F-14 Tomcat

[Shasper]

Semi- correct comrad Tinlail, the F-14 did have an inherent strike role (grumman had the foresight to do this since the A-6 looked like it was about to be superceded) and that is what the marines were lookin at, problem is NAVAIR didnt want the bombing ability developed & had that part of the pgm canceled.

Had the AG part of the Tomcat been pursued, both the Nave & the Marines would have been flying them, and there could have been more than just the the Iranians operating them abroad.


Shas

[tinlail]

I was talking usage and not airframe. Notice my rant at the Navy at the end.

[Shasper]

Right, I wasnt payin attn . . . again.

Its a pity that the F/A-14D (Tomcat 21) was never pursued, it would've given the Mudhen a run for its money


Shas

[KJ_Lesnick]

r16,

"No question the F-15 has the advantage over the F-14A.  The F-15A/Cs have higher thrust-to-weight, far more energy to maneuver or climb, and won't run out of engine thrust when they're at combat weight.  The TF30s just don't generate enough thrust at even regular combat weights for the F-14A to keep pace with the F-15A/C.

However, the situation is different with the F-14B/D.  The F110 engine in those models give the F-14B/Ds the ability to hang with the F-15A/C under most circumstances and actually outperform them at higher altitudes.  The F110s in the F-14B/Ds are a decade newer and besides their higher-thrust rating hold more of their power at higher altitudes.  Not too sure about the roll-rate on the Tomcat, but it says something about the plane's dogfight capability when you read that it the F110-models hold their own very well with the F-16!

The Tomcat managed to do okay against an F-16?  How did the F-15 manage against an F-16?  Regarding the roll-rate issue, I would assume the F-15 has a much faster role-rate than the F-14?

It seems in most reading I've come across the impression I get is that the F-14 has a higher instantaneous turn-rate than the F-15 but has always suffered from a less-than-great sustained turn-rate if it's the TF30-equipped model.

How did the sustained turn-rate of the later F-14's compare to the F-15?  (Equal or superior?) 

The TF30s just weren't designed for the Tomcat, and the Tomcat was designed to be powered by 27,000-30,000 pound thrust-class engines in the first place.  It was economics, lack of available RELIABLE technology, politics, and timing that kept the Tomcat from getting an F110-class engine faster."

Politics mostly


Shasper,

Semi- correct comrad Tinlail, the F-14 did have an inherent strike role (grumman had the foresight to do this since the A-6 looked like it was about to be superceded) and that is what the marines were lookin at, problem is NAVAIR didnt want the bombing ability developed & had that part of the pgm canceled.

Why did NAVAIR not want the bombing capability?  That makes no sense...


Kendra Lesnick
BTW:  Does anybody have any information as to how the F-14 performed at high-alphas
(Nobody has answered, although it was stated the F-4 and A-7 had troubles though)

[dy031101]

Why did NAVAIR not want the bombing capability?  That makes no sense...

Allegedly, the premier fleet defense fighters (F-14) were deemed too valuable to be risked exposure to an environment where they could be vulnerable to everything ranging from enemy fighters taking pot shots to a bunch of guys wielding AK-47s......

[KJ_Lesnick]

Allegedly, the premier fleet defense fighters (F-14) were deemed too valuable to be risked exposure to an environment where they could be vulnerable to everything ranging from enemy fighters taking pot shots to a bunch of guys wielding AK-47s......

If that's true, that is one of the dumbest, wussy reasons...


Kendra Lesnick

[Shasper]

That, and the fighter pilot's egos came into play . . . Which is why the marines dropped their 4sqns of Cats. One must remember that this was back in the '70s when everything had a specific role, the multi-role fighter was only a pipedream at this time.


Shas

[dy031101]

If that's true, that is one of the dumbest, wussy reasons...

F-14 is the polar opposite of A-4- big, supersonic, sophisticated, expensive, and complex (such that it needs a dedicated RIO).

Like Stinger said in Top Gun: "you don't own that plane; the taxpayers do."

EDIT: I misquoted Stinger in Top Gun and used his callsign in the computer game version of Top Gun......

[dy031101]

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/06/unexpected-creativity-found-in-unusual.html

is the source of an idea that might be useful in save the Raptor campaign

Ah...... the Idolm@sters......

I really thought Ami and Mami Futami would get F-14...... but they ended up with F-16 and its Japanese spinoff (F-2) instead. 

[KJ_Lesnick]

If that's true, that is one of the dumbest, wussy reasons...

F-14 is the polar opposite of A-4- big, supersonic, sophisticated, expensive, and complex (such that it needs a dedicated RIO).

Like Hondo said in Top Gun: "you don't know that plane; the taxpayers do."

I think the taxpayers would have preferred a supersonic-capable bomber over a subsonic one... supersonic is harder to shoot down providing it's maneuverable enough? 


Kendra Lesnick

[Shasper]

Not w/a mach-6 SAM flying up yer rearend.

[GTX]

If that's true, that is one of the dumbest, wussy reasons...

F-14 is the polar opposite of A-4- big, supersonic, sophisticated, expensive, and complex (such that it needs a dedicated RIO).

Like Hondo said in Top Gun: "you don't know that plane; the taxpayers do."

I think the taxpayers would have preferred a supersonic-capable bomber over a subsonic one... supersonic is harder to shoot down providing it's maneuverable enough? 


Kendra Lesnick

Most taxpayers wouldn't have a clue!

Regards,

Greg

[KJ_Lesnick]

Shasper,

Not w/a mach-6 SAM flying up yer rearend.

I'm not saying it would be immune from shoot-down -- but to the best of my knowledge fast and maneuverable beats slow and maneuverable...


GTX,

Most taxpayers wouldn't have a clue!

Hey, you were the one who opened up the "You don't own that plane the taxpayers do" thing... 

In either case, I'm pretty sure most taxpayers regardless of exact knowledge would want their military to have, reasonably speaking, the best equipment they could possibly get.


Kendra Lesnick 

 

[dy031101]

I'm not saying it would be immune from shoot-down -- but to the best of my knowledge fast and maneuverable beats slow and maneuverable...

Until we factored in the facts that supersonic jets were less resistant to battle damage, lacking relative accuracy (in a time when US fighterbombers had spent a good deal of their time doing close air support and guided weapons were just starting to be fielded and had very specialist roles), and easier to fly into the ground (sure there were the F-111, but then production F-111s couldn't use AIM-54 missiles).

Hey, you were the one who opened up the "You don't own that plane the taxpayers do" thing...

Not GTX...... me.

But the meaning is that when the investment blew up, they wouldn't care what it is- they care only how much of their tax money went down with it......



And looks like I misquoted Hondo (computer game)/Stinger (movie)...... thanks for the correction......

[tinlail]

I'm not saying it would be immune from shoot-down -- but to the best of my knowledge fast and maneuverable beats slow and maneuverable...

Until we factored in the facts that supersonic jets were less resistant to battle damage, lacking relative accuracy (in a time when US fighterbombers had spent a good deal of their time doing close air support and guided weapons were just starting to be fielded and had very specialist roles), and easier to fly into the ground (sure there were the F-111, but then production F-111s couldn't use AIM-54 missiles).

What would putting a pave tack pod on a F-14 do?
I get the feeling that the pod was just too big for a fighter airframe, but I 've seen pictures of f-4 with them.

I agree that putting expensive planes down in the weeds to do ground attack is not a smart action.