Interesting Insight on RAF F-14

[AeroplaneDriver]

Over on the Professional Pilot's Rumor Network forum there's an interesting thread on how close (or not) the RAF came to operating F-14s. 

it's always an interesting read on the Military Aircrew forum as quite a few well known (to those interested in such things) military pilots frequently post here including a few of Falklands fame. 

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/644313-raf-f-14a-tomcat.html

[Martin H]

Dunno about the RAF getting the Big cat. But there has been talk of the navy getting them in 1982........sort of..........

There were talks about a possible loan of a Kittyhawk class flat top and an Iwo Jima class LPH (including crew and airgroups) to help out if things realy went pear shaped down south in 82. One story has it that the plan was dropped because the Royal Navy brass was insisting that the Americans adopt RN procedures, change from USS to HMS and fly the white ensign as they would be under UK "control" for the duration. Something the US Navy wasnt prepared to consider.

[kitbasher]

F-14s were looked at as a possible alternative to the Tornado ADV, numerous reasons why they weren't taken up.

In [EDIT] 1981 McDonnell-Douglas made presentations on the F-18 to at least two  RAF Phantom squadrons.  It impressed.

I know there's plenty of on/off speculation concerning potential 1980s UK F-15 purchases but I never saw that as a goer.

[Weaver]

IIRC, the RAF analysis of the F-14A in the 1970s was something like:

1. Dodgy engines.

2. Over-size and over-spec without AIM-54.

3. Hideously expensive running costs with AIM-54. RAF training standards manadated one live missile shot per crew per year, and at $1m per shot...

4. Might very well be cancelled by Congress in the late 1970s, before we get our new fighter money in the mid-1980s (Tornado IDS would eat all the budget until then).


When you consider the politics, expectations and requirements of the early 1970s, it gets increasingly hard to argue with the decision to develop the Tornado ADV.
It was a much better aircraft IN IT'S DESIGNED ROLE (i.e. shooting down Backfires over the GIUK Gap) than unrepresentative dogfighting exercises would suggest.

[Pellson]

IIRC, the RAF analysis of the F-14A in the 1970s was something like:

1. Dodgy engines.

2. Over-size and over-spec without AIM-54.

3. Hideously expensive running costs with AIM-54. RAF training standards manadated one live missile shot per crew per year, and at $1m per shot...

4. Might very well be cancelled by Congress in the late 1970s, before we get our new fighter money in the mid-1980s (Tornado IDS would eat all the budget until then).


When you consider the politics, expectations and requirements of the early 1970s, it gets increasingly hard to argue with the decision to develop the Tornado ADV.
It was a much better aircraft IN IT'S DESIGNED ROLE (i.e. shooting down Backfires over the GIUK Gap) than unrepresentative dogfighting exercises would suggest.

Oh, so true - but GOD, so boring!! Why aren't we asking ourselves what could have been made (at hideous cost) to anglicise the Tomcat enough instead? The more fictitious-bit remotely possible - the better. 

I'll start.
Conway engines.

[Weaver]

IIRC, the RAF analysis of the F-14A in the 1970s was something like:

1. Dodgy engines.

2. Over-size and over-spec without AIM-54.

3. Hideously expensive running costs with AIM-54. RAF training standards manadated one live missile shot per crew per year, and at $1m per shot...

4. Might very well be cancelled by Congress in the late 1970s, before we get our new fighter money in the mid-1980s (Tornado IDS would eat all the budget until then).


When you consider the politics, expectations and requirements of the early 1970s, it gets increasingly hard to argue with the decision to develop the Tornado ADV.
It was a much better aircraft IN IT'S DESIGNED ROLE (i.e. shooting down Backfires over the GIUK Gap) than unrepresentative dogfighting exercises would suggest.

Oh, so true - but GOD, so boring!! Why aren't we asking ourselves what could have been made (at hideous cost) to anglicise the Tomcat enough instead? The more fictitious-bit remotely possible - the better. 

I'll start.
Conway engines.

TF-41s (upgrades Speys from the A-7D) with F-4M-derived afterburners would have done the job. We might even have sold them back to the USN as more reliable replacements for the TF-30...

If cost hadn't been so much of an issue, an anglicised F-14 would have probably been the best of the available options. One RN admiral pushed hard for the RAF to buy 50-ish F-14s in addition to whatever else they got, just to defend the (carrierless) RN in the GIUK Gap.

Alternatively, consider how much less boring the Tornado ADV might have been had there been the budget for an aggressive engine development programme that produced high-thrust, high-altitude Rb.199s (verging on EJ200 territory) much earlier.

[The Rat]

IIRC, the RAF analysis of the F-14A in the 1970s was something like:

1. Dodgy engines.

I believe the F-14 was the reason for the phrase "If the engines say Pratt & Whitney, the seat should say Martin Baker."

[kitbasher]

A long time ago in an ATC centre long since knocked down we used to work Tornado air tests out of Warton.  OK they were 'clean' but by heck they shifted in the climb.

A former post-RAF boss of mine was an ex-F3 jockey and said it was the best air defence type he could think of at low level.

