The F14 vs what we are doing now

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:56:43 GMT, Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
wrote:

The History Channel recently had a piece on the F14. I did not realize that
plane came out of the F111 program. Nor that it could track 24 enemy targets,
engaging up to 6 at a time (and at long range).

The question is whether we still need an platform that can do long range combat.
We have dropped the AAAM (AIM-155) which was to be a replacement for the Phoenix
(AIM-54) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tions/aaam.htm)
Nor do we have a radar equal to what was on the F14.

Also they commented on how the F14 was a better platform than the F15 (which had
some real survivability)

Any insights?

The F-14 was probably the first operational system with reliable
track-while-scan capability. (I'm sure the Luftwaffe had something
similar during 1943, but it didn't reach full production....nahhhh.)
The ability to track targets while still searching for others was a
significant advantage. IIRC, they demonstrated the six-target
engagement capability and successfully splashed all six independently
flown drones.

The real threat that the F-14 was designed for was the ASM's of the
Soviet bombers--systems like Kitchen and Kelt. That threat is no
longer very high on the priority list.

Today we've got more force integration with AWACs (or similar) doing
the long range detection and target allocation for the interceptors.
That offloads a requirement for some sensors capability from the
fighter to the larger platform.

One could also make the argument that a follow-on to AIM-54 isn't
required--threat is gone and the fact that the system was never used
in combat during its life cycle would indicate that other weapons
would have a higher priority for budget $$.

As for the F-14 as "a better platform than the F-15"--you would have
to caveat that with some mission parameters. Both aircraft have been
very good and each has some corners of the operational envelope in
which it is superior.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

The F14 had great legs (fuel/range), and a very powerful radar (good for
very long range detection and burning through ECM). The track/lock while
scan was a major improvement, as were the AIM-54 missiles. However, the 6
missile engagement was more of a publicity student than a reality. It was
only tried once, and only four missile hit. One malfunctioned, and another
targeted a drone that malfunctioned and so it never hit (BTW, the 38 second
test cost $154,000 per second!!). The Tomcat couldn't carry 6 missiles and
still normally land back on a carrier. With even 4 Pheonixes reducing fuel
levels at landing to critical when doing carrier ops. So typically they
only carried two. And even then, pilots lamented the drag/weight
restrictions that the massive missiles imposed when they were carried.
Granted though, the Pheonix gave a fire-and-forget capability that was
unrivaled for 20 years, and no other AAM can come close to matching its
range (other than the Mig-31 copy of it).

I would say that the Russians took the threat of the F14 very seriously (as
witnessed by their naval bomber/missile developments). So it ultimately did
what it was designed to do by putting fear into the hearts of potential
enemies and protecting US (and allied) forces by sheer intimidation. It
does have a perfect, if limited, combat record (not including questionable
Iranian records).

However, as Ed mentions, comparing it to the F15 is comparing apples to
oranges. For much of its career the F14 had engines with inadequate thrust
and a nasty tendancy to stall, so it was inferior in the dogfight. The
Eagle benefited from better funding, and had some really nifty avionics. As
witnessed by its superior NCTR performance in the Gulf War (i.e., it could
better identify hostile vs. friendly planes at BVR distances). Also, the
Eagle has a kill record of around 100 - 0. So any hypothetical comparison
you make (to the 14, or Su27, or even F22) has to bear in mind that very
impressive, real-life, perfect combat record. The Eagle has certainly done
everything it has been asked to do, and proven that it can beat every A-A
opponent it has faced in war.

As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some F15Cs,
and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as Ed
said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an ultra-long
range fighter radar is not necessary.

That's my two cents with the caveat that this is arm-chair speculation from
an arm-chair flyer.

"TV" wrote:

:As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some F15Cs,
:and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
:superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as Ed
:said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an ultra-long
:range fighter radar is not necessary.

Actually, the F-15 is lagging in radar (there is a plan to upgrade
some of them to cover the slide right in JSF delivery, I gather). The
radar on the Super Hornet is probably slightly better (in some
regards) than that on the F-22, not being constrained by the 'stealth'
design.

As for the complementing missiles, the Slammer has a shorter range but
a MUCH larger 'no escape' cone than the Phoenix. It's lighter and an
aircraft of a given capacity can carry more of them.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

guys have been talking about the eagle and the tomcat as dogfighters -
either one have been really ever vaunted
as good turning jets. they are bvr platforms. the hornet and viper can
easily defeat both the eagle and tomcat in
practically any turning engagement

aesa radars in elmendorf based eagles are very, very good...

wrote in message
ups.com...
guys have been talking about the eagle and the tomcat as dogfighters -
either one have been really ever vaunted
as good turning jets. they are bvr platforms. the hornet and viper can
easily defeat both the eagle and tomcat in
practically any turning engagement

The numbers I ran across indicate that the sustained turn rate of the F-15C
is just about the same as that of the F/A-18E, and not that far off from
that of the F/A-18C. All apparently reside in the high teens arena in that
regard.

