tomcat F-14

[column5 63]

The commander of ADC pushed very hard to get Tomcat's as F-106 replacements in the late 1970s as well. It was deemed too expensive though.

[+streakeagle 869]

When buying an aircraft, cost effectiveness is a huge factor.

Both the F-15 and F-14 pushed the limits when it came to cost, which is why the F-16 is the most produced western fighter in service right now.

 

If you are going to dogfight, clearly the F-16 is better suited for that role than any other aircraft: small not only means agile, but also hard to see.

But, dogfighting means risking your aircraft as even the best dogfighter can be beaten by inferior aircraft with correct tactics: think F4F vs A6M.

Also, dogfighting requires good visibility. The original YF-16 was pretty much a daylight/fairweather dogfighter, fortunately it ended up with the APG-66 which gave it some night/adverse whether interception capability... but then its AIM-9 armament was still limited by those conditions.

 

So, cheap dogfighters will not meet all mission requirements.

Bring on the all-weather interceptors.

Of course, Vietnam experience with the F-4 Phantom showed that even high-thrust-to-weight all-weather interceptors need the ability to dogfight: bubble canopy, good turnning ability, and a gun.

Both the F-14 and F-15 were products of this experience.

 

The F-14 leans more toward the long-range interceptor.

The F-15 leans more toward the dogfighter.

 

The tunnel between the engines allows big AIM-54s to be carried with less drag than when hung from pylons... not extra lift.

Lift comes primarily from the large smooth area on the top of the wing.

The F-14 only has outstanding lift when its wings are swept forward where its glider like high aspect ratio provides excellent lift-to-drag.

 

The F-15 also enjoys a fairly low drag configuration from its conformal Sparrow carriage and enjoys the same large smooth area on top of its wing.

What the F-15 is sorely missing is combat flaps and/or slats. These high-lift devices were omitted to keep complexity and cost down.

So the F-15 has no variable geometry to make up for its fixed wing with a sweep angle optimized for supersonic flight.

Even crippled in comparison to the F-14, F-16, and F-18, the F-15 still out turned all of the threats it was designed to beat using thrust to compensate for some of the missing lift: the MiG-21 and MiG-23.

 

If you are willing to spend the money to buy an F-14D, then why not get and F-15C or F-15E with uprated engines? The only loss is the expensive AIM-54, and AMRAAM largely replaced the AIM-54 except in maximum engagement range.

 

There was no conspiracy against the Tomcat... just the beancounters making the decision could see the existing ones cost quite a bit and building new ones would cost even more. Given the historical record, there was no encounter the F-14s handled during its service that the Super Hornet couldn't handle... though with a few more aerial refuelings. The AIM-54 ability was never needed nor was Mach 2.3+ speed. Can't fault the government for trying to buy what is needed rather than what is wanted.

[column5 63]

The F-14D is simply a better, more capable aircraft than the Supa Honet in most respects that can be quantified. There are areas in which the Hornet is better, such as maintenance requirements. The US Navy right now does not have the best possible aircraft on its carrier decks. It is adequate for the conflicts that we are currently involved in, and would be adequate in higher-intensity conflicts where the USAF can provide air supremacy for the Navy. However as a taxpayer, I would prefer to see my money being spent on the best possible equipment whenever possible, and in the 1990s it was certainly possible to afford the better aircraft.

 

There is no conspiracy, simply a poor spending decison on the part of the Navy and Congress, which is nothing new.

[+streakeagle 869]

It was not possible to afford the better aircraft or the Navy would have bought it.

I was in the Navy in the 1990s, the budget was axed on everything including people.

The Navy was smarter than the USAF, at least they got new airplanes.

The USAF decided to put all their eggs in the super expensive F-22 basket, now look what that got them.

They can't afford to buy adequate numbers of F-22s and the F-15s are literally falling apart.

 

Better to have new, slightly less capable aircraft on every carrier deck than have carriers with undermanned wings.

If the F-14 wasn't so expensive, there never would have been an F/A-18.

