-- Wiarthurhu 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)-- Wiarthurhu 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I found who and when changed history, as the F-14 article has clearly stated that the F-14 was designed to be a maneuverable air superiority fighter until this edit, which has no comments.
Revision as of 05:01, 14 March 2006 (edit) Mmx1 (Talk | contribs) (Last squadron is still in service; just finished last combat tour) ? Older edit Revision as of 05:18, 14 March 2006 (edit) Mmx1 (Talk | contribs) (?Characteristics) Newer edit ?
Deleted -
The Tomcat was intended as an uncompromising air superiority fighter and interceptor, charged with defending carrier battle groups against Soviet Navy aircraft armed with cruise missiles. It carried the Hughes AN/AWG-9 long-range radar originally developed for the F-111B, capable of detecting bomber-sized targets at ranges exceeding 160 km (100 miles), tracking 24 targets and engaging six simultaneously.
The F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation.
Added
Though designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability, the F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation. This was a consequence of the requirement for low landing speeds.
There is no way to verify the accuracy of the changed statments.
It is too bad that it took until June to correct this error. At the moment, it is impossible to correct this error since any statement to the effect that the F-14 ever was or was intended to be agile will be mysteriously be immediately erased. What does the F-14 community think that this article, which is duplicated across dozens of pages, omits air superiority or discounts agility as a design requirement? -- Wiarthurhu 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To avoid edit wars, the following POV will be enforced in this article:
-- Wiarthurhu 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only guy that's shaking his head over the assertion that only exists in the Wikipedia that the F-14 was not designed with maneuverability as the primary design goal? We're way over the 3 reverts rule, I have provided several references, the fighter community was shocked at the dismal combat performance of american fighters (which was also the reason for Red Flag and Top Gun) the wing area was increased for agility, the Navy did a study to find the F-111 could not dogfight, and the Navy and USAF were essentially competing in creating a fighter that could be a better dogfighter than the F-4. This is not only a minor error, it negates the most important reason for creating the F-14 in the first place. He still has provided even one citation that states in so many words the F-14 was not designed to be more maneuverable than the F-4-- Wiarthurhu 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I just replayed my recording of Modern Marvels "A new set of requirements: Mach 2 speed, GREAT MANEUVERABILITY, powerful radar and the ability to carry a variety of weapons". Entirely consistent with all the other sources, which indicated that the Navy need an airplane which could dogfight with a Mig-17, had better performance in air combat. You have a serious POV problem, and you are the only person in any media to claim that the absence of the word "maneuverability" on an open source web page means you can claim that it was not a design objective. If you read any book, any magazine, or any video program on the topic, they all concur. The F-111 would have been sufficient a Phoenix platform, the weight and carrier issues were just an excuse to move on to the F-14 when they realized the mistake of buying an airplane incapable of shooting down other fighters. I don't know where all the other people are, but please look at just one real book on the topic, you can't rely on that one web page, which doesn't even state what you claim it say it does. The F-14 WAS the first of the next generation of fighters that cared about maneuverability. You cannot seriously think that RAND included the F-14 in a paper on a new generation of maneuverable fighters and conclude that the F-14 was completely different from the other 3 fighters in that it was not designed to address the problem of MiG-17s downing supersonic US fighters. That would be like saying Top Gun was not set up to address the problem of dogfighting, since the F-14's mission is interception with a Phoenix, a mission that the F-14 almost never performed. The F-4, F-8, F-11, F-100, 101, 102, 104, 105, any maneuverability WAS an accident. I have read countless books and articles on the topic AS IT WAS HAPPENING, not just web surfing. I have models of the F-14 dating from 1972.-- Wiarthurhu 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Among these are variable-sweep wings that allow optimum efficiency throughout the plane's flight envelope. Minimum sweep is used during low-speed flight to reduce takeoff and landing speeds while maximum sweep reduces drag during supersonic flight. In combination with its large fuel capacity, varying the wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and endurance in its primary air patrol and escort mission.
How about asking an F-14 pilot instead of relying on 3rd party information written by people who also don't know what they're talking about? TOPGUN actually exists, it's not just a movie, and they trained F-14 pilots to dogfight. F-14s were designed to dogfight, to defeat enemy aircraft, and it was more maneuverable than its predecessors, simple as that. Everyone in the Navy knows this, the notion that the F-14 was not designed to dogfight is held only by those who have no actual experience in Naval Aviation.
The current page organization seems pretty haphazard right now. Unless there's a specific template that needs to be followed for aircraft articles, I'd suggest reorganizing the article into something like this:
* History o Development o Operational History + United States Navy + Imperial Iranian Air Force o F-14 in combat * Decommissioning of the F-14 * Specifications (F-14D Tomcat) * Characteristics * Operators o 4.1 United States Navy (USN) squadrons o 4.2 Iranian Air Force (IRIAF) squadrons * F-14 in fiction and popular culture * Related content * External links * References
Also, I think having the list of operators is a bit superfluous/long - perhaps it should be split off into another article like
List of F-14 operators or somesuch to reduce this article's length.
Virogtheconq 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. Specifications are frankly not all that import and kind of pointless as performance characteristics are vague anyway. Prose should lead the article, with the specs as some sort of appendix. Have considered spinning off the operators list. -- Mmx1 04:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The "F-14's in combat" is a section pointing to the stuff I moved off; need to pare that page down as the source for Iranian combat is sketchy and we don't need to know every time it saw combat. Moved it off rather than delete it, there should be a more comprehensive summary of the combat page. Characteristics should precede specs; I'm not too sold on their importance. Wikipedia used to have side boxes but the tables were too difficult to edit and resulted in a huge blob of bad code in the beginning. I've my own problems with the popular culture part but I'll humor minor aspects. -- Mmx1 05:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I was quite shocked to read about the destruction of the F-14's tooling. I think it was highly irresponsible. If a major war broke out tomorrow and the U.S. Navy needed more F-14s what would they do?
I hope what I wrote about it in the article doesn't seem like I'm having a go at Dick Cheney. While I am pretty angry about what he did (and other things he's done), I'm trying to avoid bias. Still I thought it was worth mentioning.
It's pretty sad to see the F-14s on the way out. Our government (Australia) is talking about retiring our F-111s soon. Similar problem - when they're gone, the aircraft that will replace them won't have the range or payload. (In both cases they will probably be similar aircraft - in our case F/A-18C/Ds and eventually F-35s, in the U.S. Navy's case F/A-18E/Fs and eventually F-35s). Looking at what happened during WW2, Vietnam, etc. it makes me think that if some kind of major conflict breaks out, both parties will be sorry they ditched their longest range, most capable platform. Obviously keeping the F-14s would cost some money (they'd have to be refurbished and upgraded) but I can't imagine it would have cost more than the massive amount they're spending on the F-18E/Fs which I don't think are as capable as a modern F-14 would be. You can have the greatest electronics in the world but if you can't haul the bombs to the target what good are you... and as we well know, you can't always get carriers near the conflict zone and even if you can it might not be a good idea. Tankers are all well and good but can't replace an aircraft with good fuel reserves IMO. The F-18E/F were supposed to have much better range than the F-18A/B/C/Ds but in practice (from what I've read) it seems like it hasn't really worked out. Even on paper the range/payload was never going to be anywhere near as good.
Nicholas 3rd Jan 2005
Me personally, Dick Cheney must have shares in Boeing or something, having forced the navy to choose a modified version of the Bug over the Super Tomcat and Tomcat 21 designs. I don't believe Grumman inflated their prices up. To me its just greed greed and more greed triumphing over practicality, but hey that's my opinion. Tomcat200 May 18, 2006
Seems like putting the Characteristics after Development would be better. But a couple other articles list them in a simlar order as above. - Fnlayson 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I like linking to vehicles or weapons like this:
as opposed to this:
Any other opinions?
Nvinen 02:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I thought this was to be a version supposedly developed for the Air Force? bjelleklang 12:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes Grumman did pitch a version of the Tomcat to replace the F-106 Delta Dart but alas it never happened.
Tomcat200 May 18, 2006
I reverted the F-14D error on Macross Zero in the F-14s in Fiction section. The Macross Zero creators coined a fictional variant since their F-14 has a non-existent ECM/engine config (essentially a F-14B but with new chinpod/ECM). Please see the F-14 note on Bandai Visual's Macross Zero DVD liner notes or Bandai Visual's official Macross Zero site:
http://www.bandaivisual.co.jp/macrosszero/story2.html Egan Loo 19:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Would like to expand the section on Top Gun. That film made the Tomcat the most widely known fighter plane of its time and basically put it on the map of pop culture. One half sentence does't accurately portray its impact.
Hello!
I've see your reply about the Tomcat of United Nations. Regardless those told in official site Macross Zero,There are several factors shows that should be a D variant:
1:F-16-style tailpipe converted for only F-110-engined A+/D variant. 2:Chin TCS/IR sensor pod equipped with only F-14D,there's only one TCS camera on A and A+(later B)at the same position. 3:Considerate the background of UN-War,maintance difficulity of Tomcat in even peacetime,Nature of carrier operation...........Spare parts for A/A+'re NOT impossible to be fitted with D variant just like the GRU-7 ejection seat on F-14D Prototype and in video. 4:AIM-120 Can be fired from only D variant.
I can even tell you that's prohibited for F-110-engined Tomcat to on the AB when executing carrier take-off like those in Macross Zero. These all can be found on external links in your introduction about this big fighter.Please,just click in and compare following pictures with those shows on Macross Zero official site before revert my correction.
http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31ay.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31bg.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31ga.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14dpd.htm - 61.229.163.80
To address each issue above:
Incidentally, Macross Zero is fictional.
As to why the fictional F-14A+2 in Macross Zero is not the F-14D or an other real-life F-14 variant:
- Egan Loo 22:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The aircraft externally looks like an F-14D, considering the dual chinpod, the GE-style engine nozzles, lack of forward glove veins (A-only) when the jet goes beyond supersonic speed, and the AIM-120's. But, take a look inside the cockpit, not only the ejection seats, but the actual cockpit control panel. If you look at the F-14A/B configuration, it is the same. The D has two MFD's, one next to the other (center and right panel), F-15 style HUD, and the control stick does not have the weapon/flap selector on the left side, like the A or B. Indeed this is a fictional configuration, appearing to be a combination between A or B and D.
For F-14A Pilot Cockpit See: http://gra.midco.net/mlgould/Jet%20Fighters/F-14A%20Tomcat%20front.JPG
For F-14D Pilot Cockpit See: http://gra.midco.net/mlgould/Jet%20Fighters/F-14D%20Tomcat%20Front3.JPG
It is commonly accepted that the F-14 was the only aircraft to carry the famous Phoenix missile. However this is only partially true. The F-14 is the only aircraft to actually see combat that carried this missile. One fighter (I think the YF-12) which was built as an interceptor, never purchased and eventually transmuted into the blackbird carried the Phoenix for interception purposes. However until I have verified the number of that protoype fighter I will not be editing the article to include this information.
Also I must dispute the information about the F-14's tracking abilities. While I am apart of the fly guys where the stick is built in, (JAG referance for those who don't get the joke) I have read multiple reports that the F-14 can track in fact up to two hundred signatures.(200?? where this info came from I don't know. The Phoenix System is able to track and fire on 12 targets simultaneously...12 sure..200?? Errr?) (Especially helpful when tracking say cruise missiles launched by massess of bombers at the fleet) Can anyone else verify or disupte this?
As far as the aircraft's retirement, I will agree that is saddening. However the F-14 is being retired for the following reasons.
1) The airframes are old, have always been maintenance heavy and grow more so with each flight.
2) The original design purpose of the F-14 is no longer a primary issue. As few nations now possess the capability to be a threat to US carriers, and the high number of phalanx CIWS present in a carrier task group are considered adequate to defend against the occasional missile that might get through.
3) The mated pair of the Phoenix and the Tomcat does not possess the advantage it once did considering the pairing of the F/A-18 and the AMRAAM, which when combined with the presence of an AWACS can provide nearly identical abilities. The F-14 was designed with the idea of carrying the Phoenix in mind, as a craft of the F-14's abilities would be needed to carry such a heavy weapon. Something less of a concern with the availability of the AMRAAM.
4) The Bombcat role of using the F-14 as a bomber has been usurped by the abilities of the F/A-18 E and F models.
Still the aircraft is an icon all over the world, I am sad to see it go.
The F-14 was the only operational fighter to employ the AIM-54 Phoenix and AWG-9 Weapon system. These two items it inherited from the unsuitable F-111B navalised TFX variant.
The YF-12 carried the AIM-47 and the ASG-18 Fire Control System for which the later weapons and radar systems used on the F-14 were derived. They were not the same!
At present there is debate as to the usefulness of the Phalanx CWIS. It's 20mm ammunition is felt to not have the stopping power despite the high rate of fire of the Vulcan cannon from which it is fired from. Hence the system is being supplanted by the Rolling Airframe Missile System, which also has its detractors.
The AEGIS System still has flaws in it that can be exploited by knowlegeable foes. In my opinion, relying on this system alone to fill in the gaps since the retirement of the Phoenix/Tomcat combo is a big mistake. The Fleet Air Defence Mission has never been obsolete or made redundant by the end of the cold war. Aircraft Carriers are still very expensive. We shall see if the Superhornet/AMRAAM/APG-79 AESA Combo is up to par.
The AWG-9 Tracks up to 24 targets and selects the 6 most dangerous to destroy, although Tomcats in operational use only carried 4 AIM-54's plus 2 Sparrows and 2 Sidewinders, as the full 6 phoenix layout was too heavy to bring back aboard ship. The only time all 6 would be carried was if it was certain that most were expended.
Range of the AWG-9 is about 241 km. Though the system was powerful enough that it can surpass this mark it was only the size of the antenna which limited it to the figure mentioned ie. Larger antenna and large power means longer range. It had the power but the antenna was not big enough for it to be utilised.
The commanding Officer of VF-31 in the F-14's final cruise, Cdr Rick La Blanche, said emphatically that the ONLY reason the F-14 Tomcat was being retired was because it cost too much to maintain. Nothing said about the Super hornet surpassing it, though the CO of VF-2 did say something of that nature but was very guarded about what he said, which is a bit unusual. Coincidentally I saw a documentary 9 years ago. It was about the USS Carl Vinson / CVW-14 and it featured then Lt La Blanche who was an A-6E Intruder Pilot on the types last cruise before its retirement. The squadron he was with was Medium attack Squadron VA-196 "Main Battery". The Squadron was disestablished upon the aircraft's retirement. At that time VF-11 and VF-31 were part of that airwing as well, and La Blanche did mention he was to transition to the Super Tomcat. He completed his 1000th trap on the final cruise, aboard Theodore Roosevelt. He is a very distinguished man indeed!
Tomcat200 May 18 2006
The part "The Iranian Air Force used their F-14As in combat constantly against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. It is estimated that during the Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988, from reports from pilots on both sides, guncamera/TISEO films, examination of wreckage, local and foreign intelligence and other sources, that on total the IRIAF F-14As scored 130 confirmed and 23 probable aerial victories. Iran launched possibly 70 to 90 AIM-54A missiles, and 60-70 of those scored. In one instance four Iraqi fighters were shot down by a single Phoenix. Twice two Iraqi fighters were destroyed with a single missile." seems like a load of nonsense. I've never read of F-14's tallying such a high kill ratio, and a single phoenix killing 4 fighters. To top that off, most Iranian Phoenix kills are unconfirmed; the only kills confirmed are by Tom Cooper, and we all know his facts are unreliable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
You guys will like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJDGmgMjAqs&search=F14 teh TK 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe that F-14's had the most interesting paint scheme's of the Cold War/Post-Cold War era, not including Tiger Squadron Schemes, and I was wondering if a section should be added to the F-14 page or if there sould be a seperate page. Any ideas?
The article lists rate of climb as 45,000+ ft/min. Is that for real or a typo? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It's only initial rate of climb. This drops off rather rapidly with altitude. F-104 and Phantom could climb at almost 60,000 fpm. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What references (or rather, which links at the bottom) are given for the F-14's apparently "notorious" carrier landing difficulties? I asked a former pilot about it, and he disagreed wholeheartedly, saying that the F-14 was much easier to land than the F-4 it was replacing (F-4 came in 20 knots faster). Obviously this is just one pilot's opinion, but I'm still curious.
Tomcat200 1st June 2006
I believe it is reference to the woman pilot controversy, some believed it was evidence women were either not suited, or given prefernce over better pilots. I added remark that swing wings and flaps should make it easier to land.-- Wiarthurhu 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles about American aircraft are in American English per MoS. Stop converting them to British English. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved the following section to the discussion because it is not encyclopedic in its current form:
It has the following issues:
Egan Loo 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
They generally look good, though I have a quibble:
-- Mmx1 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I grew up seeing these planes being developed. USAF and USN pilots were getting hammered badly by 1966-1967 and the folly of abandoning air combat became evident. Also note that this was the first of 4 fighters, F-14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 that were all optimized for air combat. The F-14 had to replace the F-4 so retained payload and performance, and size (and then some), engine technology of the F-15's F-100 did not exist at time of VFX specification, and provision was made for growth. Modern Marvels, and a US News video of fighters explains how air combat experience shaped the teen fighters. The century series and USN supersonic fighters had no specifications regarding air combat performance, it WAS a coincidence the F-8 was a good air combat fighter, and sheer luck the massive F-4 had enough power to make up for turning capability. I provided 3 citations, (F-14 book by areo, Modern Marvels, US News video) to back me up, I have never in my years since the 1960s seen anyone claim the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable. In fact, the F-14 is the only VG plane whose VG feature was included because of maneuverability (you DO know that feature, don't you??) -- Wiarthurhu 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
See last book I added, I have that book. VG was selected over fixed for maneuverability. I searched Google and found your claim - it is frm the Wikipedia VG article, and it is also incorrect, and has no citation. Every broadcast program and book on the F-14 starts with a discussion of the history of the lost art of air combat. The F-104 was a contemporary of the F-8, with abysmal turning characteristics, again because if you don't ask for turning, you might not get it. The AF turned down the F-14 because they thought they could get a lighter plane with a better engine with a 1:1 T/W ratio. I would still like to see a citation other than the Wiki article that the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable.
"The fixed-wing version was rejected because of its weight, carrier suitability and because of its low-altitude performance".
The Navy recognized the advantages of applying the variable-sweep wing concept to multimission aircraft. One ideal application was for naval fleet defense fighters, which must be able to quickly intercept threats and yet slowly approach aircraft carriers to land. Variable-sweep wings in the fully swept (high-speed) configuration permit efficient supersonic dash and the carrier-approach requirements could be met with the wing in the unswept (low-speed) position.
