F-14 Tomcat

[Shasper]

One mustnt forget that the Argies were flying on fumes when they engaged the SHARs. . .

Back on topic, I think *if* the F-14 would have undergone a evolution similar to the Su-30/35/37 (TVC, Canards etc), it's only equal would've been the YF-23!

Well, thats my opinion anyway
Shas

[Weaver]

Sharkey Ward (CO 801 Sqn on Invincible in the Falklands) has ventured the opinion that the Argies' biggest mistake was in trying to avoid combat with the SHARs as much as possible. His view is that, had he been in charge of the Argie effort, he'd have thrown everything into clawing SHARs down by sheer weight of numbers, even if he'd suffered a very bad kill/loss ratio in the process, because the SHARs were few in number, grossly outnumbered, and utterly critical to the viability of the taskforce: it wouldn't have taken many losses to reduce the force to the point of being non-viable, and that would then have given the Argies free reign......

[BillSlim]

by the way USAFE agressors deny they were "devastated" in those series of training exercises , but the situation demanded the reclame for Sea Harriers .

They would though, wouldn't they? 
The FRS.1s did not even have their radars fitted for those exercises and were only armed with Golf model AIM-9s. The F-15s from Bitburg AFB chose to exercise with the Sea Jets after hearing of their encounter with the Adversaries.

[BillSlim]

USAFE agressors are seemingly supported by Sea Harrier pilots that didn't fly with Sharkey Ward. Or I was misreading or am misquoting an article translated to Turkish.

The only source I have on the encounter is Ward's book, so I couldn't really comment. On the whole I'd regard Sharkey as a reliable witness, but maybe we can not judge what happened from only one account.
I think what we really need is an impartial third party not concerned about their reputations.

[BillSlim]

It would probably be fair to say that the Sea Jets had pretty much defeated their opposition before the first encounter, though the results of the first combat does seem to have reinforced the idea in the minds of the Argentinean pilots that the British aircraft was superior.

[KJ_Lesnick]

in http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/persiancats.html a site I found through

http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/forums/index.php?topic=41.135 as posted by XV107

Major Farhad recalls the airplane's maneuverability: "The capability of the F-14A to snap around during the dogfight was unequalled.... After only 100 hours of training, I learned to pitch the nose of my Tomcat up at a 75-degree [angle of attack] in just over a second, turn around, and acquire the opponent either with Sidewinders or the gun."

probably this is what people call a stall turn and F-14 cannot match f-22's controlled 60 degree capability .

Then why was the F-15 regarded as so much more maneuverable than the F-14?  If the F-14 could sustain higher alphas, that would inevitably equate to better turning ability? 


Kendra Lesnick

[Ed S]

Then why was the F-15 regarded as so much more maneuverable than the F-14?  If the F-14 could sustain higher alphas, that would inevitably equate to better turning ability? 


Kendra Lesnick

Higher AOA is only part of the manueverabilty issue.  The other part of this is how much thrust is available to sustain the turn.  The F-15 with its higher thrust to weight ratio could sustain a higher g turn than the Tomcat.  So the ability to get could the higher AOA could give the Tomcat a better turn for a short time, it couldn't sustain it and would quickly run out of energy.

HTH

Ed

[tinlail]

I can think of at least 4 factor that would be interesting

AoA
Pitch rate
Instantaneous Roll rate
Thrust to Weight ratio

The other thing is however the number change at different airspeeds. This thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6103 has a claim, that the F-14 will beat the F-15 at low speeds, presumably because of the swing wings. I think other factors of tactical situation, and RoE are more important than the small difference in aerodynamics.

Another interesting link http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6103

[Maverick]

Once again, a very simple statement hits the nail on the proverbial.  The tactical situation (eg: ROE, pilot experience, tactical circumstances of the engagment) is far & away the more important consideration in a fighter vs fighter engagement.  A superb aircraft can be hamstrung by poor tactics, pilot training or rules of engagement, whilst an 'inferior' aircraft can come out on top with the opposite of these factors.

