F-14 Tomcat

[dy031101]

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.

IIRC, the Americans got the same conclusion after trying Pave Tack on F-4s.

I was under the impression that its size rivals some of the heavy bombs......

[KJ_Lesnick]

r16,

generally all I can do is parroting what others have said on a given subject but the F-16 has been long considered the standart against all in the world is measured in a dogfight ; give or take small percentages ı think all Teen series do actually match each other , though F-18 might appear to prefer slower speeds.

The F-16's the gold-standard of air to air combat (Yes, I know the F-18 is better at lower speeds, though, in fact one of the best in the world except by the F-22, and Su-30)?  Just out of curiousity, how does the F-15 compare to it (The F-16)?

ı have been going around in some forums and have across the idea that Marines did actually give up the Tomcat because it broke the neck of a colonel at a catapult launch ; he was a Medal of Honour winner , though the idea was quickly and forcefully refuted in the next post.

Was that true (That a USMC Colonel's neck was snapped in a catapult launch)?  How the hell did that happen?   

general idea is Pentagon doesn't like too capable aircraft , because if it does the force structure will be cut .Just look at the F-22 ; because it is so powerful F-15C got no new toys , F-16 is still a 'C , F-14 got knocked out without replacement as the naval ATF would naturally eat F-22's funds , F-18E/F is generally taken to be an hypocrasy though without it the entire USN would have to give up operating ( an exaggeration but not a big one if you omit the submarine force ) and because it is so expensive it needs back up and since the F-35 is so capable  American armed forces are practically begging the save the F-22 . No F-22 , no American victory in the next war as in No air superiority , no effective operations . We will see if there will be more than 200 Raptors . I guess there are 100 around now .

You're telling me if the F-14 had air to ground capability, they wouldn't have had any funds to keep some A-4's, a few A-6's and stuff flying?


dy031101,

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).

Less resistant to battle-damage?  I would have never guessed that... if anything I would have thought they were more resistant to battle-damage (Especially the F-4 which seemed to be built like a tank, and the F-15, which managed to land after losing virtually an entire wing in a mid-air collision with an A-4 Skyhawk)

I never knew there were any problems with supersonic aircraft in regard to accuracy (which I assume has to do with air to ground roles)?

I can't really argue with you on them being easier to fly into the ground though... although as an interesting note, the F-16's and F-18's can fly high speed low altitude missions and seem to do okay... 

Not GTX...... me.

Well, I'd say it was a bad argument as the tax-payers actually have no say in the matter...

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......

I don't think taxpayers would actually care that much unless they were getting shot down left and right. 

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

Who was Stinger anyway?  Was he the Squadron CO, or the Airwing Commander/CAG


r16,

the electronic controls are limiting the GE engine to reap similar benefits from increased speed .

Huh?  The F-110?  You mean the FADEC system?  What's the F-110's pressure ratio compared to the F-100?  Can the F110 with the higher pressure ratio make the same mach numbers the F-100 could?  If so, if the engine was designed for a fast-enough plane couldn't they modify the electronic-controls to enable the additional speed?


tinlail,

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.

A pave-tack pod can be attached and detached right?  Or is it permanently mounted?


Kendra Lesnick

[dy031101]

Less resistant to battle-damage?  I would have never guessed that... if anything I would have thought they were more resistant to battle-damage (Especially the F-4 which seemed to be built like a tank, and the F-15, which managed to land after losing virtually an entire wing in a mid-air collision with an A-4 Skyhawk)

The comparison needs to be made with the likes of A-6 and A-7......

I never knew there were any problems with supersonic aircraft in regard to accuracy (which I assume has to do with air to ground roles)?

F-14 came online in a time when only specialized attack aircraft pilots had systems to help them hugging the terrain and do calculations on where the bombs would hit for them.

I can't really argue with you on them being easier to fly into the ground though... although as an interesting note, the F-16's and F-18's can fly high speed low altitude missions and seem to do okay... 

Considering how long F-14 had to wait until their own version of LANTIRN became available......

Who was Stinger anyway?  Was he the Squadron CO, or the Airwing Commander/CAG

He was the CAG.

[Shasper]

The Pave Tack was a big o'l boy that fit very snugly in the bomb bay of the 'Vark. It can be removed, but it's bulkyness meant that only the F-111 could use it without losing significant performance.


Shas

[KJ_Lesnick]

dy031101

The comparison needs to be made with the likes of A-6 and A-7......

How resistant were they to battle damage?

F-14 came online in a time when only specialized attack aircraft pilots had systems to help them hugging the terrain and do calculations on where the bombs would hit for them.

Before the F-15 designers went with "not a pound for air to ground" -- was there plans for the plane to have terrain hugging and bomb-guidance?  If so, wouldn't the F-14 be able to utilize similar capability (Granted the F-15 made it's first flight and entry to service a few years later)?

Considering how long F-14 had to wait until their own version of LANTIRN became available......

When was the LANTIRN system invented, and when was the F-14 fitted with them?

He was the CAG.

Thanks, I had a feeling he was more powerful than a squadron commander regarding the scenes in the CIC

[Shasper]

Lantirn came into being in the mid - late '80s, the F-14s got the pods in '96 - '97 frame, during & after the A-6 was finally retired from the fleet.

Shas

[dy031101]

How resistant were they to battle damage?