You obviously did not follow the development of the F-14 in Popular Science, Mechanic and Aviation Week as I did in the late 60s, nor watch Modern Marvels, or have the videos. The website specifically mentions "agility" as one of the considerations. If not for agility, there would be no point in replacing the F-111B since not meeting an arbitrary weight spec is just about the only difference between the F-14 and f-111 besides the fact that the F-111 maneuvers like a city bus. Again, I'd like to see one citation other than your own, your citation is the one that pops up on a google search. Dogfighting vs an F-4 was about the 2nd test after they established it could fly straight without making a big hole in the ground. The swing wing is an integral part of the maneuvering capability, and unique among VG aircraft. The f-14 was the only one with dogfighting in mind from the start. -- Wiarthurhu 18:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
From MATS "Wing area increased to 565 square feet from 505 square feet. Increased combat agility. Allowed use of simple hinged single-slotted flap, rather than complex double-slotted extensible flap. As a fallout, maneuvering flap is easily achieved" As long as agility was in any way design parameter, you wording is incorrect, and you have not provided another example of your viewpoint, which you are encouraged to cite and quote.-- Wiarthurhu 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a citation that the F-14 was specifically designed to fix dogfight problems with the F-4: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm These various sacrifices were rationalized by the belief that visual dogfighting was obsolete, and that in the supersonic age, air combat would be fought beyond visual range (BVR) using radar-guided missiles. This concept failed in Vietnam for two reasons: First, radar could detect and track aircraft but not identify them. Operating beyond visual range created an unacceptable risk of shooting down one's own aircraft. Pilots were therefore required to close to visually identify the target before shooting; this eliminated the theoretical range advantage of radar-guided missiles. Second, the performance of the Sparrow radar-guided missile in Vietnam was poor, generally yielding less than 10% kill per shot. Dissatisfaction with these deficiencies led to the US Air Force F-15 and US Navy F-14 designs. -- Wiarthurhu 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Another one: http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm
Other fighter missions, such as escorting attack airplanes, had to be done with a higher performance, more maneuverable, and more versatile airplane than the F-111B. Grumman, associated with General Dynamics, had performed F-111 improvement studies, under contract, ranging from minor changes to complete redesigns. McDonnell had also studied, under contract, various improvements to the F-4, including a design with a variable sweep wing. A new airplane, to complement the F-111B, was also under study by everyone. This design finally evolved as a multi-mission airplane, VFAX, capable of performing *** better than a F-4 as a fighter ***, and better than the A-7 as an attack airplane.
While the swing-wings provided definite improvements over its predecessor, the F-4, this weapon system's primary reason for existence was fleet defense against hordes of Soviet bombers. It was larger than many WWII medium bombers, and should be seen more as a maneuverable interceptor than a furball-winning dogfighter. Until the F-18 came along, it was the pilot skills provided by the superior Top-Gun school that netted the Navy air combat kills, not the superior ACM (Air Combat Maneuverability) of the Tomcat
From the "adios Tomcat" link you put in. It's just a blog, but even that admits that it's raison d'etre was not dogfighting. -- Mmx1 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because it's no F-18 doesn't mean that wasn't the design goal. This should answer all your questions young padewan and mend your ways: [PDF] REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTERFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML cated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter opti- ... Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s. YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf - Similar pages-- Wiarthurhu 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design concepts and R&D.
RAND Study Okay, I'm putting my foot down and reverting to my version. You've shown that you're reading your own bias into sources and I have lost faith in your interpretation of the sources you've cited but which only you have access to. All the openly available sources I've cited OMIT maneuverability/agility from their list of the primary design criteria of the F-14. The RAND study is a study not of fighters, but of the design process. It looks at the teen series because they were contemporaries and their programs were locked in bureaucratic struggles, NOT ONCE does it make the assertion that the F-14 was "supposed to be agile". You seem incapable of ACTUALLY READING the cited documents and instead quote a google search result that sadly takes a poor misquote of the original document. -- Mmx1 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[PDF] REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTERFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML cated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter opti- ... Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s. YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf - Similar pages
Sure looks like the Navy was looking for something that could dogfight a Mig-17 to me. Could you pleeeeeez quote somebody that the F-14 was not designed to be a dogfighter? You only cite places that it was not the BEST dogfighter.
The F-15 was the first Air Forcefighter since the development of the North American F-86 in the late 1940s thatwas optimized for maneuverability and agility for dogfights with enemy fight-ers.
the escalation of the air war over Vietnamsoon convinced many officials in the Air Force and the Pentagon that a new,specialized air-defense fighter was needed, as antiquated North VietnameseMiG-17s began registering victories over much larger, more complex andexpensive, but less maneuverable U.S. fighters. On April 4, 1965, several NorthVietnamese Korean War vintage MiG-17s equipped only with guns shot downtwo sophisticated F-105s on a bombing run against the Than Hoa Bridge. Thisincident shocked the U.S. tactical fighter community and galvanized sentimentin the Air Force for a new air-superiority fighter.
officials still favored a joint Air Force–Navy multirole fighter(referred to as the F-X–Navy Fighter Attack Aircraft Experimental [VFAX]requirement) with significant ground-attack capabilities.
Grumman reported that the
F-111B would not be able to cope ith the new Russian fighters in a dogfight.
Moreimportantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based oncompany design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter thatcould meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.8Shortly thereafter, two otherhistoric Navy fighter developers—LTV (Vought) and McDonnell-Douglas—alsosubmitted design proposals, as did a seasoned Air Force fighter developer,North American Rockwell.
the Navy
informed General Dynamics that the F-111B did not meetits requirements and initiated a new study of alternatives. the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFXfighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet air-defense mission. -- Wiarthurhu 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind the paper is primarily about the Air Force, given RAND's institutional history with that service, so treatment of the Navy is an afterthought in this piece: page 1:
The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and F/A-18—that would become the mainstays of America’s tactical fighter forces for the remainder of the century. In particular, the two Air Force fighters and the F/A-18 represent a substantial change from many of the trends evident in previous fighter modernization decisions. The F-15 was the first Air Force fighter since the development of the North American F-86 in the late 1940s that was optimized for maneuverability and agility for dogfights with enemy fighters. In an even more dramatic departure from recent experience, the F-16 and F/A-18 programs attempted to reverse the trends toward heavier, more complex
and costly fighters.
Reading between the lines, that means the F-14 was not a departure from previous thinking.
One group of dissenters, later known as the “Fighter Mafia,” led by John Boyd, Pierre Sprey, and others, began arguing with considerable effect against such a fighter within the Air Force and the DoD. This group advocated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter optimized for close-in air combat.
This was the primary impetus for the move toward more maneuverable fighters optimized for WVR - not institutional, but from a small group within the institution. Most notably, their efforts were focused within the Air Force - the similar push within the Navy came from Adm. Kent Lee via the VFAX concept (which itself grew out of remains of the Navy's dropped commitment to the AF's Lightweight Fighter Program). What happened on the Navy side was quite the opposite:
Indeed, with the unhappy experience of the TFX continuing to unfold, both Navy and Air Force resistance continued to grow to OSD’s concept of a joint F-X/VFAX program. As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.
...
The Navy campaign to cancel the F-111B and develop its own fighter gained momentum at the end of 1967 when OSD appointed the Air Force as the executive agent for the development of a single new engine for a joint F-X/VFAX. By this time, both the Navy and Air Force were fully committed to developing their own fighters uncompromised by mission requirements from the other service, and the Navy now saw the Air Force as getting the upper hand in the OSDsupported F-X/VFAX program. The Navy campaign finally succeeded six months later in July 1968 when Congress agreed to terminate the F-111B program. That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet airdefense mission. In addition to Grumman, North American, LTV, and McDonnell-Douglas, General Dynamics also submitted design proposals.
There's your citation, by the way. It was designed primarily to splash bombers threatening the fleet, not establish air superiority by splashing fighters.
So where do the new russian fighters fit in. Well, the added fuel to the Fighter Mafia's fire. But they were in the Air Force. What it did do was to cement support for killing the F-111B:
Insurmountable opposition in the Navy to continuing the F-111B finally emerged in response to the same event that crystallized Air Force support for an F-X optimized for air superiority: the revelation of new Soviet fighters at the Moscow Air Show in July 1967. The existence of new-generation Russian fighters, combined with the renewed appreciation for the importance of maneuverability and dogfighting gained from air combat experience over Vietnam, led the Navy to argue convincingly for the need for a specialized Navy fighter optimized for carrier-based fleet air defense. The Navy soon awarded a contract to Grumman for a study evaluating the F-111B’s capabilities in combat against the new Soviet fighters. In October, Grumman reported that the F-111B would not be able to cope with the new Russian fighters in a dogfight. More importantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based on company design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter that could meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.8 Shortly thereafter, two other historic Navy fighter developers—LTV (Vought) and McDonnell-Douglas—also submitted design proposals, as did a seasoned Air Force fighter developer, North American Rockwell.9 All these companies, with the exception of LTV, were also active participants in the Air Force F-X design studies. At around the same time, the Navy informed General Dynamics that the F-111B did not meet its requirements and initiated a new study of alternatives.
It was in effect, the straw that broke the camel's back. Winning over the elements of the fighter mafia within the Navy was enough to kill the F-111B, though there'd already been strong institutional oppositon, as indicated above. However, what resulted was not an RFP for an air superiority fighter. The resulting VFX RFP was for a fleet defense fighter. There is no more in the piece relevant to this article. -- Mmx1 04:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The F-14 was developed to take the place of the General Dynamics F-111B, the navalized version of the TFX project. The F-111B was to carry six long range missles for interception, and a heavy fuel load with swing wings for long range, but the concept came before experience with close combat in Vietnam. In 1965, the fighter community was shocked when subsonic MiG-17s down F-105s on a bombing run. [1]. The Navy ordered Grumman to study how this affected the F-111B, and they concluded that the F-111B would be unable to cope in a dogfight. With issues of weight and suitability to carrier operations, the F-111B was cancelled in 1968.
The Navy created the VFX and a lighter VFAX program. The navy needed a fighter for other roles such as escort which require more agility and performance than the F-4 or F-111B. Design changes such as increasing wing area were made to increase agility. The Air Force would choose to build its own FX air superiority fighter, the F-15 with a lighter fixed wing, single pilot, no heavy long range missles, and new technology engines. -- Wiarthurhu 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to summarize my view as Wiarthurhu seems to misunderstand it and has been misrepresenting it. Maneuverability is important to every fighter - but less so than other performance characteristics, depending on the intended mission. I may have been a bit guilty of synthesis of facts when I wrote that the maneuverability was a byproduct of the dash/carrier landing mission profile, but I stand adamantly behind the factual accuracy of these points:
I have tried to treat User:Wiarthurhu with good faith given his substantive edits to the article, with which I've had only this one quibble. However, the user has demonstrated a selective reading of the facts which is worrisome and casts doubt on his recollection of sources unavailable to us. The more he argues, the less inclined I am to take his claims at face value. Apparently he has been convinced by his reading of the Rand paper that the main aim of the F-14 was to shoot down Mig-17's.
Initially, Wiarthurhu claimed that maneuverability was a design aim of the F-14 and motivated the swing-wing design (which is false but poorly sourced either way). Since then, he has gone so far as to say
Unfortunately, it appears that he as bought into the revisionist meme that the F-14 was the king of ACM, a meme borne of Top Gun. The reality is that the F-14 was an interceptor that adapted quite well to a variety of other roles, including air superiority, tactical recon, precision strike, and CAS. It was remarkably maneuverable for an interceptor, many of which are joked to have turning radiuses measured in kilometers. But it is behind even its counterparts in the "teen series" (F-15/16/18) in maneuverability and was inferior in a turning fight to even the Vietnam-era A-4. Of course, the true answer is that it's the man, not the machine, that determines the outcome. But its subsonic performance was subpar for its era, and the notion that it was an ACM king is absurd and wrong.
Furthermore, no sources have been presented supporting the maneuverability POV. Here are the reliable, publicly available sources at hand:
My recommendation for action: Even if the History Channel said EXACTLY what Wiarthurhu claims it did, it contradicts the above sources. And between a popular media source and professionals, I'll side with the professionals. By the way, the History Channel aired a special tonight where they took psychics to Waco and consulted them on what happened. No kidding. They're slipping. It's a fun pastime but not an academic resource. The Modern Marvels series is fun to watch, but I've seen experts contradict them before.
-- Mmx1 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read this page several times for the past year (yeah I'm a geek). The english and presentation of the info keeps getting poorer. The info itself is also suffering. And now that I've read this bull about maneuverability not being a major design consideration in the comments section, I had to make my own comment. The F-14 was designed with maneuverability as a major consideration. I've seen various interviews with the designers explicitly stating the F-14 was designed with dogfighting in mind. I've read various publications stating the same thing. A huge part of the training syllabus for Tomcat pilots involves ACM. Keep in mind, the authors of a lot of publications are influenced by their preconcieved notions. "The Tomcat has a long range radar and a big missile? That means it wasn't designed to dogfight." No.
Corrected problems (excluding the copyedit):
P.S. I see that I got bit by the google toolbar/firefox issue in the rewrite. it's fixed. Blast it. -- Mmx1 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to remove the correct and verifiable information about air combat. The F-14 was specifically designed to do what the F-111B could not do, survive and win a dogfight. See comment above from person who agrees agility was the prime reason for the F-14. That the F-14 was the first of a series of fighters is a significant ommision that you removed with no justification. -- Wiarthurhu 17:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The F-14 was not designed to rectify the F-111B's inability to dogfight. It was designed to rectify the F-111B's inability to take off from a carrier.
And since Boyd has already been mentioned, if it was designed as a dogfighter, after the Energy-maneuverability theory was postulated, then don't you think it would have been noticed it was less maneuverable than any Russian fighter (except possibly the MiG-23, and MiG-25.) The swing-wing was not added to increase maneuverability, just think about it, in order to make a swinging wing you have to put a lot of mechanics in the plane. These add weight, weight increases wing loading and makes the thrust-to-weight ratio worse. These make the plane less maneuverable.
Thrust/weight:0.88
Wing loading:113.4 lb/ft.sq.
vs. the F-15
Thrust/weight:1.04
Wing loading:73.1 lb/ft.sq.
And if something is designed for close in combat, why make its priciple weapon a long range missile? By the way, books written by designers can be misleading, one book written by a man from Lockheed said the P-38 was the most maneuverable fighter of WWII, yet books written by P-38 pilots consistently say that it wasn't very maneuverable, but it was fast and heavily armed. LWF 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that the WP is the only F-14 article on the web which omits air superiority as a role, as the US Navy lists air superiority as its primary role? I'd say this was a severe violation of POV. This has been in the article from its inception, certainly before 2004, but has just been removed. This is a serious error. This individual has a POV, that the F-14 is not, was not, and was never intended to be an air superiority fighter, which is contradicted by all references, and not stated by any other reference directly in print, broadcast, or on the web. He nevertheless insists on enforcing this POV across all related WP articles. -- Wiarthurhu 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Aircraft: Grumman F-14A Tomcat ... weapon system for fleet air defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction missions (2 CREW ... , AZ. The F-14 might not be the best aircraft ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm
Navy Fact File: F-14 Tomcat Information on hardware of the U.S. Navy ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,
Grumman F-14 Tomcat - HOME ... shots of the F-14 let me first ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.angelfire.com/stars4/f14tomcat
U.S. Military Fighter Aircraft Fighter aircraft used by the various branches of the United States Military Services. ... in a military campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat. The F-14 ...usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter
Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-14 Tomcat Grumman F-14 Tomcat history, specifications, schematics, pictures, and data. ... range air superiority fighter was accepted by the US Navy. This aircraft was ultimately accepted as the F-14 Tomcat, and ... wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14
F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat is the navy's air superiority fighter. It is the plane to have if your playing ... an enemy can put in the air before they can shoot back ...members.aol.com/CIOFAM/f14.html
F-14 Tomcat ... Description: The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic,
twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place ... include precision
strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense
...cpf.navy.mil/.../RIMPAC2004/aircraft_pages/F-14tomcatfactpage.htm
F-14 Tomcat Aircraft The F-14 Tomcat Aircraft of the US Navy entered the fleet in 1973. ... F-14 Tomcat Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat Features: The ...inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltomcat.htm
F-14 Tomcats - Military and Civilian Aircraft All about military and civilian aircraft, airplanes, jets, transports, passenger airliners and helicopters. ... Designation: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. Contractor: Grumman ... strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense. As a ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63
F-14 Tomcat ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (specifications) is a twin
engine, variable sweep wing, and air superiority fighter capable of
... simultaneously and attack six air-to-air targets with the AIM
...www.highironillustrations.com/commission_illustration/f14.html
'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Posted on 03/10/2006 9:33:43
PM PST by neverdem. ASSOCIATED PRESS. VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- There
will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. ... the past 30 years, the
F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key role in
... 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority,
playing a key ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594335/posts
Now does this mean the F-14 wasn't an air superiority fighter? 'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 10, 2006 | SONJA BARISIC ASSOCIATED PRESS There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. The F-14 entered service in the early 1970s to defend aircraft carriers from Soviet bombers carrying long-range cruise missiles.
REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER (PDF) Chapter Five. REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. INTRODUCTION. The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force. fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html ... the F-14 Tomcat aircraft are supersonic, tandem-seat, twin engine, swing-wing, all-weather, air-superiority, strike ... engine, all-weather, air superiority strike fighter and ...www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html
HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft! Zuni Rocket Pod. Usually, Zuni rockets (5-in FFAR = Folding-Fin Air Rockets) are not the weapon for an air-superiority fighter like the F-14. It's more a rocket for air-to-ground attacks and close-in support strikes.www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-zuni.htm
F-14 Tomcat ... at Air Expo '01 here May 26 and 27. The F-14 Tomcat demonstration team will take the aircraft ... Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike ...www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/6_20/local_news/7302-1.html
F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat today: The F-14 Tomcat continues to be a premier long-range strike-fighter as evidenced ... The F-14's critical role in maintaining air superiority and its ability ...united-states-navy.com/planes/f14.htm
Aircraft/UAVs ... Intruder air frame ... F-14 Tomcat The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.exwar.org/Htm/9000PopA.htm
Because a PhD defense analyst from the RAND corporation says otherwise: From the Rand paper you repeatedly miscite:
As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.
...
That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet airdefense mission.
This paper, written by a PhD-wielding defense analyst, would trump any other colloquial usage of the term "air superiority". Did it take the air superiority role, yes. Was it designed to? No. Google results of popularity are not an arbiter of truth and colloquial descriptions should not cloud industry terms.
There are two distinct issues at hand: The term "air superiority" is used both to describe a mission, and a type of fighter; the two are not equivalent. An air superiority fighter is a fighter developed solely to fill that mission, e.g. the F-15.
However, the air superiority role has been filled by many diverse aircraft, including interceptors (the F-14), strike fighters (F/A-18E), light strike fighters (F/A-18C and F-16 in export countries) and multi-role aircraft (Typhoon, Rafale, etc). Just because an aircraft took a role does not mean it was that type of aircraft. The F-14 took over the RA-5's recon mission with great success. Does that make the F-14 a recon bird? no. The F-14 became an excellent CAS platform due to the pilot's close interaction with Marine FAC's in the 1990's. Does that make the F-14 a CAS bird? No. -- Mmx1 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see:
this is wrong: defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm
The US Navy is wrong: Navy Fact File: The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,
usmilitary is wrong: campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter
Aerospaceweb.org is wrong: F-14 Tomcat airsuperiority fighter ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14
militaryfactory.com is wrong: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63
and this means "F-14 is definitely not an air superiority fighter" optimized for the fleet airdefense mission'
Okay, you got me. You win. Just fix all the other pages and books out there for me and the WP--
Wiarthurhu 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, on what basis did you remove "air superiority" from the opening of the article? It has been there since its inception, and is easily verifiable?
