The F14 vs what we are doing now

None of those really solves the problem of cost and difficulty of
maintenance, though. The only thing a Super Bug really gives up is a
long-range missile, but Phoenix was aging and an extended-range AIM-120
variant could probably be cobbled together in short order if it was
really called for. On the other hand, it should be easier to keep more
Super Bugs in the air over an extended period of time with less
manpower exerted per airframe to make that happen, and if the internal
fuel tankage isn't what the Tomcat could muster, the Super Bug can at
least carry more external fuel stores without sacrificing missile
capability (five tanks, two Sidewinders, and six AMRAAMs with two on
the fuselage and four on dual-rails under the outer wing pylons).
Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.

You have just listed one helluva DRAGGY and heavy profile in which you
negate the PROS of having more fuel you'll kill the range in a hurry.
Asking to a loiter with that loadout is going to make things worse.
You're tactical maneuverability is gone with all that stuff on the
wings.

Anyhow, I don't think you mount two AIM120s on the other pylon where
the wing fold is located.

In article .com,
"Typhoon502" wrote:

None of those really solves the problem of cost and difficulty of
maintenance, though. The only thing a Super Bug really gives up is a
long-range missile, but Phoenix was aging and an extended-range AIM-120
variant could probably be cobbled together in short order if it was
really called for. On the other hand, it should be easier to keep more
Super Bugs in the air over an extended period of time with less
manpower exerted per airframe to make that happen, and if the internal
fuel tankage isn't what the Tomcat could muster, the Super Bug can at
least carry more external fuel stores without sacrificing missile
capability (five tanks, two Sidewinders, and six AMRAAMs with two on
the fuselage and four on dual-rails under the outer wing pylons).

Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.

That's a misleading statement.

There is no inherent reason that F-14's could not carry and shoot AIM-120.
It's just that the Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
The F-14 has a long range missile. Why spend money integrating a new
missile on an airframe that's going to go out of service soon?

The changes that would be needed were largely software and flight test.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Typhoon502 wrote:
None of those really solves the problem of cost and difficulty of
maintenance, though. The only thing a Super Bug really gives up is a
long-range missile, but Phoenix was aging and an extended-range AIM-120
variant could probably be cobbled together in short order if it was
really called for. On the other hand, it should be easier to keep more
Super Bugs in the air over an extended period of time with less
manpower exerted per airframe to make that happen, and if the internal
fuel tankage isn't what the Tomcat could muster, the Super Bug can at
least carry more external fuel stores without sacrificing missile
capability (five tanks, two Sidewinders, and six AMRAAMs with two on
the fuselage and four on dual-rails under the outer wing pylons).
Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.


but the ASF-14 would've been a new plane, able to carry the
AAAM (Phoenix replacement) AMRAAMs, ASRAAMs, would have had thrust
vectoring for more manuverability. And if they really wanted to
compete, could've added canards for extra agility. the "Tomcat II" as
I shall call it, even without canards, would've been able to hold its
own against knife-fighters such as the Fulcrum (Mig-29) and its
advanced decentands (Mig-33 Super Fulcrum?) with the ASF-14 having
thrust-vectoring +ASRAAM --- it would actually manuver much better than
the Super Hornet.

of course, I am thinking about a continuing of the Reagan-build-up to
crush the Soviets and defend 20-24 Super Carriers (we reached 15 or
16 with Reagan) against waves of Tu-160 Blackjacks (almost a clone of
the original B-1A) hauling super-sonic cruise anti-ship
carrier-obliterating missiles that could devastate our battle-groups by
possibily overwelming the Aegis systems.

ASF-14 with ATF-engines + the VERY long range AAAM (longer the
Phoenix) could've dealt with ANY air threat, including Soviet bombers
from a few thousand miles away before they got within anti-ship
cruise-missile range of the battle group. and deal with more
manuverable targets at the same time. so unlike original F-14 family
that dates back to the 1960s/1960s, we have a multi-role air-to-air
FIGHTER.

ok i'm getting carried away here but......

Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.

That's a misleading statement.

There is no inherent reason that F-14's could not carry and shoot AIM-120.
It's just that the Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
The F-14 has a long range missile. Why spend money integrating a new
missile on an airframe that's going to go out of service soon?

The changes that would be needed were largely software and flight test.

Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior weapon
than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to fight
the good fight.

R / John

John Carrier wrote:
Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.

That's a misleading statement.

There is no inherent reason that F-14's could not carry and shoot AIM-120.
It's just that the Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
The F-14 has a long range missile. Why spend money integrating a new
missile on an airframe that's going to go out of service soon?

The changes that would be needed were largely software and flight test.

Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior weapon
than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to fight
the good fight.