And as Weaver says, while it was no high-agility dogfighter, the F3 was very good at what it was designed to do.  And with EJ200s....?

[Weaver]

A long time ago in an ATC centre long since knocked down we used to work Tornado air tests out of Warton.  OK they were 'clean' but by heck they shifted in the climb.

A former post-RAF boss of mine was an ex-F3 jockey and said it was the best air defence type he could think of at low level.

And as Weaver says, while it was no high-agility dogfighter, the F3 was very good at what it was designed to do.  And with EJ200s....?

I used to have regular arguments on another, now long-gone, forum with a guy who was ex-British Army intelligence, and therefore thought that he knew everything there was to know about everything military, even though in fact he knew less about Air Force and Navy stuff than somebody who'd read one decent 'coffee-table' book*. He once put forward the idea that the MiG-25 was the best fighter plane in the world (on a 'Top Trumps' analysis) and would wipe out any force of 'rubbish' (Top Trumps again) fighters like the Tornado F.3 because it was faster and had bigger missiles.

I didn't disagree that there were circumstances where a Foxbat would have the upper hand, and could, with suitable tactics, perform it's mission without interference from F.3s. However he was flabbergasted when I told him (and of course, I had to prove it with sources) that his beloved Foxbats were 100 knots slower than an F.3 at sea level, and were limited to just 4.5G at any level (F.3's limit is about 7G IIRC), so if the tactical situation allowed the Tornado to drag the Foxbat down to low altitude, the latter was toast. I also had to remind him that electronic warfare is not only a thing, but a thing that is cruelly disrespectful of sleek lines and big numbers when it comes to making missiles miss...



*Some of his other howlers were:

"The Jaguar was a step backward from the Phantom in the tac recce role because it didn't have an IR linescanner."
Had to literally show him multiple cutaways of the Jaguar recce pod with the IRLS unit clearly labelled to convince him of that one.

"The Sterling SMG is the finest gun in the world and I don't know why they don't just give every soldier one."
This was because he'd carried one around for years and not been unduly inconvenienced by it. Ballistics, penetration and range performance could therefore all go to hell as irrelevant...

"The difference between a cruiser, a destroyer and a frigate is that a cruiser can use three weapons at once, a destroyer can use two and a frigate can only use one."
It turned out that this piece of deathless wisdom was imparted by an RAF guy he met on a long train journey once...

[PR19_Kit]

Didn't BAe put a couple of EJ200s into a Tonka at one stage?

I thought they had one like that stuffed into our test rig when I was calibrating it at one time. But it was a LONG time ago now.

[The Rat]

"The Sterling SMG is the finest gun in the world and I don't know why they don't just give every soldier one."

I found it quite nice. But I never had to use it in a real shooting war.

[Weaver]

"The Sterling SMG is the finest gun in the world and I don't know why they don't just give every soldier one."

I found it quite nice. But I never had to use it in a real shooting war.

It's a very good sub-machine gun. If I had to choose an SMG to go to war with and a Sterling was on the list, then there would have to be something pretty special on there as well to make me reject the Stirling. This guy, however, thought it was the answer to EVERY personal armament requirement, i.e. EVERY soldier should have one, with only a grudging exception for snipers...

[Old Wombat]

Stand back 200m & pick the squaddies off with yer AK scenario, right there!

[AeroplaneDriver]

Didn't BAe put a couple of EJ200s into a Tonka at one stage?

I thought they had one like that stuffed into our test rig when I was calibrating it at one time. But it was a LONG time ago now.

Don't think it was ever done it it was part of the "Tornado 2000" upgrade proposal that was binned, partially out of fear it would harm the Typhoon program.  The thread in the link I originally posted gets pretty in depth with some great insight comparing the Tomcat and Tornado for the task at hand. At the time it seems the F.3 really was the best option for the mission required.  It seems the F-14 was the only US platform even semi-seriously considered as an alternative.  RAF we're set on two engines and two crew for the unpleasant environment and dense EW environment in the UK's Air Defence Area.

[Pellson]

Didn't BAe put a couple of EJ200s into a Tonka at one stage?

I thought they had one like that stuffed into our test rig when I was calibrating it at one time. But it was a LONG time ago now.

Don't think it was ever done it it was part of the "Tornado 2000" upgrade proposal that was binned, partially out of fear it would harm the Typhoon program.  The thread in the link I originally posted gets pretty in depth with some great insight comparing the Tomcat and Tornado for the task at hand. At the time it seems the F.3 really was the best option for the mission required.  It seems the F-14 was the only US platform even semi-seriously considered as an alternative.  RAF we're set on two engines and two crew for the unpleasant environment and dense EW environment in the UK's Air Defence Area.

In hindsight, I would assume a two seater F-15 would have been the optimal solution from a performance perspective. It could easily have been modified from the existing trainer version, having both the seats and size to accommodate whatever ESM/ECM you could dream up. But as always, it's easy when looking back.

From a whif perspective, the F-15K has been done several times, and it's been good paint jobs too. My main argument against is just that it's a bit boring. Or too obvious. But that's jut me..