Isn't "opposed" a POV term?-- Wiarthurhu 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
VICTORY: Mxmx1 re-added the term "air superiority" role to the start of the article, after removing it for no reason other than to enforce his POV. -- Wiarthurhu 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Wish me luck, let's see what happens...
Citation: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f014.html#RTFToC2 Consequently, even before the F-111B project was officially terminated, Grumman began work on a company-funded project known as Design 303. The basic goals of Design 303 were to combine the particular aptitudes of the F-111B with capabilities that would be superior to those of the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, particularly in the air superiority, escort fighter, and deck-launched interception role.
The RFP issued to the industry a month later specifically mentioned a requirement for a fleet defense fighter with tandem two-seat crew accommodations, a mix of short, medium, and long-range missiles, an internal cannon, two TF-30 turbofans, and track-while-scan long-range radar. The new fighter was to be capable of patrolling 100-200 miles from its carrier, remaining on station for up to two hours. A secondary close support role was also envisaged for the aircraft, and the plane was to be capable of carrying up to 14,500 pounds of bombs. Maximum speed was to be Mach 2.2.
Note that a) his statement is true, no matter where it came from and b) that was a design requirement from Grumman even before the RFP.-- Wiarthurhu 00:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see what everybody else thinks.-- Wiarthurhu 01:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, do you realize you are the only guy on the planet that believes this position, and you cite a paper which includes the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-17 as air superiority fighters and starts out with an Mig-17 that shoots down the plane the F-111 is supposed to replace, and a study that that the F-111 would be dead meat in a dogfight as your primary source, and that both the Navy and USAF decided they needed an airplane to counter this threat??-- 71.112.5.20 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The Navy requirements given to Mcdonnell Aircraft Corporation in St. Louis in April 1955 was: "a fleet defence fighter that could take off from an aircraft carrier, cruise out to a distance of 250 nautical miles, stay on patrol at that distance, intercept intruders, then return to the carrier three hours after take-off. It was to be a missile-armed-fighter and as such would not carry guns. The preferred weapon was to be the new Sparrow semi-active radar-homing missile." Those were the requirements so anything defining the F-4 as an air superiority fighter is wrong.
The final undoing of McNamara's vision would be the one factor ommitted from the TFX specification, that had been decisive in every prior air war. What was thought to be obsolete by the missle age was maneuverability in a dogfight. In 1965, the fighter community was shocked when the F-111's forerunner, the supersonic F-105 was shot down by post-Korean war vintage Mig-17s which were slow but nimble. [2] The Sparrow medium range missle was unreliable and ineffective at close range, but guns, deleted as excess weight from the F-4, often were effective. When the Navy ordered Grumman to study the effectivess of the F-111B in such a scenario, they concluded it was much less maneuverable than the F-4, and would not survive, much less win in a dogfight. The F-111B was cancelled in 1968, but the silver lining was that the F-111s dogfight performance was so abysmal, and the accountants approach to fighter design was so discredited, that both the Navy and USAF embarked on studies on what would become a generation of 4 new air superiority fighters. The Navy would soon start realistic air combat training that would become Top Gun, and the F-14 would be the first of the famous teen-series fighters that embraced a new philosiphy that incorporated agility as at least one of the primary design goals.
The Navy soon awarded a contract to Grumman for a study evaluating the F-111B’s capabilities in combat against the new Soviet fighters. In October, Grumman reported that the F-111B would not be able to cope with the new Russian fighters in a dogfight. More importantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based on company design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter that could meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.
Well, I'm trying to get a copy of the Modern Marvels episode in question (was it a specific show or just the carrier episode?). But meanwhile I caught the M16 episode (another subject on which I am well versed), and I quote verbatim:
In April 1998, the Marine Corps announced it is spending $8.5 million to develop the Objective Individual Combat Weapon.
Excuse me while I stop laughing. Yeah, except the OICW has been an Army project all along ( OICW, read the links), and the Marine Corps has no interest in the program: [9]
At present, the Marine Corps has no plans to adopt the OICW, said Diehl. “We’re pretty much taking a wait and see attitude,” he told National Defense.
Diehl is Lt. Col. A.J. Diehl, program manager for infantry weapons at the Marine Corps Systems Command, in Quantico, Va.
So much for the Modern Marvels as a reliable source. I had other minor quibbles with the episode and didn't bother to fact-check everything, but it was essentially a one-sided circle jerk on the M-16, presenting all the positives and no criticisms. It closed with a quote from James K. Dunningan:
The bottom line is, everybody tried it, everybody without exception liked it. Everybody uses it. The only people who use Ak-47's, which are basically, you know, surplus on the market, are revolutionaries who can't afford an M-16
which goes unchallenged. Everybody, eh? Except the Australian_Army, and British Army, to name two. I don't intend to start a fight over which gun is superior, and hell, I like the M-16. But (and this is one thing that Wiki has taught me) I know bias when I see it, and Modern Marvels is reeking of it. Not an academic source, definitely not an unbiased source.
What do you expect from a series titled "Modern Marvels" whose whole purpose is to hype the subject. -- Mmx1 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to mention whether the information was essentially correct. If you'd like to dispute, I'll write a letter to the producer, and see if his research was correct.
I'd be happy to send you a dvd of my capture file. Here another person:
From: Kevin Brooks - view profile Date: Mon, Feb 9 2004 8:45 am Email: "Kevin Brooks" <brooks...@notyahoo.com> Groups: sci.military.naval Not yet ratedRating: show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
"Anthony Acres" <tony.acr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nlIVb.238$Sz3.33379@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Ladies and Gents,
> I am interested in discovering the relevant merits of the F14 and F15
> aircraft. This is in relation to each other, and to their probable
> opponents. To my very untrained eye these two aircraft look remarkably
> similar;
Their similarity is pretty much limited to both having twin engines, dual
vert stabilizers, and side mounted engine inlets.
> were they designed by the same people,
No. Grumman handled the F-14, McDonnel Douglas the F-15.
> what is their history,
F-14 stems from the failed F-111B program, which was finally cancelled in
1968 after it proved to be unsuitable for carrier operations and lacked any
real close-in air-to-air fighting capability . Largely built around its
AWG-9 fire control system and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, with primary mission
of intercepting the hordes of Soviet cruise missile carrying bombers which
could threaten a USN carrier group 9the objective being to strike the
bombers if at all possible before they could unleash their ASM's). Still
maintained a pretty good ability to mix it up in the close fight. First
flight in 1970 (Grumman and the USN had already seen the writing on the wall
as to F-111B unsuitability as early as 1966).
F-15 was developed to get the USAF back into a dedicated air superiority platform. Early intel on the Mig-25 had given an incorrect impression of its capabilities and intended mission (it was an interceptor with no real close-in fighting ability, but the intel folks thought it was going to be a world class dogfighter), so the USAF wanted to counter that threat. First flight in 1972. In the dogfighting arena it has been the acknowledged king for years, but it never had the very long-range AAM capability that the F-14 had with its Phoenix.
and
> is their percieved similarity just coincidence?
Yep, if you find them all that similar.
How do their performances
> rate in a one on one situation?
I suspect the pilots of each would likely be a bit biased. There is
reference to one F-15 pilot acknowledging that he found the F-14 to be a
handful to deal with in the low speed fight. In the end the two aircraft
were designed for somewhat different missions, though the F-14 by default
had to also be able to handle the close in fight in addition to its BVR
intercept role. The original F-14A's had some significant engine problems to
deal with, and IIRC they never did get around to reengining the entire
force. Comparing the F-14 of today versus the F-15 of today against each
other would be a bit unfair--the USN sort of stopped (or minimized)
modernization efforts on the Tomcat when they decided to expedite its
retirement, hence the fact that the AIM-120 AMRAAM was not integrated into
its weapons sytem, while the F-15's continue to undergo modernization
efforts in an ongoing manner. There is no doubt that the F-15 has been the
more successful program overall; it has yielded, and continues to yield,
more foreign export orders, and it has undeniably racked up a higher score
of air-to-air victories. The F-14 saw a late-life transformation into a
multi-role strike platform as the "Bombcat", but it does not come close to
the strike capabilities of the F-15E.
FYI, the two aircraft competed against each other at one point when the USAF was seeking a new interceptor to replace the F-106. In the end the USAF stuck with the F-15 in that role, passing down F-15A's to air defense squadrons as the newer F-15C's came into service with the tactical fighter units.
Brooks
I hope you get the general idea.
-- Wiarthurhu 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Submitted for your approval:
In 1967, seeing the writing on the wall for the F-111B, Grumman began preparing an advanced design, the G-303. [3]The basic goals were to make a plane superior to the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, "particularly in the air superiority, escort fighter, and deck-launched interception role". In 2006, many questioned whether the F-14 had originally been intended to be a dogfighting air superiority fighter in view of its primary fleet defence mission. [4] In an interview on the 2006 television program "Modern Marvels" on the retirement of the F-14, F-14 test pilot Charlie Brown stated "we needed air superiority, which required an air combat maneuverable fighter, capable of being a nimble and agile, a dogfighter". . Grumman had design a wing which could fly at Mach 2, and "maneuver spryly" in combat, the swing wing was "first priority". [5]. Lowering the weight to just half the 80,000 lb weight of the F-111B also raised its thrust to weight ratio higher than the less capable F-4. The wing area of the F-14 was also increased for the main purpose of agility.
When the Navy decided for cost and time reasons to keep the AN/AWG-9 radar, AIM-54 Phoenix missile, and the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines from the failed F-111B, this biased the competition heavily in favor of Grumman, which had been working closely with General Dynamics on the F-111B. Grumman's swing-wing design was selected in 1969.
Grumman was given the contract for the F-14 in January 1969. Upon being granted the contract for the F-14, Grumman greatly expanded its Calverton, Long Island, New York facility to test and evaluate the new swing-wing interceptor. Much of the testing was in the air of the Long Island sound as well as the first few in-flight accidents including the first of many compressor stalls and ejections.
The Tomcat is said to be named for the late Vice Admiral Thomas Connolly, whose testimony before the Senate, "Gentlemen, there isn't enough thrust in Christen-dom to make that F-111 into a [agile] fighter" basically killed the F-111B. [6] Connolly's call sign was "Tomcat," hence the popular name which also conformed with the Navy's tradition of giving feline names to Grumman fighters. In addition, "Tomcat" was first suggested for the Grumman F7F Tigercat in 1943, but it was rejected by the Navy as being inappropriately suggestive.
To facilitate the rapid entry of the F-14 into service and lower development costs, the Navy planned to recycle the engine and avionics from the F-111B for the initial version, and progressively introduce new avionics and weapons systems into the airframe. The designation F-14A was assigned to the airframe equipped with updated TF-30 engines and the AN/AWG-9 weapons system from the F-111B. It first took flight December 21, 1970. The original plan was to only build a few F-14As, as the TF30 was known to be a troublesome engine. In addition, the engine was not designed for rapid thrust changes or a wide flight envelope and only supplied 74% of the intended thrust for the F-14. An F-14B would follow in November 1987 using the engine from the advanced technology engine competition. The F-14C was intended to denote a variant implementing a replacement for the AN/AWG-9. However, it was delayed, and this variant was never produced. When it finally arrived as the AN/APG-71, the designation assigned to the new aircraft was F-14D, which first flew November 24, 1987. Though the Marine Corps initially sent instructors to VF-124 to train as instructors, the Corps pulled out of the program in 1976, after deciding the F-14 was too expensive for their needs. [10], similar to decisions to keep the AH-1 Cobra and delay adoption of the M-1 Abrams tank.
So you're a software engineer that can't close tags properly. And that's something you are purportedly a professional in. Let's dissect this.
Gentlemen, there isn't enough thrust in Christen-dom to make that F-111 into a [agile] fighter
Now, I'm not sure if it's you or Mr. Tillman (your source) who put in the "[agile]", but either way, Connolly definitely didn't say "agile". He has variously been quoted as saying "...make a [carrier] fighter" or "...make a fighter" [11], but google turns up no version of the quote where agile is used. So having done that, how am I supposed to believe the rest of your assertions and that they weren't taken out of context? Funny, because Connolly contradicts you. He doesn't say "there isn't enough wing area", he doesn't say "there isn't enough lift", he says "there isn't enough thrust". Clearly his conception of a fighter involved something other than turning really tightly.
p.s. according to tv.com [12], the program misidentified Mig-25's as Mig-23's, which is about par with the Marine Corps/Army switch they did in the M-16 episode. Okay...27's as 23's I can understand - same airframe, different nose. Mistaking a fixed wing plane for a swing-wing? These are the people you're using as a source????!??!? p.p.s. watching Modern Marvels:Aircraft carrier now.....let's see what other fun stuff I can find. -- Mmx1 04:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose the involved parties take a one week break from editing this article or commenting in the talk space. ericg ✈ 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Holiday weekend makes for a great wikibreak.-- Mmx1 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Agile dogfighters have low wing loading.
One of these is not like the others...
All the books on the F-14's development indicate that it was first and foremost a Phoenix AAM carrier, and that designing to carry 4-6 Phoenix caused the aircraft to deviate significantly from what was optimal for air to air combat dogfighting capability. Gunston's "Great book of Modern Warplanes" describes all the design variants which were considered, as a high level overview. Georgewilliamherbert 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
They can also pull alot of g's
And let's not forget Thrust to weight ratio
Now hopefully this will resolve the dispute. The F-14 was designed to gain Air superiority over carrier groups by destroying bombers before they could get within cruise missile range of the carrier group. It was not designed as a dogfighter as is often stated. I cannot provide a source for this but many pilots of the USAF have said that the F-14 cannot win a dogfight because when put into a hard turn it loses all energy (see Energy-Maneuverability theory) and becomes an easy target. They also make the statement that it telegraphs its energy state while in flight based on position of the wings, making it easy to guess the intentions of the pilot.
Also, when the F-14 was coming into service, a vast number of articles began showing up in the press, stating that the F-14 was unmaneuverable, and the F-15 too expensive. These articles called for the development of a light weight fighter, which became the LWF competition, which resulted in the F-16. This will seem biased, but Top Gun was responsible for much of the belief in the F-14's dogfighting skill. It is also quite possible that some of those behind all of this could be misunderstanding their sources and each other. Also some of the sources might be misinformed or slightly biased. For example, in the book Skunk Works, by Ben Rich, a former president of Skunk Works, he makes the statement that the P-38 was the most maneuverable fighter of WWII, when pilots of the P-38 attest that it was not well suited to a turning fight, and that it was best employed by sneaking up upon an enemy, and destroying him before being seen, or to dive at an enemy using the P-38's high diving speed, or use this same method to escape.
This mistake is probably not the mistake of Ben Rich, he was probably just misinformed. But it shows that presidents of corporations are not necessarily the best informed about their products. LWF 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the content of the article before MMx substantially changed the tone and nature of the article. Notice that prior to that no one else had ever challenged these assertions:
The Tomcat was intended as an uncompromised air superiority fighter and interceptor, charged with defending carrier battle group
The F-14 is perhaps the most maneuverable and agile of all swing-wing [No reference to uncited assertion "although it was not designed to be maneuverable" as inserted by Mmx, and since impossible to fix due to his diligence]
The real issue is that should one editor, with zero credentials and questionable ability to discrminate between valid citations and sources that support or contradict arguments who believes he is god's appointed final arbiter of truth be permitted to rudely defend this article against all attempts to state the F-14 was designed to be a dogfighter??
Nothing wrong with writing a wiki paper, backing it up with proof, and putting a citation to it and adding a controversy section to the article. But in the presence of at least one conflicting authorative opinion, a Grumman VP, he cannot stand that his is the only allowable point of view in the article since even if he is correct, the point is disputed at best. -- 131.107.0.81 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So suddenly all of those people who've flown the F-14 and all those other planes don't really know them because they haven't built a model of them? And I find it interesting how you hide behind the name matador300 instead of just coming right out with your real user name Wiarthurhu. LWF 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
All right, since my opinion was asked for, here it is.
The F-14 was designed to intercept missile-carrying bombers before they could launch missiles on carrier groups. To do so, it required speed, altitude, and range. It was not designed to dogfight, but was designed to gain air superiority by using long range missiles to destroy anything coming within range of the carrier group.
The F-14 may have been designed to be maneuverable, but the maneuverability is of a different type than that of the dogfight, and compared to its contemporaries, it is not an effective dogfighter as that is not what it was designed for.
Perhaps the dispute in F-14 can be resolved by this: If the article states that it was designed to gain air superiority by intercepting aircraft carrying long-range missiles, and designed with low speed maneuverability in mind, to aid in carrier landings, but was not pricipally designed as a dogfighter. Dogfighting being a last resort. Therefore it is an air superiority aircraft though it is not the best dogfighter.
References:
LWF 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I was just reading the Rand Report, and it says "As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.6" So I'm afraid I must retract my statement that the F-14 was designed for air superiority. LWF 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ughh.uncompromised by air superiority means that the Phoenix stays. Grumman test pilot states in an interview that the F-14 was designed for air superiority, agility and dogfigting. These statements are not contradictory. Retaining AWG-9 and Phoenix satisfies the fleet air defence requirement. Building an agile dogfighter in no way compromised that requirement. If it was not stated in VFX (can anybody find this document someplace???) It was stated by Grummans intent of the 303 to build a better fighter than the F-4, at the time the Navy's premier air superiority fighter. There is no place on the web or print other than MMx's modification of the Wiki article that states the F-14 in so many words was NOT designed with agility as a consideration. Look at my new edit, backed by verifiable sources. The article, I must point out, is about the development of 4 new air superiority fighters, including, not excluding the F-14. By its inclusion, the F-14 is, at least in the scope of the paper, defined as A, if not the most optimized air superiority fighter. The problem is when MMx insists on erasing any attempt rectify this ommision and deliberate deletion.
To recap:
1. Building a dogfighter did not compromise the fleet defence requirement. Adopting the F-15 would violate this requirement. Thus "they Navy did not want to compromise for the USAF air superiority requirement" The USAF compromised itself by insisting on a superset of the F-4 which resulted in a heavy fighter. Navy F-4 Phantom pilots were already shooting down Migs by 1965, about the time the Navy realized they needed some way out of the F-111B contract which never said a word about agility.
2. If an FAS article states that the F-14 was built to shoot down bombers with Phoenix, that in no way contradicts Grumman's design intention to build an agile fighter. It must be observed that in the current universe, it is entirely possible for both the FAS and Modern Marvels to be correct on this matter.
3. If a former Grumman test pilot and Grumman VP testifies on Modern Marvels, watched by thousands, that the F-14 had to be agile, that contradicts the notion that there is a consensus that there was no agility design goal for the F-14. The fact that at its introduction, the F-14 was, without question the best dogfighter in the world until the introduction of the similar F-15 tends to cast question on the probability that mere adoption of a swing wing to meet F-111B specs would produce this result. F-14 pilots themselves would dispute the notion of F-15 superiority, especially the F-14D. One unsourced comment in these notes says that at speeds approaching landing speeds, the F-14 handles much better than the F-15 due to wings that can be optimized for this regime, which is logical if difficult to verify an original source.