There is no doubt the F-14 couldn't perform every task filled by the F/A-18... the Navy could have created the F-14D in the early 70s.

But even at the height of the Reagan era, there wasn't enough money to buy hoardes of F-14Ds.

Now with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the money for everything is gone...

No LHX, no Sea Wolf submarine, barely any B-2 bombers, etc.

The loss of the F-14 wasn't a bad spending decision, it was a necessary one.

 

Most taxpayers want to keep as much of their money as possible while still allowing to the goverment to provide the services they want and need.

Continuing 1980's Cold War defense spending levels without a Cold War threat would have ultimately lead our government down the same path we push the Soviets: total collapse.

To date, I don't think one battle has been lost or one mission has failed due to using a Super Hornet where a Tomcat would have.

The Super Hornet is inferior, but only marginally so compared to the difference in price.

[column5 63]

Buying Tomcats would not have collapsed the country. And the money existed, of course. It was just spent on other things, such as art endowments so people could sh*t on crucifixes. Poor spending decisions and misuse of tax dollars...its a problem as old as government itself.

[turkeydriver 4]

StreakEagle when the F-14 wings are swept back, they only provide 30% of the lift-the rest is generated by the airframe-the "tunnel" is every bit a lifting surface and the upper pancake was designed that way to make it a lifting surface. While I agree on your assessment of the aircrafts focus. The F-14 was designed every inch as a dogfighting fighter-as long as you could put a huge radar in the nose and carry the AIM-54. VF-213 lost most of a wing in a mid-air collision and flew the jet back at low speed(wings spread) to land it. When the Israeli F-15 lost a wing, it had to fly at higher speed to keep from rolling. Pick up a clean tomcat and look at it-those wings are pretty nice for grabbing air in turns at below 330 knots, but by themselves have a fairly high wing loading. If the tunnel wasn't there-you'd have an a slightly less-weighty F-111B.

 

One reason for the F-14s high cost was because it didnt have the politcal support the F-15 did-hence other countries buying them. IF the F-14 and F-15 production numbers were matched and they evenly split orders to other countries(just a hypothetical, ignoring the countries real needs in a fighter) the price would have been much lower, although still more expensive than the F-15.

Numbers change depending how you look at them-the expensive F-14 double cycles every flight-meaning less fuel used on take-off anf landing, less wear and tear on the airframe and the aircraft carrier and then lasts for 30+ years( google F-14 "Christine")-where as the "cost effective" F/A-18, legacy or super, has to single cycle, burns up a LOT of gas doing just take-offs and landing, wearing out the carrier arresting gear quicker, and reaching its trap limit way to early. This is why the active navy has squadrons flying F/A-18As again, because they switched their late model F/A18Cs with the AIFF in the nose with the Reserve's F/A-18A+s with their very low trap numbers. The F/A-18Cs have rached their trap limit. Now explain to me how a hornet that costs 2/3 of the tomcats is more cost effective when at MAX it can only operate from a carrier for half as long. THe maintenance is where the argument is made-but back to topic....I miss my kitty.......

Edited August 12, 2008 by turkeydriver

[+Typhoid 231]

"To date, I don't think one battle has been lost or one mission has failed due to using a Super Hornet where a Tomcat would have."

 

absolutely on target.

 

The principle shortfall in the F-18E/F is in range/payload. That shortfall has been addressed by;

1. use of PGM

2. use of USAF Tankers

 

The Super Hornet is doing just fine for us now.

 

The other shortfall is the potential threat from an opponent equipped with advanced Flanker variants and modern air to air missiles. That is a very short list of potential opponents.

 

It would be nice if would could field something equivelant to an F-22 in a carrier based aircraft. That need at the moment is a "potential" threat.

 

As much as I did not like the decision at the time (and still don't), based on the financial constraints (particularly with the regime that followed) the decision by Darth Cheney and Bush the Elder was correct.

[column5 63]

The Super Hornet is doing just fine for us now.

 

The only thing that makes that statement reassuring is knowing that JSF is in the pipeline.