Regards,

Mav

[Shasper]

The A model cats just couldnt "get it up" thrust wise due to the TF30 engines. Once the GE aircraft came on the scene in the late '80s could the F-14 keep pace with the Ego, but only for so long.

Shas

[KJ_Lesnick]

Okay, I'm wondering (partially for my F-14/F-15 hybrid thread) if it would be possible back in the days of the F-14 and F-15 design (the technology available then) to produce a plane like the F-15 with the higher-alpha capabilities of the F-14 (or at least close), while retaining the high performance (MiG-25 top-speed, unparalleled intermediate speed maneuverability, and acceleration and thrust to weight ratio, or at least almost the same) of the F-15? 

Kendra Lesnick

[Shasper]

Maybe if the Grumman 303E (or was it the F?) had been developed instead of the VG F-14 we know today.

Shas

[tinlail]

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/FA_18.html
The emergence of a generation of highly maneuverable fighter aircraft such as the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 in the late 1970's resulted in a new perspective on operating high-performance aircraft at high angles of attack. Previous U.S. military experience with aircraft such as the F-4 and A-7 during the Vietnam era had been tormented with unacceptably high accident losses of these aircraft from inadvertent departures and spins from maneuvers at high angles of attack. Operational procedures required very careful and precise pilot inputs at high angles of attack to avoid loss of control, and handbook restrictions were placed on the operational use of angle of attack. With the advent of the new generation of fighters, flight at high angles of attack became a common occurrence and was no longer feared or avoided by pilots. Exploitation of high angles of attack provided the potential for new maneuvers and options for air combat tactics. These interests resulted in several major programs within DOD, industry, and NASA to develop the analysis and design methodologies for superior performance over an unlimited range of angle of attack.


I think the biggest problem, is that the desirability of high AoA maneuvers wasn't known.

[KJ_Lesnick]

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/FA_18.html
The emergence of a generation of highly maneuverable fighter aircraft such as the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 in the late 1970's resulted in a new perspective on operating high-performance aircraft at high angles of attack. Previous U.S. military experience with aircraft such as the F-4 and A-7 during the Vietnam era had been tormented with unacceptably high accident losses of these aircraft from inadvertent departures and spins from maneuvers at high angles of attack. Operational procedures required very careful and precise pilot inputs at high angles of attack to avoid loss of control, and handbook restrictions were placed on the operational use of angle of attack. With the advent of the new generation of fighters, flight at high angles of attack became a common occurrence and was no longer feared or avoided by pilots. Exploitation of high angles of attack provided the potential for new maneuvers and options for air combat tactics. These interests resulted in several major programs within DOD, industry, and NASA to develop the analysis and design methodologies for superior performance over an unlimited range of angle of attack.


I think the biggest problem, is that the desirability of high AoA maneuvers wasn't known.

Was the F-14 difficult to fly at high alphas?  (Since it could fly at high alphas)  Was the F-15 tricky to fly at high-alphas?  Also, does anybody know (if it's not classified) what the max alpha for the F-15 is (I haven't been able to find an answer)


Kendra Lesnick

[tinlail]

Here the thing the F-15 is a great plane, well managed by the air force as a great dog fighter, decent interceptor, and turned in to a decent strike bomber. I don't know what to improve the F-15, other than decide that the F-22 is too expensive, and go stealing it's parts to upgrade the F-15 (which could be fun)

The F-14 on the other hand started as a great interceptor, marginal dog fighter, and not a strike bomber at all. Got upgraded to be a great interceptor, decent dog fighter, and marginal strike bomber. However I think that the F-14 could of been great interceptor, and a great strike bomber, but still only a decent dog fighter (just too heavy). If the Navy had been smarter about upgrading it's air fleet, the Navy habit of building expensive carriers and putting less than the best planes on it, upsets me.

So I am drawn to to F-14 because it has some much missed potential, not because it was a "better" plane.