4. Mmx must cease and desist being the sole arbiter, and severely mutilating the #1 open source and oft replicated reference on this topic. If a group of individuals wants to construct a minority opinion, and back it up with verifiable sources, they should put a note in the main F-14 story as a controversy, not verifiable fact. -- matador300 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
See air superiority fighter To be a sucessful AS after 1965, you would have to also be a dogfighter. The F-100 and F-104 were also built for AS, but did not have as stringent an agility requirement. -- matador300 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The VFX and FX are virtual twins spec and philosiphy wise except for Phoenix. If the FX was built for dogfighting, then the VFX was .... not??
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/atf-1.htm
The USAF initiated its FX program, while the USN discarded its troubled F-111B bomber turned interceptor in favour of the new VFX. Both the VFX and FX exploited new propulsion technology, discarding afterburning turbojets in favour of afterburning turbofans which offered much better specific fuel consumption in dry thrust and a higher ratio of afterburning thrust to dry thrust. Experience in Vietnam clearly indicated that the endurance/combat radius of the 400 NM class F-4 was inadequate and hence the VFX and FX were designed to a 1000 NM class combat radius. Climb and turn performance dictated low wing loading and good AoA performance this in turn shaping the wing and inlet designs.
First to fly was Grumman's VFX, designated the F-14A, a large twin with swing wings and a pair of TF-30 fans. The F-14A had a large bubble canopy for good visibility during dogfights, a Head Up Display (HUD) gunsight, computer controlled automatic wing sweep and glove vane positioning, a massive AWG-9 pulse Doppler air intercept/fire control radar system capable of tracking multiple targets in ground clutter and an internal M-61 gun. It was bigger, more complex and more expensive than the F-4, but it also offered agility and manoeuvrability without precedent. The first of the teen series fighters had thus made its mark. -- matador300 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_14.html
Unfortunately, the early F-14 aircraft also included another late developing preproduction concept—deployable wing leading-edge maneuver slats for
Early Grumman flight tests revealed that the F-14 modified with both the ARI system and the maneuver slats displayed unsatisfactory air combat maneuvering characteristics because the ARI rudder inputs aggravated lightly damped rolling oscillations (wing rock) induced by the slats during maneuvers. Because of this incompatibility, the Navy deactivated the ARI systems on all fleet F-14 aircraft.
On January 14, 1969, the Navy announced the award of the contract for the VFX fighter, now designated F-14, to Grumman. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy requested that NASA make a timely independent assessment of the technical development of the F-14. A NASA F-14 Study Team of over 40 Langley personnel led by Langley researcher William J. Alford, Jr. was organized. A briefing of the study results was given in August 1969 at the Naval Air Systems Command by a team led by Laurence K. Loftin, Jr., Mark R. Nichols, and William Alford. This briefing (which covered results in cruise and
aeroelasticity and flutter, propulsion integration, stability, and control) identified several areas where further research would enhance the F-14’s capabilities. Following the briefing, Dr. John Foster, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, requested the support of Langley in the development of the F-14.
Here is one to add to the article - wing placement from NASA
One result of the LFAX-4 study that the Langley team emphasized was the critical location of the pivot for the movable wing panels. To minimize drag during transonic maneuvers typical of air-to-air combat, the pivots must be located in a relatively outboard position. Langley’s experience with the test and analysis of the F-111 revealed that large penalties in trim drag occurred if this key design factor was not adequately appreciated. Although the F-111 incorporated the variable-sweep concept, the full advantages of the concept were not realized because the pivot locations were relatively inboard. As a result, the F-111 suffered excessive trim drag at transonic and supersonic conditions. The designers of the F-14 were made aware of the significance of pivot locations by NASA briefings. Comparison of the NASA results for the LFAX-4 to those of the F-111 helped convince Grumman to locate the F-14 pivots in a more favorable outboard position.
http://www.georgespangenberg.com/a13.htm Exhibit A-13. A Retype of a paper by GAS published by the Association of Naval Aviation, The Gold Book of Naval Aviation - 1985 Naval Aviation Planning A Retrospective View (and some lessons for 1995)
This 1960's VFAX concept was a two place, twin-engined, variable sweep design which
and the A-7 as an attack airplane. New technology engines and a new weapon system were required to meet these goals in a design about the size and weight of the F-4. VFAX became part of the Navy's plan for the future, until the F-111B proved itself unusable, eliminating the constraint which had justified it.
The final step in the developments of the F-111B period was what
proved to be a real solution to the carrier fighter problem. In
essence, this was done by adding Phoenix and AWG-9 to VFAX, thereby
completing the circle, nearly returning to where we had been in 1961
with the "Navy TFX". Still another "Fighter Study" was completed
showing that
effective than the F-111B plus F-4, VFAX, *****
or other alternatives. After a competition, VFX became the F-14 Tomcat when a contract was awarded to Grumman in early 1970.
carrying four Sparrows on a fighter escort mission. *****
A radius of 565 miles using internal fuel was estimated by the Navy. The FAD mission was treated as an overload, carrying six Phoenix missiles and external fuel. An attack capability carrying a wide variety of conventional stores with a visual delivery accuracy equal to the A-7E was also provided for in the basic design.
http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm
The F-111B was most nearly useful when employed in a fleet air defense role, in effect acting as a MISSILEER but with half the capability. Other fighter missions, such as escorting attack airplanes,
and more versatile airplane than the F-111B. Grumman, associated with General Dynamics, had performed F-111 improvement studies, under contract, ranging from minor changes to complete redesigns. McDonnell had also studied, under contract, various improvements to the F-4, including a design with a variable sweep wing. A new airplane, to complement the F-111B, was also under study by everyone. This design finally evolved as a multi-mission airplane, VFAX, capable of performing better than a F-4 as a fighter, and better than the A-7 as an attack airplane. The concept was valid only under the premise that it was complementary to the AWG-9 and Phoenix capability represented by the F-111B. However, as the latter design degraded in attractiveness, by 1967 and 1968, very serious study efforts were undertaken to find a true solution of the Navy's fighter problem. In essence, this finally evolved as upgrading the VFAX to carry the AWG-9 fire control system and the Phoenix missiles. The first definitive studies were completed by Grumman and provided the information by which the Navy convinced itself and the Congress, if not OSD, that a new fighter, VFX, could be produced which was more effective and less costly than continuing the F-111B and providing an adequate complementary fighter.
of the projected threat against the fleet, was finally on its way. *** -- matador300 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop flooding the talk page with large chunks of material. Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Note Julian Data's table that puts air superiority (that's manuverability folks..) as #1 over fleet air defence. VFX/VFAX is the F-14. -- matador300 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm
* Wing area increased to 565 square feet from 505 square feet. Increased
combat agility. Allowed use of simple hinged single-slotted flap, rather than complex double-slotted extensible flap. As a fallout, maneuvering flap is easily achieved.
Reduced supersonic trim drag.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-variants.htm
A completely new fighter system was designed around these with
emphasis on close-in fighting "claws" along with standoff missile
fighting. From its first flight on 21 December 1970, the F-14A went
through five years of development, evaluation, squadron training and
initial carrier deployments to become the carrier air wings' most
potent fighter.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avtomcat.html The wings feature spoilers to improve maneuverability, plus full-span trailing-edge flaps and leading-edge slats to improve low-speed handling. The inboard flaps are of course disabled when wing sweep blocks their operation.
http://www.defencetalk.com/air_systems/fighters/f-14_tomcat.html F-14 Tomcat Air Systems - Fighters After failure of the F-111 as a fleet defender, Grumman immediately began a new design on a clean sheet of paper of a new lightweight fighter, bodily transfer from the F-111B includes the TF-30 engine, Hughes AWG-9 radar and Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix long range AAM. The F-14 was a totally new and un-compromised fighter. The selection process out of five submissions from Grumman, General Dynamics, Ling-Temco-Vought, McDonnel Douglas and North America Rockwell (4 of the 5 design involved sweep wings), Grumman's design was announced as the winner over McDonnel Douglas of the hastily contrived VFX program. The first of the 6 R&D F-14 prototype flew on 21 December 1970. The maiden flight was flow by Veteran Bob Smythe and Bill Miller. Unlike the F-111B, no attempt was made to achieve commonality with any aircraft and the need of the fighter sweep/escort; CAP (combat air patrol) and DLI (deck launch intercept) mission was given priority.
This is MMx's defect that needs to be corrected:
Reference Encyclopedia - F-14 F-14 edit Web www ...The Navy issued an RFP for the VFX in July 1968, resulting in the selection ... an designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability , the F - 14 ... www.referenceencyclopedia.com/?title=F-14 - 58k - Supplemental Result
Here's one for the other side: Mary is an engineer, but she's still wrong, we do see where the viewpoint comes from.
The F-14 wasn't
designed for knife fights with agile aircraft, because they weren't the threat. Bears and Bisons were.
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. or
Two articles that show Grumman built 303/F-14 to be maneuverable, then tacked on Phoenix, thus also satisfying fleet defence.
Julian Data
posted July 27, 2005 09:24
The AIM54 was from an USAF design missile. The shear size is due to the requirement of it in which range was a major concern. You need a lot of propellant - rocket fuel - to carry a missile a long distance back in those days.
As the F-14, the AIM54 addition was thought afterwards to the aircraft's airframe design since Grumman concentrated on a proposal which encompassed air superiority first thus it had four AIM7 recession in the tunnel. Grumman was designing the F14 during the F-111B fiasco in which they were trying to lower the weight of the current TFX aircraft. When they knew that the USN no longer wanted the F-111B, Grumman and other aero manufacturers had VFX designs waiting in the wings.
Grumman figured a way to implement the AWG-9 design into the F14 by modifying it - lighter - and implementing the AIM54.
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=73;t=004225
More from Julian Data
Posted by Julian Data (Member # 6271) on April 21, 2002 00:53:
I thought the Phoenix died because of the threat of bombers weren't a threat anymore? Which was when the break up of the USSR? The F14 entered service in the mid 70s and IIRC, the USSR was still intact.
During the design of the F-14, during VFX, it was to carry out the USN's plan for a Fleet Air Defense Fighter, FADF for shortly but during the Vietnam War with the F-4N, the FADF became "secondary" as the primary objective was to design an air superiority fighter first. When the final classifications of the VAFX/VFX came out it composed of the following:
1. Air superiority<--------- Maneuver is 1st 2. FADF 3. escort 4. A/G 5. Long loiter time 6. distance 7. Approach speed to the carrier
I do recall the 14D carries the APG-71, which is basically a hybrid of the 15C's APG-70 mixed with the AWG-9.
I believe the heaviest aircraft to be ever used on a carrier was the Vilgilante. Wasn't it's MAXTO around 85000lbs or more?
The ability for the F-14 to take off with a lot of weight is attributed to the Coefficient of lift. Since aircraft really doesn't possess a fuelsage, the pancake section between the nacelles and the area where the wing boxes are located create more lift than the wings. The actual lift area is higher than the quoted specifiction of 565sqft. This design is also mimicked with the Mig29 and SU-27.
Having this much lift area with a high aspect ratio you don't need as much Alpha to land or take off.
I have made changes to the article that will hopefully resolve dispute, and I am posting a list here:
Sorry about that mistake, I was thinking of the F-15 there. Although I've looked at it since then, and that particular part isn't necessary, because that information is stated elsewhere. And I mean to sign my posts but I have a tendency to forget. LWF 15:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm open to compromise and I recognize I've taken a hardline stance. But I remain adamant that maneuverability was neither a primary design consideration for the Tomcat nor a primary reason for the cancellation of the TFX. The Navy didn't like the TFX from the day they were ordered to cooperate with the Air Force.
Now regarding the first edits by LWF, I feel they are fine, but there are some serious issues that still need to be addressed:
-- Mmx1 03:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with Wiarthurhu's edits is that they grossly oversimplify the issue. He takes something true, like "maneuverability is important to fighters" and twists it into "maneuverability was decisive in every previous air war". Similarly, regarding the VFAX:
It's worse than that. "The F-14 was optimized to improve its maneuverability with XYZ features" true. Conclusion that the F-14 has maximum possible maneuverability false. An F-14 designed to not have to carry 4-6 AIM-54 and the big radar would have been smaller (F-15 sized) and much more nimble, as the 303G and navalized F-15 designs showed. The Navy went with 303E and Phoenix, and got a bigger, less-agile, higher wing loading, lower T/W, lower max G bird in the Tomcat. The Tomcat had as much maneuverability as it could consistent with the Phoenix mission, but that doesn't mean it was as agile an aircraft as it could have been. Georgewilliamherbert 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have spent quite a bit of my Friday night reading these sources. I'd found Mr. Spangenberg's recollections [13] interesting, and as he was part of NAVAIR he seemed to be an unbiased source. Bad assumption. He was a supporter of the F-14 against the hi/low mix and efforts to buy the F-18.
It seems clear that those who advocate high/low mixes in the fighter field should provide a rationale to support the concept. At the moment, the net result will be a lower capability at a higher cost -- hardly the goal being sought. [14]
For the Navy, the F-18 fighters are costing much more than an equal number of F-14s would have cost. [15]
Gee, he'd have no reason to hype the capabilities or history of the F-14!
Let that be a warning to you. History is a difficult nut to crack and biases are rampant. -- Mmx1 05:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've updated further the many innovations that made the F-14 agile, incorporating the latest sweep of the internet and my reference books that I could find. I also pulled the long history out of the main page. The F-14 page is probably now the most extensive network of articles of any WP aircraft, and I only have Mmx1 to thank to get me angry enough amass such a huge pile of research. Enjoy, and please I need wingmen to help keep Mmx1 off of my tail, though he may succeed in shooting down a couple of other innocent WP articles in the melee. -- matador300 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Several uses of the word operational in the list despite being non-operational. I'm not sure how to fix those, several wouldn't be true if it was simply changed to formerly operational. I would also think the entire section belongs at the end of the article. No point in having a list right up front, but I'm not sure where it should go towards the end. I didn't change the section due to the mediation issue. -- Dual Freq 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the list. I agree with the drop list argument, I also think there were several problems with the list besides that none of it is sourced. If it should be in the article, it shouldn't be at the top. I also agree with the Superbird comment, and concur that this article needs to be cleaned up hopefully during this mediation process. -- Dual Freq 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have many problems with the current text as expressed in my request for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat. You are all invited to participate to hash out the content in light of a recent edit war over the article between myself and Wiarthruhu (who signs as matador300). -- Mmx1 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't just Tomcat chauvinism on my part. I was a member of a elite F-14 squadron, (VF-211,'79 to '83), I worked in the Avionics and Fire Control Shop and we used to kick the Airforce's backside so hard and so often that I had lost all respect for them up until the first Gulf War. 80% of our pilots were Topgun grads, and a third were former instructors there, which was unusual at the time. We would "kill" state-side Airforce birds during wargames on average at a ratio of 7 to 1 to as bad as 12 to 1.
A-4s, F-4s, F-5s, F-15s, F-16s and even F-18s were all lunch. (The Vietnam era birds were flown against because they had the same flight characteristics as several Soviet Migs then in the inventory) Even the Airforce elite outfits flying out of Japan only got as good as 4 to 1. A Tomcat flown by a skilled and aggressive pilot is a truely formidable opponent. I used to observe the dogfights at Nellis AFB through the TACTs station at our base in Mirimar, Calif.
The best fighter pilot I ever met was my Skipper, Commander Ernst. I saw him and his wingman take on and destroy a flight of 4 F-15s. And he did this AFTER his wingman was shot down. (He was ordered to break left, messed up and broke right) Commander Ernst then went nose up into the sun so they couldn't lock up 'winders on him and accellarated away from them in a climb, when he got far enough away he spun the bird, dived down on them with the sun still behind him and fed the lead element a sidewinder apiece. (The 9L version was very good for head on attacks) The remaining element broke in different directions and were brought down one at a time. And that was just one example.
C'mon folks! We could see and lock up on targets as small as an F-5 at a 110 nauticals miles out! And against ground clutter! We would often lock them up at that range as soon as they had wieght off wheels. No other fighter had even a third of that radar range, and nowhere near the discrimination. The good ones maybe got to maybe 25 miles. The majority were around 12 to 15 NM. How much warning does a good fighter pilot need? Add to that the fact that the belly acts like an extra wing, giving an extra 40% more lift than its wing surfaces alone. I've seen them do snap rolls, pitch their noses up and turn within a quarter mile at just under mach.
The main draw back? EXPENSIVE. Expensive to buy, expensive to maintain. Thats why the F-18 replaced it. My Squadron had 14 birds, (12 active, 2 spares) at 45 million (1980)dollars apiece. Thats well over half a billion dollars for just one squadron. For perspective the carrier I was on only cost 4 billion. The f-18 cost less than half that. After the Soviets folded we had no worthy opponents for it to be cost effective.
And who came up with that 6 g nonsense? After one particularly ferocious exercise where we were practising brigade tactics (12 on 12) Then Lt, now Adm. Stufflebeam bent his plane so hard the wings drooped, and couldn't fold back in, and it was pissing fuel at the wing roots. The Airframes boys and engineers said that that took close to 11g's to do. But thats a onetime, extreme example. They didn't like the pilots to do more than 9. (The powers that be were really miffed at him. I'm glad to see it didn't hurt his career. They did manage to fix the bird.) BigDon 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any images in the article clearly showing it unswept. How about including Image:Wing.tomcat.unswept.750pix.jpg? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-16 t20:19z
Um, other than the one at top? -- Mmx1 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggested points of cleanup:
Needs sourced expansion on acquired strike capabilities and CAS integration in its later years.
Complete rewrite of the reasons to cut out OR ("fashions of the time"?). Notable problems (that should not be kept):
Nix the plastic kits. Most military aircraft have many kits made; and they hardly count as "popular culture". Noting the properties of particular models is irrelevant to the aircraft. -- Mmx1 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The recent Ace Combat addition / subtraction is a perfect example of what I dislike about pop culture sections. Everyone has a favorite game/tv show or whatever. I guess someone needs to go around to all 20+ a/c pages and Add Air Combat series to the pop culture section. Actually, that was sarcasm. AC5 is an arcade game, not a simulation. Weapons noted on the AC5 page include the XLAA missile, also used by the MiG-31 in the game. What company makes that missile and its cousin the popular and well known SAAM? Of the current pop culture section, I'd say the arcade game and manga one seater can be removed. Don't ask me what to do about Fleet defender, I suppose it counts as a sim, but I have no problem with ditching it too and simply saying a bunch of games include the F-14. No need to list every single game that has an F-14 or Pseudo-F-14 in it. I'm sure this will create an argument, which will prove that the pop culture section is only useful for starting problems with no real purpose. Dual Freq 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, the Ace Combat series is a best selling game, one of the core licenses for Sony platforms, and has gone through nearly 10 different incarnations on at least 4 different platforms. Your arguement about the missiles is irrelevant: Namco was only able to get the licensing for the planes, not for the missiles used in the planes. It's certainly more worthy of inclusion than some time-travel movie from the 80s that nobody ever saw. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
At some point, all the uncited material is going to have to be removed from this article. This article is large to have so few citations. It's also in the top 5 on a google search using F-14 and the uncited material could be misleading to people looking for accurate information. Please add verifiable and reliable citations for any material that you have added. -- Dual Freq 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hell, this term even appears on the F-14 Tomcat Wikipedia discussion page.