Maybe A-6 isn't a good comparison (I checked later and realized that I might be wrong), but over 50 USN F-4s were lost to ground fire during Vietnam War as opposed to 15 A-7A and 7 A-7B although A-7 began fighting three years later than F-4 did.

IIRC, a Greek A-7H got into and survived a very similar predicament as the F-15 you've mentioned.

Before the F-15 designers went with "not a pound for air to ground" -- was there plans for the plane to have terrain hugging and bomb-guidance?

Fire control and terrain following didn't mix back then (attack aircraft sported two sets of radars in order to do both).

When was the LANTIRN system invented, and when was the F-14 fitted with them?

Thanks, Shasper.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Shasper,

America had lots of experience in Vietnam and that showed F-105 , A-7 and to a slightly less degree A-4s were tough while Phantoms seemed vulnerable to flak ; that was the feeling of some pilots .Have no idea on the Intruder.

I would have never thought, the F-4 struck me as being built like a tank, guess I'm wrong.  I knew the A-4's were quite sturdy, but I would not have thought the A-7's would have been all that tough.  I don't know why but I would have thought the F-105's would have been flimsy, but I guess it wasn't.  How sturdy exactly was it?

Maybe A-6 isn't a good comparison (I checked later and realized that I might be wrong), but over 50 USN F-4s were lost to ground fire during Vietnam War as opposed to 15 A-7A and 7 A-7B although A-7 began fighting three years later than F-4 did.

I think this issue is more related to the F-4 (although I'm not sure how the F-100 fared flying low and fast)...  from what Shasper said in a previous post, the F-105 was pretty tough and it was definitely supersonic (I would not be suprized if it probably flew more time supersonic than most other fighters in Vietnam).

Fire control and terrain following didn't mix back then (attack aircraft sported two sets of radars in order to do both).

I take it this was due to technical limitations?

IIRC, a Greek A-7H got into and survived a very similar predicament as the F-15 you've mentioned.

So, one could argue that the F-15 and A-7 were of roughly equal ruggedness? 

BTW:  When did this happen?


Kendra Lesnick

[GTX]

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.

It was fairly large - as seen here:



But not really so large that it couldn't be carried - it was very similar in size to the drop tanks on some aircraft.

Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

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. 

Alright Ace Combat fans and Idolm@ster fans, F-14D for Azusa Miura.

[dy031101]

I think this issue is more related to the F-4 (although I'm not sure how the F-100 fared flying low and fast)...  from what Shasper said in a previous post, the F-105 was pretty tough and it was definitely supersonic (I would not be suprized if it probably flew more time supersonic than most other fighters in Vietnam).

103 F-105D/Fs were lost in 1966 alone.  But then it could just be that they saw more widespread use at that time.

I take it this was due to technical limitations?

Such was the time when Tomcat was born.

BTW:  When did this happen?

I lost the ancient book that mentioned the accident......

[tinlail]

a few pages ago , I had wrote something about F-14 flight controls , I think the following tends to support it

"IIRC, the first 23 F-14s also had their MSP programmed for CLmax (better turn performance) with more bending moments in the wing however the USN didn't like that because the life span would've decreased so they opted for a Psub configuration instead. "

*Source: Perry Stephenson "Grumman F-14" book.

Reading that I just realized that with the much more benign landing conditions of an air force jet, you could tune the control systems for a more aggressive handling, in air combat, without taking the wear the Navy was afraid of.

[KJ_Lesnick]

r16,

a few pages ago , I had wrote something about F-14 flight controls , I think the following tends to support it

"IIRC, the first 23 F-14s also had their MSP programmed for CLmax (better turn performance) with more bending moments in the wing however the USN didn't like that because the life span would've decreased so they opted for a Psub configuration instead. "

*Source: Perry Stephenson "Grumman F-14" book.

How much better would the F-14's turning performance have been had it been programmed for CLmax? 

Also, while I'm at it, What does MSP, and Psub stand for


dy031101,

103 F-105D/Fs were lost in 1966 alone.  But then it could just be that they saw more widespread use at that time.

I'm wondering which is the case, the plane being flimsy, or the plane being sturdy but seeing a lot of widespread use and flying some of the most dangerous missions -- if not both
(BTW:  I was just going on what someone else said in regards to the airframe strength.) 

Such was the time when Tomcat was born.

Understood

I lost the ancient book that mentioned the accident......

Oh well...


Kendra Lesnick

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Has anyone ever performed a check-fit of the 600 gallon Sargent-Fletcher fuel from the F-4 Phantom to the F-14?  Mounting the fuel tank with associated pylon to the tunnel between the engines over the Sparrow wells.  To see if there is enough space to allow it to fit?  One of those moments of inspiration on what to do with the excess 600 gallon fuel tanks from the Phantom and that came to mind.  If this tank was fitted, the F-14 would lose two Sparrows but gain 600 gallons of go-juice.  The mounting points under the engines for the traditional fuel tanks associated with the F-14 could then be fitted with a missile launch adapter or launch rail to carry a Sparrow or Sidewinder.  Or you could check to see if there is sufficient clearance between the ground and the engine to accomodate an AIM-54 Phoenix. 

[tinlail]

I am not clear on exactly where you were say to hang the tanks
I just tried it with F-15's tanks (same size I think) and they fit  between the engine, where they would mounted to the rear two locations for the phoenix. Sparrows are mounted centerline on the F-14, for reasons not clear to me.
I don't think that the intakes would be able to take phoenix because of the cooling equipment the phoenix need from the launching plane.