F-14 Tomcat

[Shasper]

KJ - The nose extensions that R16 refers to were installed on a F-14A by NASA somewhere around the late '70s to early '80s for testing and were never used operationally. Information regarding the Tomcat II is almost nonexistant, but my guess is since the a/c would have replaced the A-6, an advanced terrain following & attack radar would have been used, with the array being spread to the leading glove edges to increase the coverage area 'seen' by the radar (this method is used by the USAF B-2 IIRC).

Shas

[XV107]

Regarding the F-14 vs Iranians engagement.

The case of the Phoenix being fired was against a MiG-25, which was leaving the area at a high rate of knots, and outran the weapon.

The contact with the Iranians came during the Tanker War in 87/88, around the time of Op Praying [sic] Mantis - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis (which is pretty accurate for that source). There are several versions of the story, which got a brief, and apparently largely un-noticed account in the John Lake edited book on the F-14.

The first version of the tale has two F-14s VF-21 taking on two Iranian F-4s in a head-on engagement, which saw the release of two AIM-7, but both failed to guide properly, having been launched out of parameters. The Iranians departed the area with some alacrity after their lucky escape.

The second version of the story has a multiple AIM-7 launch against an Iranian C-130, but the F-14s supposedly turned away which resulted in the missiles failing to guide since they had no radar to lock onto.

The third version involves a single F-14 firing an AIM-7 (or possibly 2) at an Iranian F-4 that was attempting to engage a USN P-3 and the missiles failing to guide because they fired out of the necessary parameters; there is some suggestion that the launch was a shot across the bows aiming to put the F-4 off his aim (which it did in no uncertain terms). The author Tom Cooper has found anecdotal evidence from an Iranian F-14 pilot which has USN F-14s arriving and providing mutual support to the Iranian F-14 as he dealt with an Iraqi attack on the nuclear power plant at Bushehr. Go to post #28 at http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/forums/index.php?topic=41.msg3077#msg3077

I have also heard the first version of the story from a USN officer, but he did not know whether or not it was an accurate account or merely a USN urban legend.

[KJ_Lesnick]

The case of the Phoenix being fired was against a MiG-25, which was leaving the area at a high rate of knots, and outran the weapon.

The MiG-25 outran an AIM-54?  Can't the AIM-54 do speeds of well over Mach 5 if not Mach 6?


KJ Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

The F-14's glove-vane acts apparently like a canard, but one thing I'm wondering about it is why is it's leading edge virtually flat and actually thicker outboard than inboard?  Wouldn't that be awful aerodynamically?

Is it true that the glove-vane allowed 7.5G's at Mach 2? 


Kendra Lesnick

[Taiidantomcat]

"At what speed about does the F-15 become superior to the F-14? "   Never! The F-15 is an "overpriced, overhyped, sparrow plunker" to qoute one Tomcat guy. I am just kidding, The Tomcats VG wings unswept give incredible maneuverability, but an exact speed would be hard to pinpoint.

Ben

[BillSlim]

The case of the Phoenix being fired was against a MiG-25, which was leaving the area at a high rate of knots, and outran the weapon.

The MiG-25 outran an AIM-54?  Can't the AIM-54 do speeds of well over Mach 5 if not Mach 6?


KJ Lesnick

Depends on the distances involved. If the Mig-25 was doing its full speed when the AIM-54 was fired it might not have had enough of an overtake speed to catch up before it ran out of airspeed. A Mach 3 aircraft can outrun a Mach 5 missile in some circumstances.
A strange parallel might be the cheetah and the horse. a Cheetah can run at 60mph, while a horse can manage 30mph, however a horse will always win a race over 1 mile because a cheetah will be exhausted well before it catches the horse.

[Shasper]

The F-14's Glove vanes were installed to help prevent the nose-down pitching tendencies at mach speeds, Reason why they're flat on the leading edge is the vanes were part of the wing glove's leading edge.

(hope that made sense, my head's been screwy all day)


Shas

[KJ_Lesnick]

The F-14's Glove vanes were installed to help prevent the nose-down pitching tendencies at mach speeds,

But I thought most swing-wing designs were able to produce reasonably low trim-drag at high-speed (as high-sweeps tend to produce low trim-drag)?

Reason why they're flat on the leading edge is the vanes were part of the wing glove's leading edge.

That occured to me about an hour after I posted it...  Regardless, doesn't that flat surface produce a lot of drag?


Kendra Lesnick 

[Maverick]

I don't think it's really fair comparing the F-14 with the F-22.  They're generations and decades apart.  It would be like comparing a MiG-23 to a S-47.  Aircraft performance has to be taken in context otherwise it becomes useless to consider the performance in the first place.

Mav

[Maverick]

Whilst 'Top Gun' is a great movie (obviously, from my point of view), it is, at the end of the day Hollywood.  It was quite amusing to hear that when the movie was released in the States, the USAF!!! had an increase in recruitment.  Ooops, guess moviegoers didn't take awfully much notice of what service they were watching.

Air combat, as with anything, of course is greatly reliant on pilot training & skill.  A poor pilot will still be a target to an older generation of aircraft flown by a competent one.  The Falklands proved that quite well.

Regards,

Mav

[Maverick]

Yes, true enough.  Although Louis Gossett Jr is an accomplished actor, the movies themselves are fairly ordinary and the constant use of IDF/AF F-16s & older aircraft just adds to the real lack of 'realism' ("MiG-28" F-5s notwithstanding in Top Gun)

[BillSlim]

Air combat, as with anything, of course is greatly reliant on pilot training & skill.  A poor pilot will still be a target to an older generation of aircraft flown by a competent one.  The Falklands proved that quite well.

Mav, the Sea Jets were generally newer than most aircraft flown by the Argies. They were certainly newer than the A-4s and Mirages.

[Maverick]

Jan,

Everything I've read regarding the Falklands air war suggests that, had the Argentinean Mirages been flown effectively, they would have been more than a match for the Shars.  This includes accounts from RN pilots operational during the conflict.  Regardless of what the RN might think, the Shar wasn't a fleet fighter and would have suffered poorly against aircraft both flown & equipped for air combat.  One suggestion was that, had the Argentinean Mirages performed high speed 'slashing' attacks against the slower Shars, they would have been able to engage them much more effectively than was the case.  As for a generational thing, there was perhaps one generation at most between the two types.

Regards,

Mav

[Maverick]

Then of course, there was the American experience during the Vietnam war's earlier years.  F-4s which were well advanced over the MiGs the North Vietnamese were flying were not as effective as they would later prove to be once the US established DACT training within both the AF & Navy.

[BillSlim]

The Mirages probably would have been more effective had the Argentinean pilots been better trained, however the Sea Jet pilots had previously beated USAF Adversary pilots in F-5s and F-15As from Bitburg, so they were pretty good.