Maybe the changes were small in scale, but if the service is unwilling
to do the integration, then that still means the F-14 was wholly
incapable of using the DOD's best AAM; the fact that the Navy didn't
incorporate AMRAAM while they were doing the Bombcat work is what's
surprising. I read once a discussion or article about the F-14 and the
Super Hornet and how Grumman kept coming back to the Pentagon with
modernized Tomcats, and kept getting shown the door. At what point did
the Pentagon (or the Navy specifically...it's been a while since I
recalled the particulars) really decide that they didn't want the
Tomcats around? Was it cost & complexity that turned them against the
F-14 in favor of the Super Bug?

John Carrier wrote:
Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior
weapon
than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to fight
the good fight.


Typhoon502 wrote:
Maybe the changes were small in scale, but if the service is unwilling
to do the integration, then that still means the F-14 was wholly
incapable of using the DOD's best AAM;

But could easily have been modded to use it... what don't you understand
about that? In hindsight, probably a good choice anyway, as the capability
was not needed--or at least, not particularly missed.


the fact that the Navy didn't
incorporate AMRAAM while they were doing the Bombcat work is what's
surprising.

I can't help suspect political pressure to keep the Bug looking good.
I always thought the Bombcat thing was at least partly a sop to the fighter
guys who didn't have so much to do, as well as a way for the Navy to get
more iron on the target without buying more airframes.


I read once a discussion or article about the F-14 and the
Super Hornet and how Grumman kept coming back to the Pentagon with
modernized Tomcats, and kept getting shown the door. At what point did
the Pentagon (or the Navy specifically...it's been a while since I
recalled the particulars) really decide that they didn't want the
Tomcats around? Was it cost & complexity that turned them against the
F-14 in favor of the Super Bug?

Maintenance man-hours per flight hour.


Jeff

On 11 Apr 2006 13:14:38 -0700, wrote:
ASF-14 with ATF-engines + the VERY long range AAAM (longer the
Phoenix) could've dealt with ANY air threat, including Soviet bombers
from a few thousand miles away before they got within anti-ship
cruise-missile range of the battle group. and deal with more
manuverable targets at the same time. so unlike original F-14 family
that dates back to the 1960s/1960s, we have a multi-role air-to-air
FIGHTER.

ok i'm getting carried away here but......

You are also ignoring the real reason the F-14 was phased out:
Maintenance costs.

"Jeff Crowell" wrote in message
...
John Carrier wrote:
Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior
weapon
than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to
fight
the good fight.


Typhoon502 wrote:
Maybe the changes were small in scale, but if the service is unwilling
to do the integration, then that still means the F-14 was wholly
incapable of using the DOD's best AAM;

But could easily have been modded to use it... what don't you understand
about that? In hindsight, probably a good choice anyway, as the
capability
was not needed--or at least, not particularly missed.


the fact that the Navy didn't
incorporate AMRAAM while they were doing the Bombcat work is what's
surprising.

I can't help suspect political pressure to keep the Bug looking good.
I always thought the Bombcat thing was at least partly a sop to the
fighter
guys who didn't have so much to do, as well as a way for the Navy to get
more iron on the target without buying more airframes.


I read once a discussion or article about the F-14 and the
Super Hornet and how Grumman kept coming back to the Pentagon with
modernized Tomcats, and kept getting shown the door. At what point did
the Pentagon (or the Navy specifically...it's been a while since I
recalled the particulars) really decide that they didn't want the
Tomcats around? Was it cost & complexity that turned them against the
F-14 in favor of the Super Bug?

Three reasons for the lack of funding for F-14 mods. The F-14 community (an
attitude problem), The F-18 mafia within NAVAIR and the Pentagon, and
Grumman's arrogance. By the time the Bug was validating its incredible
maintainability rep in the late eighties, the writing was on the wall for
the Tom. It's maintainability (lack thereof ... you should have seen what
it was like to keep Block 75's up 'n flying) doomed the jet.

R / John

In article , John Carrier
wrote:

[...]
By the time the Bug was validating its incredible
maintainability rep in the late eighties, the writing was on the wall for
the Tom. It's maintainability (lack thereof ... you should have seen what
it was like to keep Block 75's up 'n flying) doomed the jet.

John, what percentage of that maintenance load was specific to keeping
the Tom's mission-capable in the fleet air-defense role? I'm thinking
mainly of the avionics for the Sparrows and Phoenixes. Would there
have been a significant savings in maintenance man-hours if the Toms
had been explicitly transitioned into being "cold nose" bomb trucks
dedicated purely to the strike mission?

It's an idle hypothetical now that the Toms are gone from the flight
decks. But I've always wondered if there was an economical option,
around the time the call was made to retire the A-6's, for handing the
the D's over to the strike community for use solely as strike bombers.