An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia -- matador300 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a proposal and I'm seeking input on it in the hopes of reaching a consensus among those taking an interest in the F-14 article. A considerable amount of space is now being taken up by the discussion of the F-14 replacement by the F/A-18. I'd like to strip this discussion out of the article. By its very nature, it is subjective and almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid advocacy. Any discussion of which aircraft is "best" and the motivations (either political or military) for the replacement will be opinions, not facts. Quoting sources that are themselves opinions will not resolve the issue, since sources can be found to support virtually any position. As such, this discussion has no place in a Wikipedia article. I think simply saying that the F-14 has been retired and its role is now filled by the F/A-18 should be sufficient. Please indicate your views on this proposal. Dabarkey 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
To satisfy a certain editor who insisted on scattering useless tags all over the article challenging obvious facts I already showed him before, I've supplied references. Sheesh, and I don't get any thanks for the work I do. -- matador300 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-Wiarthurhu, before creating a seperate page for the F-14s Iranian service history I think we need a general consensus weather it should be incorporated into the text of the F-14s general history, or really deserves its own seperate article. Aircraft articles must be comprehensive and stand on their own. All the other aircraft articles I've written and edited have included the service history of the plane for all of its users. In other words we don't have one article about the Spitfire in RAF service, another for its U.S. service history, and another for Australian operations, and so on. I believe that the plane's Iranian operations belong in the body of the text on the F-14s overall history to be consistant with aviation articles on this site.-- Ken keisel 17:10 21 August 2006 (UTC)
F-14 Bureau Numbers and F-14 Losses basically says 712 F-14s built 141+ lost for various reasons. That's F-14A 557(that includes the 12 experimental) US / 79 Iran, 38 F-14B and 37 F-14D. That only adds up to 711 but maybe 712 is the 80th one not delivered to Iran. I'd like to add this info to the variants section, but I'm not sure of the sources. FAS and a book I have both say 557 F-14A, so that's fairly clear as is the 79 to Iran. FAS also agrees with the 37 F-14D. The rest relies on the M.A.T.S. page. Anyone out there have anything more concrete? With 712 total and 141 lost, thats almost 20% attrition, and 11% of the total F-14s that went to Iran. Dual Freq 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can independently verify the information too. I could call up the Iranian pilot/rio and they could tell me the same lie they told Cooper and the Smithsonian. Just because a lie is repeated to two or more people doesn't mean its independently verified. It still comes down to one or two sources embellishing on the truth or outright lying. I'm sure you could find hundreds of pilots who have stories to tell, and the stories get better every time they are told. Yeah, I shot down 1 plane, no it was 2, no it 4. Maybe next year it will be 6. Please. This section is overweighting this article, it needs to be trimmed/removed. Is there anyone else who is willing to step in here and remove this nonsense? I'd suggest putting the F-14 Tomcat in Iranian Service article up for AfD if this stuff is going to stay here. ONE of them has to go. I'd prefer they both go. Dual Freq 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were more of an expert than the Smithsonian. You seem to have a real problem with the fact that the Iranians used this plane more in combat than the U.S. You're exaggeration of attempts to use legitimate sources for this article is biased, and nothing more than vandalism. There's nothing left in the article now to confirm that they ever used the plane in combat at all.- Ken keisel
Thank you for using more informative edit summaries; that is much more helpful, and thank you for catching the typo. As you can verify for yourself, the source does state "Mig-25" [18]. The current text cites both Cooper and other sources and makes it clear which claim comes from where. AerospaceWeb is a publication of qualified experts, not a "chat room", and is in agreement with FAS, Globalsecurity, as well as paper sources provided by Dual Freq above; it is a preferred source because it lays out multiple POV's and is easily verifiable. -- Mmx1 18:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If you look carefully you'll find that aerospaceweb.org articles generally reference each other. I stopped using them for reference when I discovered the "source" for one author's research was an article that referenced as a "source" an article by the first author. That's a cheap way for several authors to try to give their research validity, they simply get together and decide how to reference each others research. GlobalSecurity is better, and updates its information more quickly, but I've noticed that it adds information too quickly and corrects itself so often that using it for reference too often makes the reference bad when they discover their information was wrong to start with, and they correct themselves. I am curious how you can reference NASA and RAND and still discount Smithsonian. They often cross publish the same articles. I have no problem with moving the "combat history" to a seperate page as long as there are links to it at key points in the article, and as long as the "combat history" article contains examples of all the research done on the subject without bias, including Tom Cooper's research.- Ken keisel 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
What about the attrition and numbers, anyone have any better source for that information so I can add it to the variants section? Dual Freq 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
-- Wiarthurhu 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)-- Wiarthurhu 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I found who and when changed history, as the F-14 article has clearly stated that the F-14 was designed to be a maneuverable air superiority fighter until this edit, which has no comments.
Revision as of 05:01, 14 March 2006 (edit) Mmx1 (Talk | contribs) (Last squadron is still in service; just finished last combat tour) ? Older edit Revision as of 05:18, 14 March 2006 (edit) Mmx1 (Talk | contribs) (?Characteristics) Newer edit ?
Deleted -
The Tomcat was intended as an uncompromising air superiority fighter and interceptor, charged with defending carrier battle groups against Soviet Navy aircraft armed with cruise missiles. It carried the Hughes AN/AWG-9 long-range radar originally developed for the F-111B, capable of detecting bomber-sized targets at ranges exceeding 160 km (100 miles), tracking 24 targets and engaging six simultaneously.
The F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation.
Added
Though designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability, the F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation. This was a consequence of the requirement for low landing speeds.
There is no way to verify the accuracy of the changed statments.
It is too bad that it took until June to correct this error. At the moment, it is impossible to correct this error since any statement to the effect that the F-14 ever was or was intended to be agile will be mysteriously be immediately erased. What does the F-14 community think that this article, which is duplicated across dozens of pages, omits air superiority or discounts agility as a design requirement? -- Wiarthurhu 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To avoid edit wars, the following POV will be enforced in this article:
-- Wiarthurhu 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only guy that's shaking his head over the assertion that only exists in the Wikipedia that the F-14 was not designed with maneuverability as the primary design goal? We're way over the 3 reverts rule, I have provided several references, the fighter community was shocked at the dismal combat performance of american fighters (which was also the reason for Red Flag and Top Gun) the wing area was increased for agility, the Navy did a study to find the F-111 could not dogfight, and the Navy and USAF were essentially competing in creating a fighter that could be a better dogfighter than the F-4. This is not only a minor error, it negates the most important reason for creating the F-14 in the first place. He still has provided even one citation that states in so many words the F-14 was not designed to be more maneuverable than the F-4-- Wiarthurhu 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I just replayed my recording of Modern Marvels "A new set of requirements: Mach 2 speed, GREAT MANEUVERABILITY, powerful radar and the ability to carry a variety of weapons". Entirely consistent with all the other sources, which indicated that the Navy need an airplane which could dogfight with a Mig-17, had better performance in air combat. You have a serious POV problem, and you are the only person in any media to claim that the absence of the word "maneuverability" on an open source web page means you can claim that it was not a design objective. If you read any book, any magazine, or any video program on the topic, they all concur. The F-111 would have been sufficient a Phoenix platform, the weight and carrier issues were just an excuse to move on to the F-14 when they realized the mistake of buying an airplane incapable of shooting down other fighters. I don't know where all the other people are, but please look at just one real book on the topic, you can't rely on that one web page, which doesn't even state what you claim it say it does. The F-14 WAS the first of the next generation of fighters that cared about maneuverability. You cannot seriously think that RAND included the F-14 in a paper on a new generation of maneuverable fighters and conclude that the F-14 was completely different from the other 3 fighters in that it was not designed to address the problem of MiG-17s downing supersonic US fighters. That would be like saying Top Gun was not set up to address the problem of dogfighting, since the F-14's mission is interception with a Phoenix, a mission that the F-14 almost never performed. The F-4, F-8, F-11, F-100, 101, 102, 104, 105, any maneuverability WAS an accident. I have read countless books and articles on the topic AS IT WAS HAPPENING, not just web surfing. I have models of the F-14 dating from 1972.-- Wiarthurhu 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Among these are variable-sweep wings that allow optimum efficiency throughout the plane's flight envelope. Minimum sweep is used during low-speed flight to reduce takeoff and landing speeds while maximum sweep reduces drag during supersonic flight. In combination with its large fuel capacity, varying the wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and endurance in its primary air patrol and escort mission.
How about asking an F-14 pilot instead of relying on 3rd party information written by people who also don't know what they're talking about? TOPGUN actually exists, it's not just a movie, and they trained F-14 pilots to dogfight. F-14s were designed to dogfight, to defeat enemy aircraft, and it was more maneuverable than its predecessors, simple as that. Everyone in the Navy knows this, the notion that the F-14 was not designed to dogfight is held only by those who have no actual experience in Naval Aviation.
The current page organization seems pretty haphazard right now. Unless there's a specific template that needs to be followed for aircraft articles, I'd suggest reorganizing the article into something like this:
* History o Development o Operational History + United States Navy + Imperial Iranian Air Force o F-14 in combat * Decommissioning of the F-14 * Specifications (F-14D Tomcat) * Characteristics * Operators o 4.1 United States Navy (USN) squadrons o 4.2 Iranian Air Force (IRIAF) squadrons * F-14 in fiction and popular culture * Related content * External links * References
Also, I think having the list of operators is a bit superfluous/long - perhaps it should be split off into another article like
List of F-14 operators or somesuch to reduce this article's length.
Virogtheconq 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. Specifications are frankly not all that import and kind of pointless as performance characteristics are vague anyway. Prose should lead the article, with the specs as some sort of appendix. Have considered spinning off the operators list. -- Mmx1 04:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The "F-14's in combat" is a section pointing to the stuff I moved off; need to pare that page down as the source for Iranian combat is sketchy and we don't need to know every time it saw combat. Moved it off rather than delete it, there should be a more comprehensive summary of the combat page. Characteristics should precede specs; I'm not too sold on their importance. Wikipedia used to have side boxes but the tables were too difficult to edit and resulted in a huge blob of bad code in the beginning. I've my own problems with the popular culture part but I'll humor minor aspects. -- Mmx1 05:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I was quite shocked to read about the destruction of the F-14's tooling. I think it was highly irresponsible. If a major war broke out tomorrow and the U.S. Navy needed more F-14s what would they do?
I hope what I wrote about it in the article doesn't seem like I'm having a go at Dick Cheney. While I am pretty angry about what he did (and other things he's done), I'm trying to avoid bias. Still I thought it was worth mentioning.
It's pretty sad to see the F-14s on the way out. Our government (Australia) is talking about retiring our F-111s soon. Similar problem - when they're gone, the aircraft that will replace them won't have the range or payload. (In both cases they will probably be similar aircraft - in our case F/A-18C/Ds and eventually F-35s, in the U.S. Navy's case F/A-18E/Fs and eventually F-35s). Looking at what happened during WW2, Vietnam, etc. it makes me think that if some kind of major conflict breaks out, both parties will be sorry they ditched their longest range, most capable platform. Obviously keeping the F-14s would cost some money (they'd have to be refurbished and upgraded) but I can't imagine it would have cost more than the massive amount they're spending on the F-18E/Fs which I don't think are as capable as a modern F-14 would be. You can have the greatest electronics in the world but if you can't haul the bombs to the target what good are you... and as we well know, you can't always get carriers near the conflict zone and even if you can it might not be a good idea. Tankers are all well and good but can't replace an aircraft with good fuel reserves IMO. The F-18E/F were supposed to have much better range than the F-18A/B/C/Ds but in practice (from what I've read) it seems like it hasn't really worked out. Even on paper the range/payload was never going to be anywhere near as good.
Nicholas 3rd Jan 2005
Me personally, Dick Cheney must have shares in Boeing or something, having forced the navy to choose a modified version of the Bug over the Super Tomcat and Tomcat 21 designs. I don't believe Grumman inflated their prices up. To me its just greed greed and more greed triumphing over practicality, but hey that's my opinion. Tomcat200 May 18, 2006
Seems like putting the Characteristics after Development would be better. But a couple other articles list them in a simlar order as above. - Fnlayson 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I like linking to vehicles or weapons like this:
as opposed to this:
Any other opinions?
Nvinen 02:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I thought this was to be a version supposedly developed for the Air Force? bjelleklang 12:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes Grumman did pitch a version of the Tomcat to replace the F-106 Delta Dart but alas it never happened.
Tomcat200 May 18, 2006
I reverted the F-14D error on Macross Zero in the F-14s in Fiction section. The Macross Zero creators coined a fictional variant since their F-14 has a non-existent ECM/engine config (essentially a F-14B but with new chinpod/ECM). Please see the F-14 note on Bandai Visual's Macross Zero DVD liner notes or Bandai Visual's official Macross Zero site:
http://www.bandaivisual.co.jp/macrosszero/story2.html Egan Loo 19:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Would like to expand the section on Top Gun. That film made the Tomcat the most widely known fighter plane of its time and basically put it on the map of pop culture. One half sentence does't accurately portray its impact.
Hello!
I've see your reply about the Tomcat of United Nations. Regardless those told in official site Macross Zero,There are several factors shows that should be a D variant:
1:F-16-style tailpipe converted for only F-110-engined A+/D variant. 2:Chin TCS/IR sensor pod equipped with only F-14D,there's only one TCS camera on A and A+(later B)at the same position. 3:Considerate the background of UN-War,maintance difficulity of Tomcat in even peacetime,Nature of carrier operation...........Spare parts for A/A+'re NOT impossible to be fitted with D variant just like the GRU-7 ejection seat on F-14D Prototype and in video. 4:AIM-120 Can be fired from only D variant.
I can even tell you that's prohibited for F-110-engined Tomcat to on the AB when executing carrier take-off like those in Macross Zero. These all can be found on external links in your introduction about this big fighter.Please,just click in and compare following pictures with those shows on Macross Zero official site before revert my correction.
http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31ay.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31bg.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31ga.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14dpd.htm - 61.229.163.80
To address each issue above:
Incidentally, Macross Zero is fictional.
As to why the fictional F-14A+2 in Macross Zero is not the F-14D or an other real-life F-14 variant:
- Egan Loo 22:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The aircraft externally looks like an F-14D, considering the dual chinpod, the GE-style engine nozzles, lack of forward glove veins (A-only) when the jet goes beyond supersonic speed, and the AIM-120's. But, take a look inside the cockpit, not only the ejection seats, but the actual cockpit control panel. If you look at the F-14A/B configuration, it is the same. The D has two MFD's, one next to the other (center and right panel), F-15 style HUD, and the control stick does not have the weapon/flap selector on the left side, like the A or B. Indeed this is a fictional configuration, appearing to be a combination between A or B and D.
For F-14A Pilot Cockpit See: http://gra.midco.net/mlgould/Jet%20Fighters/F-14A%20Tomcat%20front.JPG
For F-14D Pilot Cockpit See: http://gra.midco.net/mlgould/Jet%20Fighters/F-14D%20Tomcat%20Front3.JPG
It is commonly accepted that the F-14 was the only aircraft to carry the famous Phoenix missile. However this is only partially true. The F-14 is the only aircraft to actually see combat that carried this missile. One fighter (I think the YF-12) which was built as an interceptor, never purchased and eventually transmuted into the blackbird carried the Phoenix for interception purposes. However until I have verified the number of that protoype fighter I will not be editing the article to include this information.
Also I must dispute the information about the F-14's tracking abilities. While I am apart of the fly guys where the stick is built in, (JAG referance for those who don't get the joke) I have read multiple reports that the F-14 can track in fact up to two hundred signatures.(200?? where this info came from I don't know. The Phoenix System is able to track and fire on 12 targets simultaneously...12 sure..200?? Errr?) (Especially helpful when tracking say cruise missiles launched by massess of bombers at the fleet) Can anyone else verify or disupte this?
As far as the aircraft's retirement, I will agree that is saddening. However the F-14 is being retired for the following reasons.
1) The airframes are old, have always been maintenance heavy and grow more so with each flight.
2) The original design purpose of the F-14 is no longer a primary issue. As few nations now possess the capability to be a threat to US carriers, and the high number of phalanx CIWS present in a carrier task group are considered adequate to defend against the occasional missile that might get through.
3) The mated pair of the Phoenix and the Tomcat does not possess the advantage it once did considering the pairing of the F/A-18 and the AMRAAM, which when combined with the presence of an AWACS can provide nearly identical abilities. The F-14 was designed with the idea of carrying the Phoenix in mind, as a craft of the F-14's abilities would be needed to carry such a heavy weapon. Something less of a concern with the availability of the AMRAAM.
4) The Bombcat role of using the F-14 as a bomber has been usurped by the abilities of the F/A-18 E and F models.
Still the aircraft is an icon all over the world, I am sad to see it go.
The F-14 was the only operational fighter to employ the AIM-54 Phoenix and AWG-9 Weapon system. These two items it inherited from the unsuitable F-111B navalised TFX variant.
The YF-12 carried the AIM-47 and the ASG-18 Fire Control System for which the later weapons and radar systems used on the F-14 were derived. They were not the same!
At present there is debate as to the usefulness of the Phalanx CWIS. It's 20mm ammunition is felt to not have the stopping power despite the high rate of fire of the Vulcan cannon from which it is fired from. Hence the system is being supplanted by the Rolling Airframe Missile System, which also has its detractors.
The AEGIS System still has flaws in it that can be exploited by knowlegeable foes. In my opinion, relying on this system alone to fill in the gaps since the retirement of the Phoenix/Tomcat combo is a big mistake. The Fleet Air Defence Mission has never been obsolete or made redundant by the end of the cold war. Aircraft Carriers are still very expensive. We shall see if the Superhornet/AMRAAM/APG-79 AESA Combo is up to par.
The AWG-9 Tracks up to 24 targets and selects the 6 most dangerous to destroy, although Tomcats in operational use only carried 4 AIM-54's plus 2 Sparrows and 2 Sidewinders, as the full 6 phoenix layout was too heavy to bring back aboard ship. The only time all 6 would be carried was if it was certain that most were expended.
Range of the AWG-9 is about 241 km. Though the system was powerful enough that it can surpass this mark it was only the size of the antenna which limited it to the figure mentioned ie. Larger antenna and large power means longer range. It had the power but the antenna was not big enough for it to be utilised.
