turkeydriver

I'm sure he's just as passionate about the F-15 and is sick of the internet postings about the tomcat-which contrast his perspective on the tomcat as a big heavy interceptor that got popular because of Top Gun. He may feel like we're trying to discredit the F-15 or F-4, when all 3 jets are really very different aircraft. F-4=big, heavy, FAST, turbojet, multirole aircraft that started as a pure interceptor. Vietnam, Yom-Kippur, Iran-Iraq, and world wide sales made this jet a worldiwde icon. F-14=big, heavy, FAST, turbofan, designed from the outset as multirole, but focused on A-A for most of its career, with excellent recon, bombing, FAC, and other capabilities as it matured. This jet made a name for itself to the public with mere looks alone, and to those who know better by its awesome capabilities and record as a "MiG repeller." F-15=big, lighter weight, FAST, turbofan designed from the outset as a fighter(not a lb for A-G) that stayed as an excellent A-A platform, and had an excellent A-G version developed from it. This jet, like the F-4 made a name for itself by establishing records based on its performance and battle record. Little known fact-the F-14s LANTIRN pylon was actually the pylon made for the F-14D to carry the HARM(cancelled project). This helped make the LANTIRN integration super cheap.

Truth be told I thoroughly enjoyed Top Gun Fire at will as a sim, not the cheesy acting crap-I never was lucky enough to own Fleet Defender or Fleet Defender Gold. Janes US navy fighters and ATF were horrible survey sims at best. The F-14 will not be made into a sim because of all the red tape to get through to make a sim. It will never be sold in a store as a package sim at the Falcon 4 level because 1)Iran still flies it and 2) its systems are still classified. We all know that the AWG-9/APG-71 and AIM-54 missile had their weaknesses, but their capabilities are classified-and its not because of NCTR or JTIDS or the IRST on the F-14D-the As have the same treatment. The F-14 was prevented from kills in Desert Storm for a few reasons-none having to do with the cost of the Phoenix. The US Air Force was light years ahead of the US Navy at that point in the realm of target ID when good guys and bad guys are everywhere. The navy could care less because when you're blue water-you know that radar blip closing on the carrier is pretty much a bad guy, and the E-2C can confirm it. The F-15C was also the model of how a military weapons system should be taken care of. The update programs added what was needed at the right times-the F-15C had NCTR, (I think JTIDS as well) and was naturally the weapon of choice from an E-3 operators point of view because you KNEW it would be shooting at the guy you wanted it to. The F-14As and 2 squads of A+ in Desert Storm did not meet the requirements to process a hostile target without the confirmation of an E-3. The Iraqis did indeed run and hide from F-14s and did indeed engage F-15s(to there very quick demise). In Wings of Fury by Michael Wilcox(READ THIS BOOK) an F-15 pilot humbly admits that he and his wingman were successfully baited by a MiG-25 and then promptly bounced by a MiG-29 at their 9 o clock. It was luck that they were able to I believe outmaneuver the inexperienced pilot and he split S'd into the ground. It's apparent that you are as much of an eagle lover as I am a tomcat lover. BTW the navy still puts up recruiting billboards with F-14s on them-at least they did in 2007.

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.......

The words from the post flight debrief phone call where "uh......did you guys get new engines?"

Historically speaking, whenever a discussion of these two great fighters happens, it mostly turns into trashing each others jet, this thread has maintained an attitude of professionalism, and kept above that. The F-15s record and capabilityies speak for itself period. It is an amazing fighter and the icon of american air superiority-greatly due to the Air Force's unparallelled ability to control the airspace over enemy territory in wartime and their pilot's focus on intercepts and A-A tactics. An F-14A with detuned TF-30s to promote longer engine life is not somthing to compare to an F-15 flown by a great pilot. However, the F-15 does has its disadvantages compared to an F-14A even in the A-A arena. While the F-14 is heavier, as long as it has a clean belly it generates HUGE amounts of lift( a swept F-14 has an entire airframe wing loading in the 40lb/sqft range)-and it can maintain that energy well when flown below 15k ft. It is noted that the navy thought about buying an "F-15N" because the F-14 was so much expensive. The F-15 was not as effective as the F-14 during AIMVAL/ACEVAL. No hotdogging here, the simple combination of a dedicated radar operator and the wonderful TVSU made a combo the F-15 could not compete with. The F-14B and D are matches for the F-15 in the WVR arena. The 6.5 g limit sadly was imposed for airframe life and anything over that doesn't help the tomcat that much more anyway. The F-14 can pull insane angles on a turn, you just have to watch the energy because pulling past a certain point will turn your jet into a big airbrake and you'll drop energy faster than C-5 trying to climb vertical. Tomcats have come back with 12.5g on the airframe and passed inspection spotless. One came back after a malfunction where the stick snapped and the aircraft performed a -10g outside loop. The crew passed out but woke up upside down climbing the other direction-the aircraft landed aboard ship but was subsequently grounded. I'll maintian the F-15 is better designed for dogfighting b/c it is easier to fly in a dogfight. You definitely have your hands full dogfighting in a tomcat as the you're wrestling an 70 lb stick at times. The F-14As TF-30s did give it a bad rap but there are plenty of kills on both sides on each other in wargames. There was a period of 4-7 years where a part with the wing sweep was producing metal shavings under g-load so the entire tomcat community was limited to 4-5g. Imagine how pathetic that is. While the F-14 cannot match the F-15s T-W ratio, wing loading(most of the time), or overall energy, it is an incredible dogfighter. Many super bug pilots who used to fly the F-14 still prefer for the A-A mission because it has better energy management than the draggy super bug. but enough-google search or head over to the tomcat sunset forums and ask for an honest to goodness F-14 pilots opinion of the eagle and how often they beat one. You'll be surprised. Japan almost went with the F-14 because they read of the AIMVAL/ACEVAL results and Hoser Satrapas gun footage. Politcal pressure ensured they bought the F-15. Canada, Great Britain, and few others wanted the F-14 but couldn't afford it. ENough rambling from me-gotta get back to work. I never was a "turkey" driver BTW, just a forum handle I've used for over 10 years. I do think F-15s rock BTW if I didnt make that clear enough.