[commander 0]

If you want a new cat, CA could have a competition to design a fast, agile low cost, long range dogfighter, then model it and get specs for it and submit it to Boeing or LM or NG.

Or something along those lines, it would be nice if the people here at CA worked together to design a new fighter to submit to a company in order to best all of the Gen 5 planes currently out.

 

 

 

 

 

I know that im dreaming a bit, but it could work.

Edited August 12, 2008 by commander

[column5 63]

If you want a new cat, CA could have a competition to design a fast, agile low cost, long range dogfighter, then model it and get specs for it and submit it to Boeing or LM or NG.

Or something along those lines, it would be nice if the people here at CA worked together to design a new fighter to submit to a company in order to best all of the Gen 5 planes currently out.

 

I'm in only if we can incorporate mahogany canopy rails.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Has anyone made a shiny golden skin for the Eagle or the Cat yet? Golden airframe, platinum pit, jewel nav lights, silver pylons... Paint scheme "Taxpayers' Nighmare".

[commander 0]

if you want, make it outof gold

[firehawkordy 34]

All this is moot, the Tomcat used up it's 9 lives, and is gone. There will never be another. Part of the problem was the pilots who specialized A2A to the exclusion of all other phases of air combat. "What? Me drop bombs? I'm a Fighter Pilot, not a mud mover." If you think this is is jest you were never around some Naval Aviation spaces.

 

One more thing, as an AO I could switch out the Hornets gun in about an hour if need be, the Tomcat was an exercise in futility if you wanted a swap in less than three hours and I'm being generous. In CVW 30 the Hornets were in a higher state of readiness compared to the F-14. One thing still sticks in my mind, in '91 at the end of a Fallon DET, everyone was going home at the end of two weeks of hard flying, everyone but the maintainers for one of the F-14 squadrons, it seems one of their Tomcats went Tango Uniform the day before and even after a major effort it still wouldn't work and guys had to stay until it would.

Sucked to be them.

 

Don't get me wrong, the Tomcat was a good bird for it's time, but it's time has passed. Let the Cat have the rest it deserves.

Edited August 12, 2008 by firehawkordy

[kct 5]

Don't really realize that many people STILL love the Tomcat. This is like the nth thread about the Tomcat, lol.

Edited August 12, 2008 by kct

[DWCAce 19]

You obviously haven't been over to the F-14 Association forum :)

[+streakeagle 869]

Which is why I poked fun at the Tomcat in the first place with the F-15 patch making fun of the 'anytime, baby' theme.

You would think the Tomcat was the greatest plane that ever flew from the following it has... it is almost a religion!

 

If you want to worship a plane, the F-4 Phantom is clearly the better choice: it was so good, the USAF was forced to buy it after it outpermformed more specialized aircraft in extensive "fly-offs".

The F-4 was a better all-weather radar missile interceptor than the F-106.

The F-4 climbed better than the F-104.

The F-4 was a better strike aircraft than the F-105.

The only thing the F-4 wasn't good at was turning with MiGs, and a few weeks of Top Gun school gave Navy pilots the ability to outfly the MiG-17 close-in despite being unable to turn... especially considering the Navy refused to put slats on their F-4s, which not only reduced turn performance, but made the F-4 very likely to depart controlled flight in an unrecoverable manner.

 

While a few Tomcats still fly with Iran, the F-4 is pretty much flying with every air force who ever flew her (Korea, Japan, Israel, Germany, Greece, Turkey) except the USA, UK, and maybe Spain, predating Tomcat service by more than 10 years, yet still flying as a frontline interceptor and strike aircraft to this very day!

 

Yet there are some people who harp on the Phantom as being at best a mediocre aircraft just because it couldn't turn as well as MiGs and didn't have a big bubble canopy.

I wouldn't be surprised if F-4s were still in service long after the F-22 has been retired.

[kct 5]

No one really said that it is mediocre, the only problem was the design mindset of the 50s that went into the design of the Phantom (which, as most of us knew, a pure missile platform...well, it could have been worse, as seen with the Brits). They never expect the MiGs to remain as primarily gun interceptors in Vietnam, and hence, all the troubles started.