The commanding Officer of VF-31 in the F-14's final cruise, Cdr Rick La Blanche, said emphatically that the ONLY reason the F-14 Tomcat was being retired was because it cost too much to maintain. Nothing said about the Super hornet surpassing it, though the CO of VF-2 did say something of that nature but was very guarded about what he said, which is a bit unusual. Coincidentally I saw a documentary 9 years ago. It was about the USS Carl Vinson / CVW-14 and it featured then Lt La Blanche who was an A-6E Intruder Pilot on the types last cruise before its retirement. The squadron he was with was Medium attack Squadron VA-196 "Main Battery". The Squadron was disestablished upon the aircraft's retirement. At that time VF-11 and VF-31 were part of that airwing as well, and La Blanche did mention he was to transition to the Super Tomcat. He completed his 1000th trap on the final cruise, aboard Theodore Roosevelt. He is a very distinguished man indeed!
Tomcat200 May 18 2006
The part "The Iranian Air Force used their F-14As in combat constantly against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. It is estimated that during the Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988, from reports from pilots on both sides, guncamera/TISEO films, examination of wreckage, local and foreign intelligence and other sources, that on total the IRIAF F-14As scored 130 confirmed and 23 probable aerial victories. Iran launched possibly 70 to 90 AIM-54A missiles, and 60-70 of those scored. In one instance four Iraqi fighters were shot down by a single Phoenix. Twice two Iraqi fighters were destroyed with a single missile." seems like a load of nonsense. I've never read of F-14's tallying such a high kill ratio, and a single phoenix killing 4 fighters. To top that off, most Iranian Phoenix kills are unconfirmed; the only kills confirmed are by Tom Cooper, and we all know his facts are unreliable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
You guys will like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJDGmgMjAqs&search=F14 teh TK 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe that F-14's had the most interesting paint scheme's of the Cold War/Post-Cold War era, not including Tiger Squadron Schemes, and I was wondering if a section should be added to the F-14 page or if there sould be a seperate page. Any ideas?
The article lists rate of climb as 45,000+ ft/min. Is that for real or a typo? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It's only initial rate of climb. This drops off rather rapidly with altitude. F-104 and Phantom could climb at almost 60,000 fpm. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What references (or rather, which links at the bottom) are given for the F-14's apparently "notorious" carrier landing difficulties? I asked a former pilot about it, and he disagreed wholeheartedly, saying that the F-14 was much easier to land than the F-4 it was replacing (F-4 came in 20 knots faster). Obviously this is just one pilot's opinion, but I'm still curious.
Tomcat200 1st June 2006
I believe it is reference to the woman pilot controversy, some believed it was evidence women were either not suited, or given prefernce over better pilots. I added remark that swing wings and flaps should make it easier to land.-- Wiarthurhu 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles about American aircraft are in American English per MoS. Stop converting them to British English. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved the following section to the discussion because it is not encyclopedic in its current form:
It has the following issues:
Egan Loo 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
They generally look good, though I have a quibble:
-- Mmx1 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I grew up seeing these planes being developed. USAF and USN pilots were getting hammered badly by 1966-1967 and the folly of abandoning air combat became evident. Also note that this was the first of 4 fighters, F-14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 that were all optimized for air combat. The F-14 had to replace the F-4 so retained payload and performance, and size (and then some), engine technology of the F-15's F-100 did not exist at time of VFX specification, and provision was made for growth. Modern Marvels, and a US News video of fighters explains how air combat experience shaped the teen fighters. The century series and USN supersonic fighters had no specifications regarding air combat performance, it WAS a coincidence the F-8 was a good air combat fighter, and sheer luck the massive F-4 had enough power to make up for turning capability. I provided 3 citations, (F-14 book by areo, Modern Marvels, US News video) to back me up, I have never in my years since the 1960s seen anyone claim the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable. In fact, the F-14 is the only VG plane whose VG feature was included because of maneuverability (you DO know that feature, don't you??) -- Wiarthurhu 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
See last book I added, I have that book. VG was selected over fixed for maneuverability. I searched Google and found your claim - it is frm the Wikipedia VG article, and it is also incorrect, and has no citation. Every broadcast program and book on the F-14 starts with a discussion of the history of the lost art of air combat. The F-104 was a contemporary of the F-8, with abysmal turning characteristics, again because if you don't ask for turning, you might not get it. The AF turned down the F-14 because they thought they could get a lighter plane with a better engine with a 1:1 T/W ratio. I would still like to see a citation other than the Wiki article that the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable.
"The fixed-wing version was rejected because of its weight, carrier suitability and because of its low-altitude performance".
The Navy recognized the advantages of applying the variable-sweep wing concept to multimission aircraft. One ideal application was for naval fleet defense fighters, which must be able to quickly intercept threats and yet slowly approach aircraft carriers to land. Variable-sweep wings in the fully swept (high-speed) configuration permit efficient supersonic dash and the carrier-approach requirements could be met with the wing in the unswept (low-speed) position.
You obviously did not follow the development of the F-14 in Popular Science, Mechanic and Aviation Week as I did in the late 60s, nor watch Modern Marvels, or have the videos. The website specifically mentions "agility" as one of the considerations. If not for agility, there would be no point in replacing the F-111B since not meeting an arbitrary weight spec is just about the only difference between the F-14 and f-111 besides the fact that the F-111 maneuvers like a city bus. Again, I'd like to see one citation other than your own, your citation is the one that pops up on a google search. Dogfighting vs an F-4 was about the 2nd test after they established it could fly straight without making a big hole in the ground. The swing wing is an integral part of the maneuvering capability, and unique among VG aircraft. The f-14 was the only one with dogfighting in mind from the start. -- Wiarthurhu 18:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
From MATS "Wing area increased to 565 square feet from 505 square feet. Increased combat agility. Allowed use of simple hinged single-slotted flap, rather than complex double-slotted extensible flap. As a fallout, maneuvering flap is easily achieved" As long as agility was in any way design parameter, you wording is incorrect, and you have not provided another example of your viewpoint, which you are encouraged to cite and quote.-- Wiarthurhu 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a citation that the F-14 was specifically designed to fix dogfight problems with the F-4: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm These various sacrifices were rationalized by the belief that visual dogfighting was obsolete, and that in the supersonic age, air combat would be fought beyond visual range (BVR) using radar-guided missiles. This concept failed in Vietnam for two reasons: First, radar could detect and track aircraft but not identify them. Operating beyond visual range created an unacceptable risk of shooting down one's own aircraft. Pilots were therefore required to close to visually identify the target before shooting; this eliminated the theoretical range advantage of radar-guided missiles. Second, the performance of the Sparrow radar-guided missile in Vietnam was poor, generally yielding less than 10% kill per shot. Dissatisfaction with these deficiencies led to the US Air Force F-15 and US Navy F-14 designs. -- Wiarthurhu 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Another one: http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm
Other fighter missions, such as escorting attack airplanes, had to be done with a higher performance, more maneuverable, and more versatile airplane than the F-111B. Grumman, associated with General Dynamics, had performed F-111 improvement studies, under contract, ranging from minor changes to complete redesigns. McDonnell had also studied, under contract, various improvements to the F-4, including a design with a variable sweep wing. A new airplane, to complement the F-111B, was also under study by everyone. This design finally evolved as a multi-mission airplane, VFAX, capable of performing *** better than a F-4 as a fighter ***, and better than the A-7 as an attack airplane.
While the swing-wings provided definite improvements over its predecessor, the F-4, this weapon system's primary reason for existence was fleet defense against hordes of Soviet bombers. It was larger than many WWII medium bombers, and should be seen more as a maneuverable interceptor than a furball-winning dogfighter. Until the F-18 came along, it was the pilot skills provided by the superior Top-Gun school that netted the Navy air combat kills, not the superior ACM (Air Combat Maneuverability) of the Tomcat
From the "adios Tomcat" link you put in. It's just a blog, but even that admits that it's raison d'etre was not dogfighting. -- Mmx1 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because it's no F-18 doesn't mean that wasn't the design goal. This should answer all your questions young padewan and mend your ways: [PDF] REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTERFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML cated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter opti- ... Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s. YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf - Similar pages-- Wiarthurhu 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design concepts and R&D.
RAND Study Okay, I'm putting my foot down and reverting to my version. You've shown that you're reading your own bias into sources and I have lost faith in your interpretation of the sources you've cited but which only you have access to. All the openly available sources I've cited OMIT maneuverability/agility from their list of the primary design criteria of the F-14. The RAND study is a study not of fighters, but of the design process. It looks at the teen series because they were contemporaries and their programs were locked in bureaucratic struggles, NOT ONCE does it make the assertion that the F-14 was "supposed to be agile". You seem incapable of ACTUALLY READING the cited documents and instead quote a google search result that sadly takes a poor misquote of the original document. -- Mmx1 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[PDF] REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTERFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML cated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter opti- ... Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s. YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf - Similar pages
Sure looks like the Navy was looking for something that could dogfight a Mig-17 to me. Could you pleeeeeez quote somebody that the F-14 was not designed to be a dogfighter? You only cite places that it was not the BEST dogfighter.
The F-15 was the first Air Forcefighter since the development of the North American F-86 in the late 1940s thatwas optimized for maneuverability and agility for dogfights with enemy fight-ers.
the escalation of the air war over Vietnamsoon convinced many officials in the Air Force and the Pentagon that a new,specialized air-defense fighter was needed, as antiquated North VietnameseMiG-17s began registering victories over much larger, more complex andexpensive, but less maneuverable U.S. fighters. On April 4, 1965, several NorthVietnamese Korean War vintage MiG-17s equipped only with guns shot downtwo sophisticated F-105s on a bombing run against the Than Hoa Bridge. Thisincident shocked the U.S. tactical fighter community and galvanized sentimentin the Air Force for a new air-superiority fighter.
officials still favored a joint Air Force–Navy multirole fighter(referred to as the F-X–Navy Fighter Attack Aircraft Experimental [VFAX]requirement) with significant ground-attack capabilities.
Grumman reported that the
F-111B would not be able to cope ith the new Russian fighters in a dogfight.
Moreimportantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based oncompany design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter thatcould meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.8Shortly thereafter, two otherhistoric Navy fighter developers—LTV (Vought) and McDonnell-Douglas—alsosubmitted design proposals, as did a seasoned Air Force fighter developer,North American Rockwell.
the Navy
informed General Dynamics that the F-111B did not meetits requirements and initiated a new study of alternatives. the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFXfighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet air-defense mission. -- Wiarthurhu 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind the paper is primarily about the Air Force, given RAND's institutional history with that service, so treatment of the Navy is an afterthought in this piece: page 1:
The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and F/A-18—that would become the mainstays of America’s tactical fighter forces for the remainder of the century. In particular, the two Air Force fighters and the F/A-18 represent a substantial change from many of the trends evident in previous fighter modernization decisions. The F-15 was the first Air Force fighter since the development of the North American F-86 in the late 1940s that was optimized for maneuverability and agility for dogfights with enemy fighters. In an even more dramatic departure from recent experience, the F-16 and F/A-18 programs attempted to reverse the trends toward heavier, more complex
and costly fighters.
Reading between the lines, that means the F-14 was not a departure from previous thinking.
One group of dissenters, later known as the “Fighter Mafia,” led by John Boyd, Pierre Sprey, and others, began arguing with considerable effect against such a fighter within the Air Force and the DoD. This group advocated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter optimized for close-in air combat.
This was the primary impetus for the move toward more maneuverable fighters optimized for WVR - not institutional, but from a small group within the institution. Most notably, their efforts were focused within the Air Force - the similar push within the Navy came from Adm. Kent Lee via the VFAX concept (which itself grew out of remains of the Navy's dropped commitment to the AF's Lightweight Fighter Program). What happened on the Navy side was quite the opposite:
Indeed, with the unhappy experience of the TFX continuing to unfold, both Navy and Air Force resistance continued to grow to OSD’s concept of a joint F-X/VFAX program. As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.
...
The Navy campaign to cancel the F-111B and develop its own fighter gained momentum at the end of 1967 when OSD appointed the Air Force as the executive agent for the development of a single new engine for a joint F-X/VFAX. By this time, both the Navy and Air Force were fully committed to developing their own fighters uncompromised by mission requirements from the other service, and the Navy now saw the Air Force as getting the upper hand in the OSDsupported F-X/VFAX program. The Navy campaign finally succeeded six months later in July 1968 when Congress agreed to terminate the F-111B program. That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet airdefense mission. In addition to Grumman, North American, LTV, and McDonnell-Douglas, General Dynamics also submitted design proposals.
There's your citation, by the way. It was designed primarily to splash bombers threatening the fleet, not establish air superiority by splashing fighters.
So where do the new russian fighters fit in. Well, the added fuel to the Fighter Mafia's fire. But they were in the Air Force. What it did do was to cement support for killing the F-111B:
Insurmountable opposition in the Navy to continuing the F-111B finally emerged in response to the same event that crystallized Air Force support for an F-X optimized for air superiority: the revelation of new Soviet fighters at the Moscow Air Show in July 1967. The existence of new-generation Russian fighters, combined with the renewed appreciation for the importance of maneuverability and dogfighting gained from air combat experience over Vietnam, led the Navy to argue convincingly for the need for a specialized Navy fighter optimized for carrier-based fleet air defense. The Navy soon awarded a contract to Grumman for a study evaluating the F-111B’s capabilities in combat against the new Soviet fighters. In October, Grumman reported that the F-111B would not be able to cope with the new Russian fighters in a dogfight. More importantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based on company design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter that could meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.8 Shortly thereafter, two other historic Navy fighter developers—LTV (Vought) and McDonnell-Douglas—also submitted design proposals, as did a seasoned Air Force fighter developer, North American Rockwell.9 All these companies, with the exception of LTV, were also active participants in the Air Force F-X design studies. At around the same time, the Navy informed General Dynamics that the F-111B did not meet its requirements and initiated a new study of alternatives.
It was in effect, the straw that broke the camel's back. Winning over the elements of the fighter mafia within the Navy was enough to kill the F-111B, though there'd already been strong institutional oppositon, as indicated above. However, what resulted was not an RFP for an air superiority fighter. The resulting VFX RFP was for a fleet defense fighter. There is no more in the piece relevant to this article. -- Mmx1 04:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The F-14 was developed to take the place of the General Dynamics F-111B, the navalized version of the TFX project. The F-111B was to carry six long range missles for interception, and a heavy fuel load with swing wings for long range, but the concept came before experience with close combat in Vietnam. In 1965, the fighter community was shocked when subsonic MiG-17s down F-105s on a bombing run. [1]. The Navy ordered Grumman to study how this affected the F-111B, and they concluded that the F-111B would be unable to cope in a dogfight. With issues of weight and suitability to carrier operations, the F-111B was cancelled in 1968.
The Navy created the VFX and a lighter VFAX program. The navy needed a fighter for other roles such as escort which require more agility and performance than the F-4 or F-111B. Design changes such as increasing wing area were made to increase agility. The Air Force would choose to build its own FX air superiority fighter, the F-15 with a lighter fixed wing, single pilot, no heavy long range missles, and new technology engines. -- Wiarthurhu 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to summarize my view as Wiarthurhu seems to misunderstand it and has been misrepresenting it. Maneuverability is important to every fighter - but less so than other performance characteristics, depending on the intended mission. I may have been a bit guilty of synthesis of facts when I wrote that the maneuverability was a byproduct of the dash/carrier landing mission profile, but I stand adamantly behind the factual accuracy of these points:
I have tried to treat User:Wiarthurhu with good faith given his substantive edits to the article, with which I've had only this one quibble. However, the user has demonstrated a selective reading of the facts which is worrisome and casts doubt on his recollection of sources unavailable to us. The more he argues, the less inclined I am to take his claims at face value. Apparently he has been convinced by his reading of the Rand paper that the main aim of the F-14 was to shoot down Mig-17's.
Initially, Wiarthurhu claimed that maneuverability was a design aim of the F-14 and motivated the swing-wing design (which is false but poorly sourced either way). Since then, he has gone so far as to say
Unfortunately, it appears that he as bought into the revisionist meme that the F-14 was the king of ACM, a meme borne of Top Gun. The reality is that the F-14 was an interceptor that adapted quite well to a variety of other roles, including air superiority, tactical recon, precision strike, and CAS. It was remarkably maneuverable for an interceptor, many of which are joked to have turning radiuses measured in kilometers. But it is behind even its counterparts in the "teen series" (F-15/16/18) in maneuverability and was inferior in a turning fight to even the Vietnam-era A-4. Of course, the true answer is that it's the man, not the machine, that determines the outcome. But its subsonic performance was subpar for its era, and the notion that it was an ACM king is absurd and wrong.
Furthermore, no sources have been presented supporting the maneuverability POV. Here are the reliable, publicly available sources at hand:
My recommendation for action: Even if the History Channel said EXACTLY what Wiarthurhu claims it did, it contradicts the above sources. And between a popular media source and professionals, I'll side with the professionals. By the way, the History Channel aired a special tonight where they took psychics to Waco and consulted them on what happened. No kidding. They're slipping. It's a fun pastime but not an academic resource. The Modern Marvels series is fun to watch, but I've seen experts contradict them before.
-- Mmx1 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read this page several times for the past year (yeah I'm a geek). The english and presentation of the info keeps getting poorer. The info itself is also suffering. And now that I've read this bull about maneuverability not being a major design consideration in the comments section, I had to make my own comment. The F-14 was designed with maneuverability as a major consideration. I've seen various interviews with the designers explicitly stating the F-14 was designed with dogfighting in mind. I've read various publications stating the same thing. A huge part of the training syllabus for Tomcat pilots involves ACM. Keep in mind, the authors of a lot of publications are influenced by their preconcieved notions. "The Tomcat has a long range radar and a big missile? That means it wasn't designed to dogfight." No.
Corrected problems (excluding the copyedit):
P.S. I see that I got bit by the google toolbar/firefox issue in the rewrite. it's fixed. Blast it. -- Mmx1 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to remove the correct and verifiable information about air combat. The F-14 was specifically designed to do what the F-111B could not do, survive and win a dogfight. See comment above from person who agrees agility was the prime reason for the F-14. That the F-14 was the first of a series of fighters is a significant ommision that you removed with no justification. -- Wiarthurhu 17:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The F-14 was not designed to rectify the F-111B's inability to dogfight. It was designed to rectify the F-111B's inability to take off from a carrier.
And since Boyd has already been mentioned, if it was designed as a dogfighter, after the Energy-maneuverability theory was postulated, then don't you think it would have been noticed it was less maneuverable than any Russian fighter (except possibly the MiG-23, and MiG-25.) The swing-wing was not added to increase maneuverability, just think about it, in order to make a swinging wing you have to put a lot of mechanics in the plane. These add weight, weight increases wing loading and makes the thrust-to-weight ratio worse. These make the plane less maneuverable.
Thrust/weight:0.88
Wing loading:113.4 lb/ft.sq.
vs. the F-15
Thrust/weight:1.04
Wing loading:73.1 lb/ft.sq.
