn't realize how big they are! That is a very large fighter.


Yeah...it sure is!!

To carry 6 of the 1,000lb AIM-54 missiles around which it was designed took a big airplane. Further, to get the radar performance (power out, and beam width)needed to meet operational requirements took a big antenna, so the nose of the airplane had to be sized for that big antenna.

I still miss the jet.

Probably always will...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Our local warbirds museum has a F-14, I didn't realize how big they are! That is a very large fighter.


Yeah...it sure is!!

To carry 6 of the 1,000lb AIM-54 missiles around which it was designed took a big airplane. Further, to get the radar performance (power out, and beam width)needed to meet operational requirements took a big antenna, so the nose of the airplane had to be sized for that big antenna.

I still miss the jet.

Probably always will...



My understanding is it was tested on an f-15, but did not do well. The AIM-54 with the 130lb or so warhead, could only be carried by the Tomcat. Was this due to the nacelle area between the engines?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Our local warbirds museum has a F-14, I didn't realize how big they are! That is a very large fighter.


Yeah...it sure is!!

To carry 6 of the 1,000lb AIM-54 missiles around which it was designed took a big airplane. Further, to get the radar performance (power out, and beam width)needed to meet operational requirements took a big antenna, so the nose of the airplane had to be sized for that big antenna.

I still miss the jet.

Probably always will...



My understanding is it was tested on an f-15, but did not do well. The AIM-54 with the 130lb or so warhead, could only be carried by the Tomcat. Was this due to the nacelle area between the engines?


No, the missile was never even tested on the F-15.

Specific AWG-9 weapon system - missile communication (missile messages) were needed to guide the missile in flight. It would launch from the airplane, climb to very, very high altitude and fly towards a track file that was built by the weapon system. Then, it would transition to an active radar intercept. In active mode, the radar in the Phoenix would find the target and guide the missile to the kill. There were a system, the AWG-9 radar and the AIM-54 were built to work together and they were both unique.

Without all that data link - the AIM-54 was stuck in semi-active mode, guiding on the fighter radar reflection, and it could not be anything more than a heavy, slow AIM -7 with a big, 135lb warhead.

With that communication, it was capable of exceptional range, of simultaneous multiple target engagement, and "launch and leave".

The F-15 radar never had the support that the AIM-54 needed.

A couple of decades later, the AMRAAM and radar upgrades gave the F-15 some of the AIM-54/AWG-9 capability. .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3
Originally Posted By: CT8
Following all this brings up this rather personal question. How long are the flights and what if you have to urinate? I would need a plane with a bathroom. Coffee and microwave to heat up the donuts would be nice as well.


First of all a huge thanks to Astro for fielding this fantastic discussion from a fellow Naval Aviator I greatly enjoyed it!

CT8, it sounds like you would've liked my fleet aircraft(s) the Lockheed P-3 Orion and the Boeing P-8 Posiedon. Lots of room, fridge, galley, a place to relieve yourself after too much coffee. They aren't fast or sexy, but they get the job done protecting the flat deck especially since the sundown of the S-3.

Cheers Astro!

-Mouth

I have seen the P3 perform many times when going to the Moffet field air station. I am a bathroom and galley type of person, plus with the aircraft being able to back up life it makes life worth living. I am the only person who loves aircraft but has 0 interest in flying one. I'll leave it to those that have the ability. Aircraft are amazing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
 
Back
Top