Edited August 13, 2008 by kct

[column5 63]

And yet, after all that is said, the Tomcat will always overshadow the F-4 and F-15. It was an excellent aircraft, flown by some of the world's best pilots, and symbolized American power for decades. Its an American symbol on par with the Statue of Liberty or Washington Monument, and you can't quantify that kind of magnetism. For those of us in the cult, its much more than a great aircraft...

[Caesar 305]

Well said, C5!

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

The same with the B-52.... B-2 out of service and B-52 still as a frontline bomber!

[commander 0]

The same with the B-52.... B-2 out of service and B-52 still as a frontline bomber!

 

 

B2 is still in service and expected to be until 2018/36

[+streakeagle 869]

And yet, after all that is said, the Tomcat will always overshadow the F-4 and F-15. It was an excellent aircraft, flown by some of the world's best pilots, and symbolized American power for decades. Its an American symbol on par with the Statue of Liberty or Washington Monument, and you can't quantify that kind of magnetism. For those of us in the cult, its much more than a great aircraft...

 

I am sure the Tomcat overshadows the F-4 and F-15 among its cult, and to a certain extent with the kids that grew up with Top Gun, but I am quite sure that the B-17, P-40, P-51, and F4U are as more widely known as American symbols than the Tomcat. After the WW2 generation, I am not sure which is more widely recognized: the F-86 or the F-4 and UH-1. Given the lack of coverage that Korea gets compared to Vietnam on TV, in the movies, and even in games, I am willing to bet the F-4 and UH-1 beat out the Tomcat as well. When I was a kid (prior to the movie Top Gun), more people knew and loved the F-4 and/or F-16 than the F-15 and F-14... and the all-glass-MFD Star Wars-like F/A-18 was viewed as out of this world. Yes, top gun made the F-14 a movie icon, but I think you will find that outside of Hollywood fame, the F-16 and F-15 have bigger fan bases. The F-16 is truly multinational and pretty much known and liked by everyone who flies it. The F-16 also got a nice plug from Hollywood from Iron Eagle. Despite its abilities and combat record, the F-15 has never been as much of a popular showboat with the general public... until the Strike Eagle. There were two stars of Desert Storm as presented by the news media: the F-117 and the F-15E. The F-14 was pretty much benched during Desert Storm since its primary capability, the AIM-54, was too expensive and increased the likelihood of friendly fire kills.

 

In the flight sim world, the F-16 is the clear winner with the F-15 and F/A-18 following in close for 2nd place. What computer geek hasn't played some iteration of the Strike Eagle series and/or Jane's Strike Eagle? The market meets the demand (if they want to make a profit), so the most popular aircraft get modeled over and over while some of the more interesting planes get passed over. When survey sims were common and carriers were covered, the Tomcat always got on the flyables list... but otherwise it has been all Strike Eagle/Fighting Falcon/Hornet. Meanwhile, the older more challenging aircraft like the 1950s and 1960s USAF and USN fighters were largely left alone... until SFP1 came along.

 

I would say the Tomcat has been left out of flight sims because of:

 

1) its complexity, but then the Strike Eagle and Hornet were way more complex than the F-14A and got full hard-core sims.

2) the complexity of carrier operations, but the Hornet has those.

3) its 2-man crew, but the Strike Eagle has a crew of two and Strike Eagle 3 had the coolest feature ever: front-seater/back-seater co-op gameplay, only Dangerous Waters gives you that kind of gameplay in a hard core sim.

4) its age: the cockpit, like the F-15A looks more like a Vietnam era pit than the glass MFD look of the Strike Eagle and Hornet...