And if something is designed for close in combat, why make its priciple weapon a long range missile? By the way, books written by designers can be misleading, one book written by a man from Lockheed said the P-38 was the most maneuverable fighter of WWII, yet books written by P-38 pilots consistently say that it wasn't very maneuverable, but it was fast and heavily armed. LWF 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that the WP is the only F-14 article on the web which omits air superiority as a role, as the US Navy lists air superiority as its primary role? I'd say this was a severe violation of POV. This has been in the article from its inception, certainly before 2004, but has just been removed. This is a serious error. This individual has a POV, that the F-14 is not, was not, and was never intended to be an air superiority fighter, which is contradicted by all references, and not stated by any other reference directly in print, broadcast, or on the web. He nevertheless insists on enforcing this POV across all related WP articles. -- Wiarthurhu 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Aircraft: Grumman F-14A Tomcat ... weapon system for fleet air defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction missions (2 CREW ... , AZ. The F-14 might not be the best aircraft ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm
Navy Fact File: F-14 Tomcat Information on hardware of the U.S. Navy ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,
Grumman F-14 Tomcat - HOME ... shots of the F-14 let me first ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.angelfire.com/stars4/f14tomcat
U.S. Military Fighter Aircraft Fighter aircraft used by the various branches of the United States Military Services. ... in a military campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat. The F-14 ...usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter
Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-14 Tomcat Grumman F-14 Tomcat history, specifications, schematics, pictures, and data. ... range air superiority fighter was accepted by the US Navy. This aircraft was ultimately accepted as the F-14 Tomcat, and ... wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14
F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat is the navy's air superiority fighter. It is the plane to have if your playing ... an enemy can put in the air before they can shoot back ...members.aol.com/CIOFAM/f14.html
F-14 Tomcat ... Description: The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic,
twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place ... include precision
strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense
...cpf.navy.mil/.../RIMPAC2004/aircraft_pages/F-14tomcatfactpage.htm
F-14 Tomcat Aircraft The F-14 Tomcat Aircraft of the US Navy entered the fleet in 1973. ... F-14 Tomcat Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat Features: The ...inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltomcat.htm
F-14 Tomcats - Military and Civilian Aircraft All about military and civilian aircraft, airplanes, jets, transports, passenger airliners and helicopters. ... Designation: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. Contractor: Grumman ... strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense. As a ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63
F-14 Tomcat ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (specifications) is a twin
engine, variable sweep wing, and air superiority fighter capable of
... simultaneously and attack six air-to-air targets with the AIM
...www.highironillustrations.com/commission_illustration/f14.html
'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Posted on 03/10/2006 9:33:43
PM PST by neverdem. ASSOCIATED PRESS. VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- There
will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. ... the past 30 years, the
F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key role in
... 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority,
playing a key ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594335/posts
Now does this mean the F-14 wasn't an air superiority fighter? 'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 10, 2006 | SONJA BARISIC ASSOCIATED PRESS There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. The F-14 entered service in the early 1970s to defend aircraft carriers from Soviet bombers carrying long-range cruise missiles.
REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER (PDF) Chapter Five. REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. INTRODUCTION. The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force. fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html ... the F-14 Tomcat aircraft are supersonic, tandem-seat, twin engine, swing-wing, all-weather, air-superiority, strike ... engine, all-weather, air superiority strike fighter and ...www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html
HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft! Zuni Rocket Pod. Usually, Zuni rockets (5-in FFAR = Folding-Fin Air Rockets) are not the weapon for an air-superiority fighter like the F-14. It's more a rocket for air-to-ground attacks and close-in support strikes.www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-zuni.htm
F-14 Tomcat ... at Air Expo '01 here May 26 and 27. The F-14 Tomcat demonstration team will take the aircraft ... Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike ...www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/6_20/local_news/7302-1.html
F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat today: The F-14 Tomcat continues to be a premier long-range strike-fighter as evidenced ... The F-14's critical role in maintaining air superiority and its ability ...united-states-navy.com/planes/f14.htm
Aircraft/UAVs ... Intruder air frame ... F-14 Tomcat The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.exwar.org/Htm/9000PopA.htm
Because a PhD defense analyst from the RAND corporation says otherwise: From the Rand paper you repeatedly miscite:
As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.
...
That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet airdefense mission.
This paper, written by a PhD-wielding defense analyst, would trump any other colloquial usage of the term "air superiority". Did it take the air superiority role, yes. Was it designed to? No. Google results of popularity are not an arbiter of truth and colloquial descriptions should not cloud industry terms.
There are two distinct issues at hand: The term "air superiority" is used both to describe a mission, and a type of fighter; the two are not equivalent. An air superiority fighter is a fighter developed solely to fill that mission, e.g. the F-15.
However, the air superiority role has been filled by many diverse aircraft, including interceptors (the F-14), strike fighters (F/A-18E), light strike fighters (F/A-18C and F-16 in export countries) and multi-role aircraft (Typhoon, Rafale, etc). Just because an aircraft took a role does not mean it was that type of aircraft. The F-14 took over the RA-5's recon mission with great success. Does that make the F-14 a recon bird? no. The F-14 became an excellent CAS platform due to the pilot's close interaction with Marine FAC's in the 1990's. Does that make the F-14 a CAS bird? No. -- Mmx1 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see:
this is wrong: defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm
The US Navy is wrong: Navy Fact File: The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,
usmilitary is wrong: campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter
Aerospaceweb.org is wrong: F-14 Tomcat airsuperiority fighter ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14
militaryfactory.com is wrong: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63
and this means "F-14 is definitely not an air superiority fighter" optimized for the fleet airdefense mission'
Okay, you got me. You win. Just fix all the other pages and books out there for me and the WP--
Wiarthurhu 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, on what basis did you remove "air superiority" from the opening of the article? It has been there since its inception, and is easily verifiable?
Isn't "opposed" a POV term?-- Wiarthurhu 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
VICTORY: Mxmx1 re-added the term "air superiority" role to the start of the article, after removing it for no reason other than to enforce his POV. -- Wiarthurhu 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Wish me luck, let's see what happens...
Citation: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f014.html#RTFToC2 Consequently, even before the F-111B project was officially terminated, Grumman began work on a company-funded project known as Design 303. The basic goals of Design 303 were to combine the particular aptitudes of the F-111B with capabilities that would be superior to those of the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, particularly in the air superiority, escort fighter, and deck-launched interception role.
The RFP issued to the industry a month later specifically mentioned a requirement for a fleet defense fighter with tandem two-seat crew accommodations, a mix of short, medium, and long-range missiles, an internal cannon, two TF-30 turbofans, and track-while-scan long-range radar. The new fighter was to be capable of patrolling 100-200 miles from its carrier, remaining on station for up to two hours. A secondary close support role was also envisaged for the aircraft, and the plane was to be capable of carrying up to 14,500 pounds of bombs. Maximum speed was to be Mach 2.2.
Note that a) his statement is true, no matter where it came from and b) that was a design requirement from Grumman even before the RFP.-- Wiarthurhu 00:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see what everybody else thinks.-- Wiarthurhu 01:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, do you realize you are the only guy on the planet that believes this position, and you cite a paper which includes the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-17 as air superiority fighters and starts out with an Mig-17 that shoots down the plane the F-111 is supposed to replace, and a study that that the F-111 would be dead meat in a dogfight as your primary source, and that both the Navy and USAF decided they needed an airplane to counter this threat??-- 71.112.5.20 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The Navy requirements given to Mcdonnell Aircraft Corporation in St. Louis in April 1955 was: "a fleet defence fighter that could take off from an aircraft carrier, cruise out to a distance of 250 nautical miles, stay on patrol at that distance, intercept intruders, then return to the carrier three hours after take-off. It was to be a missile-armed-fighter and as such would not carry guns. The preferred weapon was to be the new Sparrow semi-active radar-homing missile." Those were the requirements so anything defining the F-4 as an air superiority fighter is wrong.
The final undoing of McNamara's vision would be the one factor ommitted from the TFX specification, that had been decisive in every prior air war. What was thought to be obsolete by the missle age was maneuverability in a dogfight. In 1965, the fighter community was shocked when the F-111's forerunner, the supersonic F-105 was shot down by post-Korean war vintage Mig-17s which were slow but nimble. [2] The Sparrow medium range missle was unreliable and ineffective at close range, but guns, deleted as excess weight from the F-4, often were effective. When the Navy ordered Grumman to study the effectivess of the F-111B in such a scenario, they concluded it was much less maneuverable than the F-4, and would not survive, much less win in a dogfight. The F-111B was cancelled in 1968, but the silver lining was that the F-111s dogfight performance was so abysmal, and the accountants approach to fighter design was so discredited, that both the Navy and USAF embarked on studies on what would become a generation of 4 new air superiority fighters. The Navy would soon start realistic air combat training that would become Top Gun, and the F-14 would be the first of the famous teen-series fighters that embraced a new philosiphy that incorporated agility as at least one of the primary design goals.
The Navy soon awarded a contract to Grumman for a study evaluating the F-111B’s capabilities in combat against the new Soviet fighters. In October, Grumman reported that the F-111B would not be able to cope with the new Russian fighters in a dogfight. More importantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based on company design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter that could meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.
Well, I'm trying to get a copy of the Modern Marvels episode in question (was it a specific show or just the carrier episode?). But meanwhile I caught the M16 episode (another subject on which I am well versed), and I quote verbatim:
In April 1998, the Marine Corps announced it is spending $8.5 million to develop the Objective Individual Combat Weapon.
Excuse me while I stop laughing. Yeah, except the OICW has been an Army project all along ( OICW, read the links), and the Marine Corps has no interest in the program: [9]
At present, the Marine Corps has no plans to adopt the OICW, said Diehl. “We’re pretty much taking a wait and see attitude,” he told National Defense.
Diehl is Lt. Col. A.J. Diehl, program manager for infantry weapons at the Marine Corps Systems Command, in Quantico, Va.
So much for the Modern Marvels as a reliable source. I had other minor quibbles with the episode and didn't bother to fact-check everything, but it was essentially a one-sided circle jerk on the M-16, presenting all the positives and no criticisms. It closed with a quote from James K. Dunningan:
The bottom line is, everybody tried it, everybody without exception liked it. Everybody uses it. The only people who use Ak-47's, which are basically, you know, surplus on the market, are revolutionaries who can't afford an M-16
which goes unchallenged. Everybody, eh? Except the Australian_Army, and British Army, to name two. I don't intend to start a fight over which gun is superior, and hell, I like the M-16. But (and this is one thing that Wiki has taught me) I know bias when I see it, and Modern Marvels is reeking of it. Not an academic source, definitely not an unbiased source.
What do you expect from a series titled "Modern Marvels" whose whole purpose is to hype the subject. -- Mmx1 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to mention whether the information was essentially correct. If you'd like to dispute, I'll write a letter to the producer, and see if his research was correct.
I'd be happy to send you a dvd of my capture file. Here another person:
From: Kevin Brooks - view profile Date: Mon, Feb 9 2004 8:45 am Email: "Kevin Brooks" <brooks...@notyahoo.com> Groups: sci.military.naval Not yet ratedRating: show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
"Anthony Acres" <tony.acr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nlIVb.238$Sz3.33379@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Ladies and Gents,
> I am interested in discovering the relevant merits of the F14 and F15
> aircraft. This is in relation to each other, and to their probable
> opponents. To my very untrained eye these two aircraft look remarkably
> similar;
Their similarity is pretty much limited to both having twin engines, dual
vert stabilizers, and side mounted engine inlets.
> were they designed by the same people,
No. Grumman handled the F-14, McDonnel Douglas the F-15.
> what is their history,
F-14 stems from the failed F-111B program, which was finally cancelled in
1968 after it proved to be unsuitable for carrier operations and lacked any
real close-in air-to-air fighting capability . Largely built around its
AWG-9 fire control system and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, with primary mission
of intercepting the hordes of Soviet cruise missile carrying bombers which
could threaten a USN carrier group 9the objective being to strike the
bombers if at all possible before they could unleash their ASM's). Still
maintained a pretty good ability to mix it up in the close fight. First
flight in 1970 (Grumman and the USN had already seen the writing on the wall
as to F-111B unsuitability as early as 1966).
F-15 was developed to get the USAF back into a dedicated air superiority platform. Early intel on the Mig-25 had given an incorrect impression of its capabilities and intended mission (it was an interceptor with no real close-in fighting ability, but the intel folks thought it was going to be a world class dogfighter), so the USAF wanted to counter that threat. First flight in 1972. In the dogfighting arena it has been the acknowledged king for years, but it never had the very long-range AAM capability that the F-14 had with its Phoenix.
and
> is their percieved similarity just coincidence?
Yep, if you find them all that similar.
How do their performances
> rate in a one on one situation?
I suspect the pilots of each would likely be a bit biased. There is
reference to one F-15 pilot acknowledging that he found the F-14 to be a
handful to deal with in the low speed fight. In the end the two aircraft
were designed for somewhat different missions, though the F-14 by default
had to also be able to handle the close in fight in addition to its BVR
intercept role. The original F-14A's had some significant engine problems to
deal with, and IIRC they never did get around to reengining the entire
force. Comparing the F-14 of today versus the F-15 of today against each
other would be a bit unfair--the USN sort of stopped (or minimized)
modernization efforts on the Tomcat when they decided to expedite its
retirement, hence the fact that the AIM-120 AMRAAM was not integrated into
its weapons sytem, while the F-15's continue to undergo modernization
efforts in an ongoing manner. There is no doubt that the F-15 has been the
more successful program overall; it has yielded, and continues to yield,
more foreign export orders, and it has undeniably racked up a higher score
of air-to-air victories. The F-14 saw a late-life transformation into a
multi-role strike platform as the "Bombcat", but it does not come close to
the strike capabilities of the F-15E.
FYI, the two aircraft competed against each other at one point when the USAF was seeking a new interceptor to replace the F-106. In the end the USAF stuck with the F-15 in that role, passing down F-15A's to air defense squadrons as the newer F-15C's came into service with the tactical fighter units.
Brooks
I hope you get the general idea.
-- Wiarthurhu 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Submitted for your approval:
In 1967, seeing the writing on the wall for the F-111B, Grumman began preparing an advanced design, the G-303. [3]The basic goals were to make a plane superior to the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, "particularly in the air superiority, escort fighter, and deck-launched interception role". In 2006, many questioned whether the F-14 had originally been intended to be a dogfighting air superiority fighter in view of its primary fleet defence mission. [4] In an interview on the 2006 television program "Modern Marvels" on the retirement of the F-14, F-14 test pilot Charlie Brown stated "we needed air superiority, which required an air combat maneuverable fighter, capable of being a nimble and agile, a dogfighter". . Grumman had design a wing which could fly at Mach 2, and "maneuver spryly" in combat, the swing wing was "first priority". [5]. Lowering the weight to just half the 80,000 lb weight of the F-111B also raised its thrust to weight ratio higher than the less capable F-4. The wing area of the F-14 was also increased for the main purpose of agility.
When the Navy decided for cost and time reasons to keep the AN/AWG-9 radar, AIM-54 Phoenix missile, and the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines from the failed F-111B, this biased the competition heavily in favor of Grumman, which had been working closely with General Dynamics on the F-111B. Grumman's swing-wing design was selected in 1969.
Grumman was given the contract for the F-14 in January 1969. Upon being granted the contract for the F-14, Grumman greatly expanded its Calverton, Long Island, New York facility to test and evaluate the new swing-wing interceptor. Much of the testing was in the air of the Long Island sound as well as the first few in-flight accidents including the first of many compressor stalls and ejections.
The Tomcat is said to be named for the late Vice Admiral Thomas Connolly, whose testimony before the Senate, "Gentlemen, there isn't enough thrust in Christen-dom to make that F-111 into a [agile] fighter" basically killed the F-111B. [6] Connolly's call sign was "Tomcat," hence the popular name which also conformed with the Navy's tradition of giving feline names to Grumman fighters. In addition, "Tomcat" was first suggested for the Grumman F7F Tigercat in 1943, but it was rejected by the Navy as being inappropriately suggestive.
To facilitate the rapid entry of the F-14 into service and lower development costs, the Navy planned to recycle the engine and avionics from the F-111B for the initial version, and progressively introduce new avionics and weapons systems into the airframe. The designation F-14A was assigned to the airframe equipped with updated TF-30 engines and the AN/AWG-9 weapons system from the F-111B. It first took flight December 21, 1970. The original plan was to only build a few F-14As, as the TF30 was known to be a troublesome engine. In addition, the engine was not designed for rapid thrust changes or a wide flight envelope and only supplied 74% of the intended thrust for the F-14. An F-14B would follow in November 1987 using the engine from the advanced technology engine competition. The F-14C was intended to denote a variant implementing a replacement for the AN/AWG-9. However, it was delayed, and this variant was never produced. When it finally arrived as the AN/APG-71, the designation assigned to the new aircraft was F-14D, which first flew November 24, 1987. Though the Marine Corps initially sent instructors to VF-124 to train as instructors, the Corps pulled out of the program in 1976, after deciding the F-14 was too expensive for their needs. [10], similar to decisions to keep the AH-1 Cobra and delay adoption of the M-1 Abrams tank.
So you're a software engineer that can't close tags properly. And that's something you are purportedly a professional in. Let's dissect this.
Gentlemen, there isn't enough thrust in Christen-dom to make that F-111 into a [agile] fighter
Now, I'm not sure if it's you or Mr. Tillman (your source) who put in the "[agile]", but either way, Connolly definitely didn't say "agile". He has variously been quoted as saying "...make a [carrier] fighter" or "...make a fighter" [11], but google turns up no version of the quote where agile is used. So having done that, how am I supposed to believe the rest of your assertions and that they weren't taken out of context? Funny, because Connolly contradicts you. He doesn't say "there isn't enough wing area", he doesn't say "there isn't enough lift", he says "there isn't enough thrust". Clearly his conception of a fighter involved something other than turning really tightly.
p.s. according to tv.com [12], the program misidentified Mig-25's as Mig-23's, which is about par with the Marine Corps/Army switch they did in the M-16 episode. Okay...27's as 23's I can understand - same airframe, different nose. Mistaking a fixed wing plane for a swing-wing? These are the people you're using as a source????!??!? p.p.s. watching Modern Marvels:Aircraft carrier now.....let's see what other fun stuff I can find. -- Mmx1 04:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose the involved parties take a one week break from editing this article or commenting in the talk space. ericg ✈ 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Holiday weekend makes for a great wikibreak.-- Mmx1 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Agile dogfighters have low wing loading.
One of these is not like the others...
All the books on the F-14's development indicate that it was first and foremost a Phoenix AAM carrier, and that designing to carry 4-6 Phoenix caused the aircraft to deviate significantly from what was optimal for air to air combat dogfighting capability. Gunston's "Great book of Modern Warplanes" describes all the design variants which were considered, as a high level overview. Georgewilliamherbert 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
They can also pull alot of g's
And let's not forget Thrust to weight ratio
Now hopefully this will resolve the dispute. The F-14 was designed to gain Air superiority over carrier groups by destroying bombers before they could get within cruise missile range of the carrier group. It was not designed as a dogfighter as is often stated. I cannot provide a source for this but many pilots of the USAF have said that the F-14 cannot win a dogfight because when put into a hard turn it loses all energy (see Energy-Maneuverability theory) and becomes an easy target. They also make the statement that it telegraphs its energy state while in flight based on position of the wings, making it easy to guess the intentions of the pilot.