The Navy however did use the glove vanes in A-G mode on its F-14As. Namely pretty much every A unit in some fashion before they upgraded, except for VF-103 Sluggers(before they took over the Jolley Rogers), and VF-74 when they got F-14A+and maybe VF-31 and VF-11 when they took the brand new F-14D's in the early 1990s. VF-154 and VF-211 continued to use the glove vanes(at least in the bombing mode) until they converted to Super Hornets in 2003-4. The glove vanes were removed from the F-14B and D rebuilds when they went through the rebuild process. The new build F-14A+(F-14B) and F-14D never had them. Interestingly the AST-21 model had a Super Hornet like "hood" that filled the area taken by extended glove vanes a larger LERX.......but back to topic, sorry, I just like to drivel about tomcats.

Nice Macross cross breed Talos. The AST-21 program was already on the way to making the tomcat an incredible machine. Grumman also had ideas about an F-14 jammer-with no pods on the wings but carried ventrally in a big belly pack. The navy has already submitted its requirements for a SUperbug replacement at around 2015-2020 and Boeing is putting designs together. Man we need a tomcat-centered sim. Too bad it aint gonna happen. Thanks Iran and superuptight security measures.

Also, IIRC, the FA.2's radar is (at least up to the Typhoon's Captor, and F-22's APG-77) the best radar for the AIM-120 AMRAAM. I read a quote stating that from International Air Power Review. What that means, I do not know, other than it was probablly optimized to maximize all of the AMARAAMs modes of fire and provided the best track for the missile in all environments.-that is if it truly was the best radar for AMRAAM.

As stated, my WOV worked flawlessly until the weapons pack resupply kicked in and I got all the new weapons for my F-4J. This is during Linebacker I, I think( the 1972 campaign). I can still launch and land from my A-7A with the new weapons, but the when the mssion starts in my F-4J, my jet explodes and the carrier sinks, sometimes it spawns on land too. I have temp fixed this by starting in the air but then there is no carrier to land at when the mission is over-I have looked and looked, and swept with A-G radar, but its not there. Has anyone else experienced this. I apologize if this is an old topic, but I purchased the game ~7 months ago so I'm relativelly new to WOV. I did a search and read the FAQ to no avail. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks I'll check on the carrier data.ini. I'm so new at that game I didn't even realize there was more than one carrier in game.

Hi guys, I've been wrestling with getting Burning Sands 1983 and I finally got it to work with only one problem that I can't fix. The radar doesn't work in any aircraft in the campaign. It works fine for single missions and instant action, i just cant turn it on in the campaign. I can still select weapons though. I have everything set on hard difficulty. Any help is greatly appreciated.

This kid tried bashing me on the FighterOPs forums and then tried to slam me on the tomcat sunset forums. He has virtual VF-31 website with bogus F-14 information. There is a picture of this kid somewhere with the caption that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics....... Total disrespect to the athletes in the Special olympics.

I know the tomcat TCS will slave to the radar target or will "track" a target the RIo designates- I don't think it can provide any target information though. It's described to have a 10x zoom and allows crews to ID aircraft as far as 70 miles out for a big jet down to around 15-20 miles for a small aircraft. I thought the TISEO was for A-G weapons, like TV mavericks, but I don't know much about it.

John Kerry walks into a bar. The bar tender is a horse. The horse says to John Kerry, "Why the long face?"

Oh no, I'm a tomcat guy. give us an upgraded tomcat-the ultimate swing role platform! J/K, a prowler redesigned from the ground up would be nice, but the mission doesn't require 4 crew anymore. Three at the most.