 

Maybe I am on to something as there are not any truly hard core sims of any aircraft that don't have glass MFD pits. The only decent 3d sims were: Falcon series, Strike Eagle series, Jane's Strike Eagle, Jane's F/A-18, a few F-22 sims, and Flanker 2.0, which evolved into a the semi survey sim LOMAC. LOMAC is the only one that defies the glass pit cockpit rule... but then compared to Falcon 4.0 and Jane's Super Hornet, it is not quite a hard core sim. The most classic survey sim of all time, Jane's Fighters Anthology, featured both the Tomcat and the Phantom, but modeled all pits using generic pop-up MFD displays along the bottom of the screen. MiG Alley was the only jet sim without glass cockpits, but it was really an extension of Battle of Britain with the jet cockpits looking hardly different from prop planes. So it seems it is the generation between 1950 and 1980 that has been slighted by the fligth sim developers. It makes sense. The flight models are much harder to simulate than subsonic WW2 planes and digital fly-by-wire modern jets. The cockpits are filled with complex avionics that are difficult to model in detail. These aircraft have missiles and possibly radar, but they don't work very well and generally don't dogfight very well even if they do carry guns (F-14 and F-15 excepted on the dogfighting part, but their original missiles were Vietnam era and were not quite the AIM-120/AIM-7M/AIM-9M experience typically modeled in Strike Eagle/Falcon 4.0/Jane's F/A-18).

 

So SFP1 is really the first sim that has even tried to model the 1950-1980 era decently with detailed accurate cockpits, flight models, and to a certain extent, the weapons and avionics. In that regard, the SFP1 game engine is a huge step forward from Jane's Fighters Anthology and Jane's USAF. Hopefully, TK uses the next release to add in the components needed to model the F-14A, AWG-9, and AIM-54A correctly, perhaps with a few carrier ops refinements? A combined historical/fictional Libyan terrain/campaign/mission set would be nice. Perhaps adding the F-111 to the stock flyable stable as well to permit the infamous "around France" F-111 raid? Though it would be more useful to provide A-4, A-6, and A-7 variants.

 

Back on topic... I disagree with any assement that the F-14 is as American as apple pie as compared to the other "teen" fighters. In fact, most publications treat all four aircraft as one homogenous symbol of America's total domination of the air after Vietnam. Only the varous books on the individual aircraft ever really try to name one as being better than the others... and like the flight sim developers, they are just catering to their market. Who else is going to be reading a book on a jet fighter other than someone who is already interested in that fighter in some way?

[Gr.Viper 131]

B-17, P-40, P-51, and F4U are as more widely known as American symbols than the Tomcat. After the WW2 generation, I am not sure which is more widely recognized: the F-86 or the F-4 and UH-1

You're forgetting the big ugly A-10 and C-130.

[Echarlie 0]

Since the F-15C and the F-14 are my #1 and #2 favorite A/C of all time, I must say somthing here. Though I consider the Eagle number one I hardly ever fly it in sims while I fly the Tomcat very frequently. The reason? The eagle is just too easy. A 3 kill mission with the eagle is almost considered a failed mission, but I have to work (just a little) harder to get 3 with the Tomcat. Also theres that thing with gettin to land on a carrier. lotsa fun.

 

As far as the Tomcat being represented in Hardcore flight sims, Anybody remember Microprose "Fleet Defender Gold"?

I Would consider that pretty much a hardcore sim for its day. It had detailed cockpits and systems for both Pilot and RIO, Realistic missions,(CAP, Intercepts, Strike Escorts, Air Superiority) All flown from a carrier. I believe that when MP began work on Falcon 4.0 they started with Fleet Defender cuz there are quit a few similaritys, such as the way you controll your wingman and the padlock feature are pretty much the same in both sims. Heck, if someone was to do a remake of Fleet Defender bringing it up to modern PC standards, (Graphics, AI and a dynamic campain is all it really needs done) I can promise you I would never play anything else. I still have my old copy but the graphics are pre Falcon and the sound doesnt work on modern hardware.

 

Anyway, if I had to do it for real and I had my choice, It would be EagleCharlie all the way. F-15C

 

EagleCharlie

[GreyCap 0]

As far as the Tomcat being represented in Hardcore flight sims, Anybody remember Microprose "Fleet Defender Gold"?

:yes:  Good memories with that one. Btw Echarlie, you know about DOSBox? I bet you can get the sound to work with it.