Brooks


aesa radars in elmendorf based eagles are very, very good...

"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:37:00 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

|"TV" wrote:
|
|:As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some
F15Cs,
|:and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
|:superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as
Ed
|:said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an
ultra-long
|:range fighter radar is not necessary.
|
|Actually, the F-15 is lagging in radar (there is a plan to upgrade
|some of them to cover the slide right in JSF delivery, I gather). The
|radar on the Super Hornet is probably slightly better (in some
|regards) than that on the F-22, not being constrained by the 'stealth'
|design.

Fred is a day late and a dollar short again. The F-15C AESA, with
APG-63(V)2, has been flying with the USAF for about six years now. The
aircraft so configured were all based out of Elmendorf last I read.

Brooks

|
|As for the complementing missiles, the Slammer has a shorter range but
|a MUCH larger 'no escape' cone than the Phoenix. It's lighter and an
|aircraft of a given capacity can carry more of them.

Are you referring to the AIM-120? BTW how does that relate to the Army's
SLAMRAAM program?

---
"If ye love wealth better than liberty ... servitude better than ...
freedom,
go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms ... May
your
chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our
countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

-------------------------------------------------------------
Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason.
Samuel Adams

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...uel_adams.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to
be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the
setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/samuel_adams/

wrote:
guys have been talking about the eagle and the tomcat as dogfighters -
either one have been really ever vaunted
as good turning jets. they are bvr platforms. the hornet and viper can
easily defeat both the eagle and tomcat in
practically any turning engagement

aesa radars in elmendorf based eagles are very, very good...

BS...The F-15 was designed as a air-superiority fighter and AFAIK
dogfighting was very much considered in the design. remember that Boyd
was in on the design specs. If you doubt it, I'll ask Chuck Myers about
it.
Reed

The only heritage that the F-111B really passed along to the F-14 was
the AWG-9 radar and the design spec to carry Phoenix. The airframes
have no commonality, other than they're both swing-wing and
twin-engine. For some of the F-14 run, it used the same engines as the
F-111 but that diverged as well.

SLAMRAAM = surface-launched AMRAAM.

Typhoon502 wrote:
The only heritage that the F-111B really passed along to the F-14 was
the AWG-9 radar and the design spec to carry Phoenix. The airframes
have no commonality, other than they're both swing-wing and
twin-engine. For some of the F-14 run, it used the same engines as the
F-111 but that diverged as well.

Another way of saying the same thing is that the F-14 was developed to
meet the mission that the F-111 failed to fill. This is really the
only way the F-14 is "derived" from the F-111. Saying that this is
equal to being "derived from" is misleading. Usually "derived from" is
when existing plans are modified to meet a slightly differnt mission
such as the YF-17 and the F/A-18.
Reed

SLAMRAAM = surface-launched AMRAAM.

Yeff wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:07:03 GMT, Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:


What about the F14's F111 heritage?


The F-14s deny it but the neighbors secretly know and won't let them date
their daughters...



"VADM Thomas F. Connolly. Serving as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
for Air, ADM Connolly was under the strictest orders from Defense
Secretary Robert McNamara's civilian team to support McNamara's concept
of a single fighter aircraft design for both the Air Force and the Navy.
This was the infamous TFX in its initial stage (subsequently designated
F-111B for the Navy) which arose from a concept of saving money on paper
without any documentation on how that could be accomplished in practice,
while providing income for a Texas based aerospace company to help the
political fortunes of the vice president at the time."


"Following years of work and millions spent, it was apparent to
the Navy that the F-111B would never fly from a carrier. A Navy team had
been working surreptitiously on an alternative that would be equipped
with the same weapon system, but no one on the McNamara team would
listen to professional opinion. Finally, in a showdown with Congress on
the budget, following hours of testimony from Secretary of the Navy Paul
Ignatius about how great the F-111B design was, Sen. Stennis asked ADM
Connolly his personal opinion about the aircraft design, assuming it was
equipped with more powerful engines. ADM Connolly leaned forward and
said in the strongest terms that 'There is not enough thrust in all of
Christendom to make a carrier fighter out of this aircraft.'"


"Sen. Stennis took money from the budget for the F-111B on the
spot and authorized what was to become the F-14 or 'Tomcat' which serves
in the fleet today. In his words, ADM Connolly thought he was going to
be fired and thinks Sen. Stennis saved him from that -- but he lost any
chance for his fourth star. Throughout, he was supported in his end run
around the Navy secretary since the chief of naval operations, ADM Tom
Moorer, had authorized such candor prior to the hearings."

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/Atki...wiePartIV.html