The reason I say the SH is a trainwrecck as an airframe is because the wing, though bigger than a legacy Hornets, i still designed to cruise at a high Mach number, and the stores carried for any mission, plus the fact that they are canted out, mean the airframe is super draggy, so the wing will rarely operate at its most fuel efficient state. If you look at the old tomcat's wing, it is much thicker, because it is designed for a slower cruise and loiter speed, the weapons are carried in tandem in low drag configuration. With the E/A-18G, that was supposed to be able to operate in the swing role and also drop bombs( it wont, as it is too expensive to risk), will carry the HUGE draggy ALQ-99 pods, canted out, on the same wing designed for supersonic flight and high subsonic cruise. No one really thinks as to what a HUGE waste of resources(fuel) this is. So a draggy, unnefficient, tanker configured SH has to tank these guys all the time. I'll give it five more years before the tanker configured jets start cracking to pieces. I seriously doubt the Growler airframes will last longer than 12-15 years at the very most.

Well using a numeric comparison regarding engagement/kills when discussing the F-14 is just plain ignornant. The absolute truth of the matter is that the F-14 prevented more engagements than any aircraft mearly by appearing on the battlefield and turning on its AWG-9 or APG-71. F-15s main purpose in life is air superiority over the enemy battlespace so if they are not doing that, and doing that well, they are failing. So they better engage everything that gets airborne, and they better get the lion's share of the kills. They therefore also had more oppurtunity. The F-15C incorporated NCTR, from lessons learned in AIMVAL/ACEVAL when the F-15A lacked the F-14A in kills because the TCS on the tomcat allowed the crew to ID and shoot a bandit first. (unbeknowst to most is that the F-15 pilots where experessly forbidden to dogfight the F-14As due to the impending sale to Japan- at the end Hoser Satrapa challenged the leading F-15 pilot and after a bit , recorded a shot with the gun pipper tracking the F-15 pilots head!) Back to the F-15, NCTR was automatic and better suited to a single piloted aircraft than a TCS. In Iraq, the enemy had no experience with the F-15 but plenty with the F-14(developing tactics using a minimum of four Mirage F1 to bounce the tomcat from four different directions and launch SARH missiles simultaneously to ensure a kill). The actual facts are sketchy, but Iranian F-14s scored between 50 and 150 kills over Iraqi aircraft with the F-14, including 3 MiG-23s with a single AIM-54 from long range (a lucky shot when the enemy was flying close formation and their RWR not warning them) So when 1991 roled around, the F-15s only purpose was to kill MiGs. The F-14s first weren't allowed in country CAPs and were restricted to strike escort. The F-15 had the superior intercept package at this point as they could positively identify and shoot without permission from AWACs. The Super Hornet is a compromise design, the only design left that the navy could risk, so they did. From an airframe capabilty standpoint, its just a trainwreck.

Eh, maybe an additional Jdam or HARM, but if you really pay attention to the navy web site daily photos, whenever a Superbug is loaded for a real mision, it has the SAME tank configuration as a legacy Hornet. Also, on the SH the centerline tank is extremely finicky-sometimes it will A-A fuel, sometimes not, for no apparent reason (most likely an EMI issue), so the tank is nothing more than drag after its used half the time. The SH is also maxed out on growth potential-Boeing and LM IIRC, are working on installing an IRST ( IRST are better "tuned" for A-A targetting, while LANTIRN and the like are better for A-G lasing and target ID) ON a 400 gallon centerline tank-its stupid IMHO-there isnt room in the jet, so they're putting needed avionics in a bigger, draggier tank, that will still offer 300 gallons of fuel. The jet meets the current needs of the navy, and does have sweet avionics, but it is only "better" than tomcats that are a minimum of ten years older, with 1970s technology, because of its avionics. Grumman dropped bombs off the tomcat in the 1970s because the marines were wanting it. The AST-21 (final upgraded tomcat derivative-past Quickstrike and ST-21) was a higher-cost new build jet that would have paralleled the SH program in cost. It could easily carry more, and was also looked to replace the EA-6B intruder. The maintenance issue is pretty much null and void-when the tomcat entered the fleet, it was advertised to be much lower in maintenance cost to the F-4, because it was new. The SH composite airframe simply CANNOT hold up to 30 years of stress. Yeah its cheaper in the short run-but will end up in the boneyard alot sooner. Remember, VFA-87 and VFA-15(115?) are active navy hornet squads that transitioned BACK to the F/A-18A+ because their F/A-18Cs have so little "trap" life left in them. One thing about that jet that still remains is that it cannot double cycle and still must return to the carrier more and launch more, wearing out the airframe. Sorry, I'll admit the SH is a better CAS jet only because of avionics that any jet could get upgraded with, and its a good slow fighter(for a few turns before it runs outta schlitz), and its really nice to newbie pilots and easier to land on the boat, But the raw airframe aand combat performance can't and were never designed to, replace the tomcat. Its a nice stopgap though.