Also, when the F-14 was coming into service, a vast number of articles began showing up in the press, stating that the F-14 was unmaneuverable, and the F-15 too expensive. These articles called for the development of a light weight fighter, which became the LWF competition, which resulted in the F-16. This will seem biased, but Top Gun was responsible for much of the belief in the F-14's dogfighting skill. It is also quite possible that some of those behind all of this could be misunderstanding their sources and each other. Also some of the sources might be misinformed or slightly biased. For example, in the book Skunk Works, by Ben Rich, a former president of Skunk Works, he makes the statement that the P-38 was the most maneuverable fighter of WWII, when pilots of the P-38 attest that it was not well suited to a turning fight, and that it was best employed by sneaking up upon an enemy, and destroying him before being seen, or to dive at an enemy using the P-38's high diving speed, or use this same method to escape.
This mistake is probably not the mistake of Ben Rich, he was probably just misinformed. But it shows that presidents of corporations are not necessarily the best informed about their products. LWF 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the content of the article before MMx substantially changed the tone and nature of the article. Notice that prior to that no one else had ever challenged these assertions:
The Tomcat was intended as an uncompromised air superiority fighter and interceptor, charged with defending carrier battle group
The F-14 is perhaps the most maneuverable and agile of all swing-wing [No reference to uncited assertion "although it was not designed to be maneuverable" as inserted by Mmx, and since impossible to fix due to his diligence]
The real issue is that should one editor, with zero credentials and questionable ability to discrminate between valid citations and sources that support or contradict arguments who believes he is god's appointed final arbiter of truth be permitted to rudely defend this article against all attempts to state the F-14 was designed to be a dogfighter??
Nothing wrong with writing a wiki paper, backing it up with proof, and putting a citation to it and adding a controversy section to the article. But in the presence of at least one conflicting authorative opinion, a Grumman VP, he cannot stand that his is the only allowable point of view in the article since even if he is correct, the point is disputed at best. -- 131.107.0.81 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So suddenly all of those people who've flown the F-14 and all those other planes don't really know them because they haven't built a model of them? And I find it interesting how you hide behind the name matador300 instead of just coming right out with your real user name Wiarthurhu. LWF 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
All right, since my opinion was asked for, here it is.
The F-14 was designed to intercept missile-carrying bombers before they could launch missiles on carrier groups. To do so, it required speed, altitude, and range. It was not designed to dogfight, but was designed to gain air superiority by using long range missiles to destroy anything coming within range of the carrier group.
The F-14 may have been designed to be maneuverable, but the maneuverability is of a different type than that of the dogfight, and compared to its contemporaries, it is not an effective dogfighter as that is not what it was designed for.
Perhaps the dispute in F-14 can be resolved by this: If the article states that it was designed to gain air superiority by intercepting aircraft carrying long-range missiles, and designed with low speed maneuverability in mind, to aid in carrier landings, but was not pricipally designed as a dogfighter. Dogfighting being a last resort. Therefore it is an air superiority aircraft though it is not the best dogfighter.
References:
LWF 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I was just reading the Rand Report, and it says "As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.6" So I'm afraid I must retract my statement that the F-14 was designed for air superiority. LWF 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ughh.uncompromised by air superiority means that the Phoenix stays. Grumman test pilot states in an interview that the F-14 was designed for air superiority, agility and dogfigting. These statements are not contradictory. Retaining AWG-9 and Phoenix satisfies the fleet air defence requirement. Building an agile dogfighter in no way compromised that requirement. If it was not stated in VFX (can anybody find this document someplace???) It was stated by Grummans intent of the 303 to build a better fighter than the F-4, at the time the Navy's premier air superiority fighter. There is no place on the web or print other than MMx's modification of the Wiki article that states the F-14 in so many words was NOT designed with agility as a consideration. Look at my new edit, backed by verifiable sources. The article, I must point out, is about the development of 4 new air superiority fighters, including, not excluding the F-14. By its inclusion, the F-14 is, at least in the scope of the paper, defined as A, if not the most optimized air superiority fighter. The problem is when MMx insists on erasing any attempt rectify this ommision and deliberate deletion.
To recap:
1. Building a dogfighter did not compromise the fleet defence requirement. Adopting the F-15 would violate this requirement. Thus "they Navy did not want to compromise for the USAF air superiority requirement" The USAF compromised itself by insisting on a superset of the F-4 which resulted in a heavy fighter. Navy F-4 Phantom pilots were already shooting down Migs by 1965, about the time the Navy realized they needed some way out of the F-111B contract which never said a word about agility.
2. If an FAS article states that the F-14 was built to shoot down bombers with Phoenix, that in no way contradicts Grumman's design intention to build an agile fighter. It must be observed that in the current universe, it is entirely possible for both the FAS and Modern Marvels to be correct on this matter.
3. If a former Grumman test pilot and Grumman VP testifies on Modern Marvels, watched by thousands, that the F-14 had to be agile, that contradicts the notion that there is a consensus that there was no agility design goal for the F-14. The fact that at its introduction, the F-14 was, without question the best dogfighter in the world until the introduction of the similar F-15 tends to cast question on the probability that mere adoption of a swing wing to meet F-111B specs would produce this result. F-14 pilots themselves would dispute the notion of F-15 superiority, especially the F-14D. One unsourced comment in these notes says that at speeds approaching landing speeds, the F-14 handles much better than the F-15 due to wings that can be optimized for this regime, which is logical if difficult to verify an original source.
4. Mmx must cease and desist being the sole arbiter, and severely mutilating the #1 open source and oft replicated reference on this topic. If a group of individuals wants to construct a minority opinion, and back it up with verifiable sources, they should put a note in the main F-14 story as a controversy, not verifiable fact. -- matador300 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
See air superiority fighter To be a sucessful AS after 1965, you would have to also be a dogfighter. The F-100 and F-104 were also built for AS, but did not have as stringent an agility requirement. -- matador300 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The VFX and FX are virtual twins spec and philosiphy wise except for Phoenix. If the FX was built for dogfighting, then the VFX was .... not??
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/atf-1.htm
The USAF initiated its FX program, while the USN discarded its troubled F-111B bomber turned interceptor in favour of the new VFX. Both the VFX and FX exploited new propulsion technology, discarding afterburning turbojets in favour of afterburning turbofans which offered much better specific fuel consumption in dry thrust and a higher ratio of afterburning thrust to dry thrust. Experience in Vietnam clearly indicated that the endurance/combat radius of the 400 NM class F-4 was inadequate and hence the VFX and FX were designed to a 1000 NM class combat radius. Climb and turn performance dictated low wing loading and good AoA performance this in turn shaping the wing and inlet designs.
First to fly was Grumman's VFX, designated the F-14A, a large twin with swing wings and a pair of TF-30 fans. The F-14A had a large bubble canopy for good visibility during dogfights, a Head Up Display (HUD) gunsight, computer controlled automatic wing sweep and glove vane positioning, a massive AWG-9 pulse Doppler air intercept/fire control radar system capable of tracking multiple targets in ground clutter and an internal M-61 gun. It was bigger, more complex and more expensive than the F-4, but it also offered agility and manoeuvrability without precedent. The first of the teen series fighters had thus made its mark. -- matador300 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_14.html
Unfortunately, the early F-14 aircraft also included another late developing preproduction concept—deployable wing leading-edge maneuver slats for
Early Grumman flight tests revealed that the F-14 modified with both the ARI system and the maneuver slats displayed unsatisfactory air combat maneuvering characteristics because the ARI rudder inputs aggravated lightly damped rolling oscillations (wing rock) induced by the slats during maneuvers. Because of this incompatibility, the Navy deactivated the ARI systems on all fleet F-14 aircraft.
On January 14, 1969, the Navy announced the award of the contract for the VFX fighter, now designated F-14, to Grumman. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy requested that NASA make a timely independent assessment of the technical development of the F-14. A NASA F-14 Study Team of over 40 Langley personnel led by Langley researcher William J. Alford, Jr. was organized. A briefing of the study results was given in August 1969 at the Naval Air Systems Command by a team led by Laurence K. Loftin, Jr., Mark R. Nichols, and William Alford. This briefing (which covered results in cruise and
aeroelasticity and flutter, propulsion integration, stability, and control) identified several areas where further research would enhance the F-14’s capabilities. Following the briefing, Dr. John Foster, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, requested the support of Langley in the development of the F-14.
Here is one to add to the article - wing placement from NASA
One result of the LFAX-4 study that the Langley team emphasized was the critical location of the pivot for the movable wing panels. To minimize drag during transonic maneuvers typical of air-to-air combat, the pivots must be located in a relatively outboard position. Langley’s experience with the test and analysis of the F-111 revealed that large penalties in trim drag occurred if this key design factor was not adequately appreciated. Although the F-111 incorporated the variable-sweep concept, the full advantages of the concept were not realized because the pivot locations were relatively inboard. As a result, the F-111 suffered excessive trim drag at transonic and supersonic conditions. The designers of the F-14 were made aware of the significance of pivot locations by NASA briefings. Comparison of the NASA results for the LFAX-4 to those of the F-111 helped convince Grumman to locate the F-14 pivots in a more favorable outboard position.
http://www.georgespangenberg.com/a13.htm Exhibit A-13. A Retype of a paper by GAS published by the Association of Naval Aviation, The Gold Book of Naval Aviation - 1985 Naval Aviation Planning A Retrospective View (and some lessons for 1995)
This 1960's VFAX concept was a two place, twin-engined, variable sweep design which
and the A-7 as an attack airplane. New technology engines and a new weapon system were required to meet these goals in a design about the size and weight of the F-4. VFAX became part of the Navy's plan for the future, until the F-111B proved itself unusable, eliminating the constraint which had justified it.
The final step in the developments of the F-111B period was what
proved to be a real solution to the carrier fighter problem. In
essence, this was done by adding Phoenix and AWG-9 to VFAX, thereby
completing the circle, nearly returning to where we had been in 1961
with the "Navy TFX". Still another "Fighter Study" was completed
showing that
effective than the F-111B plus F-4, VFAX, *****
or other alternatives. After a competition, VFX became the F-14 Tomcat when a contract was awarded to Grumman in early 1970.
carrying four Sparrows on a fighter escort mission. *****
A radius of 565 miles using internal fuel was estimated by the Navy. The FAD mission was treated as an overload, carrying six Phoenix missiles and external fuel. An attack capability carrying a wide variety of conventional stores with a visual delivery accuracy equal to the A-7E was also provided for in the basic design.
http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm
The F-111B was most nearly useful when employed in a fleet air defense role, in effect acting as a MISSILEER but with half the capability. Other fighter missions, such as escorting attack airplanes,
and more versatile airplane than the F-111B. Grumman, associated with General Dynamics, had performed F-111 improvement studies, under contract, ranging from minor changes to complete redesigns. McDonnell had also studied, under contract, various improvements to the F-4, including a design with a variable sweep wing. A new airplane, to complement the F-111B, was also under study by everyone. This design finally evolved as a multi-mission airplane, VFAX, capable of performing better than a F-4 as a fighter, and better than the A-7 as an attack airplane. The concept was valid only under the premise that it was complementary to the AWG-9 and Phoenix capability represented by the F-111B. However, as the latter design degraded in attractiveness, by 1967 and 1968, very serious study efforts were undertaken to find a true solution of the Navy's fighter problem. In essence, this finally evolved as upgrading the VFAX to carry the AWG-9 fire control system and the Phoenix missiles. The first definitive studies were completed by Grumman and provided the information by which the Navy convinced itself and the Congress, if not OSD, that a new fighter, VFX, could be produced which was more effective and less costly than continuing the F-111B and providing an adequate complementary fighter.
of the projected threat against the fleet, was finally on its way. *** -- matador300 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop flooding the talk page with large chunks of material. Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Note Julian Data's table that puts air superiority (that's manuverability folks..) as #1 over fleet air defence. VFX/VFAX is the F-14. -- matador300 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm
* Wing area increased to 565 square feet from 505 square feet. Increased
combat agility. Allowed use of simple hinged single-slotted flap, rather than complex double-slotted extensible flap. As a fallout, maneuvering flap is easily achieved.
Reduced supersonic trim drag.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-variants.htm
A completely new fighter system was designed around these with
emphasis on close-in fighting "claws" along with standoff missile
fighting. From its first flight on 21 December 1970, the F-14A went
through five years of development, evaluation, squadron training and
initial carrier deployments to become the carrier air wings' most
potent fighter.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avtomcat.html The wings feature spoilers to improve maneuverability, plus full-span trailing-edge flaps and leading-edge slats to improve low-speed handling. The inboard flaps are of course disabled when wing sweep blocks their operation.
http://www.defencetalk.com/air_systems/fighters/f-14_tomcat.html F-14 Tomcat Air Systems - Fighters After failure of the F-111 as a fleet defender, Grumman immediately began a new design on a clean sheet of paper of a new lightweight fighter, bodily transfer from the F-111B includes the TF-30 engine, Hughes AWG-9 radar and Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix long range AAM. The F-14 was a totally new and un-compromised fighter. The selection process out of five submissions from Grumman, General Dynamics, Ling-Temco-Vought, McDonnel Douglas and North America Rockwell (4 of the 5 design involved sweep wings), Grumman's design was announced as the winner over McDonnel Douglas of the hastily contrived VFX program. The first of the 6 R&D F-14 prototype flew on 21 December 1970. The maiden flight was flow by Veteran Bob Smythe and Bill Miller. Unlike the F-111B, no attempt was made to achieve commonality with any aircraft and the need of the fighter sweep/escort; CAP (combat air patrol) and DLI (deck launch intercept) mission was given priority.
This is MMx's defect that needs to be corrected:
Reference Encyclopedia - F-14 F-14 edit Web www ...The Navy issued an RFP for the VFX in July 1968, resulting in the selection ... an designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability , the F - 14 ... www.referenceencyclopedia.com/?title=F-14 - 58k - Supplemental Result
Here's one for the other side: Mary is an engineer, but she's still wrong, we do see where the viewpoint comes from.
The F-14 wasn't
designed for knife fights with agile aircraft, because they weren't the threat. Bears and Bisons were.
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. or
Two articles that show Grumman built 303/F-14 to be maneuverable, then tacked on Phoenix, thus also satisfying fleet defence.
Julian Data
posted July 27, 2005 09:24
The AIM54 was from an USAF design missile. The shear size is due to the requirement of it in which range was a major concern. You need a lot of propellant - rocket fuel - to carry a missile a long distance back in those days.
As the F-14, the AIM54 addition was thought afterwards to the aircraft's airframe design since Grumman concentrated on a proposal which encompassed air superiority first thus it had four AIM7 recession in the tunnel. Grumman was designing the F14 during the F-111B fiasco in which they were trying to lower the weight of the current TFX aircraft. When they knew that the USN no longer wanted the F-111B, Grumman and other aero manufacturers had VFX designs waiting in the wings.
Grumman figured a way to implement the AWG-9 design into the F14 by modifying it - lighter - and implementing the AIM54.
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=73;t=004225
More from Julian Data
Posted by Julian Data (Member # 6271) on April 21, 2002 00:53:
I thought the Phoenix died because of the threat of bombers weren't a threat anymore? Which was when the break up of the USSR? The F14 entered service in the mid 70s and IIRC, the USSR was still intact.
During the design of the F-14, during VFX, it was to carry out the USN's plan for a Fleet Air Defense Fighter, FADF for shortly but during the Vietnam War with the F-4N, the FADF became "secondary" as the primary objective was to design an air superiority fighter first. When the final classifications of the VAFX/VFX came out it composed of the following:
1. Air superiority<--------- Maneuver is 1st 2. FADF 3. escort 4. A/G 5. Long loiter time 6. distance 7. Approach speed to the carrier
I do recall the 14D carries the APG-71, which is basically a hybrid of the 15C's APG-70 mixed with the AWG-9.
I believe the heaviest aircraft to be ever used on a carrier was the Vilgilante. Wasn't it's MAXTO around 85000lbs or more?
The ability for the F-14 to take off with a lot of weight is attributed to the Coefficient of lift. Since aircraft really doesn't possess a fuelsage, the pancake section between the nacelles and the area where the wing boxes are located create more lift than the wings. The actual lift area is higher than the quoted specifiction of 565sqft. This design is also mimicked with the Mig29 and SU-27.
Having this much lift area with a high aspect ratio you don't need as much Alpha to land or take off.
I have made changes to the article that will hopefully resolve dispute, and I am posting a list here:
Sorry about that mistake, I was thinking of the F-15 there. Although I've looked at it since then, and that particular part isn't necessary, because that information is stated elsewhere. And I mean to sign my posts but I have a tendency to forget. LWF 15:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm open to compromise and I recognize I've taken a hardline stance. But I remain adamant that maneuverability was neither a primary design consideration for the Tomcat nor a primary reason for the cancellation of the TFX. The Navy didn't like the TFX from the day they were ordered to cooperate with the Air Force.
Now regarding the first edits by LWF, I feel they are fine, but there are some serious issues that still need to be addressed:
-- Mmx1 03:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with Wiarthurhu's edits is that they grossly oversimplify the issue. He takes something true, like "maneuverability is important to fighters" and twists it into "maneuverability was decisive in every previous air war". Similarly, regarding the VFAX:
It's worse than that. "The F-14 was optimized to improve its maneuverability with XYZ features" true. Conclusion that the F-14 has maximum possible maneuverability false. An F-14 designed to not have to carry 4-6 AIM-54 and the big radar would have been smaller (F-15 sized) and much more nimble, as the 303G and navalized F-15 designs showed. The Navy went with 303E and Phoenix, and got a bigger, less-agile, higher wing loading, lower T/W, lower max G bird in the Tomcat. The Tomcat had as much maneuverability as it could consistent with the Phoenix mission, but that doesn't mean it was as agile an aircraft as it could have been. Georgewilliamherbert 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have spent quite a bit of my Friday night reading these sources. I'd found Mr. Spangenberg's recollections [13] interesting, and as he was part of NAVAIR he seemed to be an unbiased source. Bad assumption. He was a supporter of the F-14 against the hi/low mix and efforts to buy the F-18.
It seems clear that those who advocate high/low mixes in the fighter field should provide a rationale to support the concept. At the moment, the net result will be a lower capability at a higher cost -- hardly the goal being sought. [14]
For the Navy, the F-18 fighters are costing much more than an equal number of F-14s would have cost. [15]
Gee, he'd have no reason to hype the capabilities or history of the F-14!
Let that be a warning to you. History is a difficult nut to crack and biases are rampant. -- Mmx1 05:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've updated further the many innovations that made the F-14 agile, incorporating the latest sweep of the internet and my reference books that I could find. I also pulled the long history out of the main page. The F-14 page is probably now the most extensive network of articles of any WP aircraft, and I only have Mmx1 to thank to get me angry enough amass such a huge pile of research. Enjoy, and please I need wingmen to help keep Mmx1 off of my tail, though he may succeed in shooting down a couple of other innocent WP articles in the melee. -- matador300 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Several uses of the word operational in the list despite being non-operational. I'm not sure how to fix those, several wouldn't be true if it was simply changed to formerly operational. I would also think the entire section belongs at the end of the article. No point in having a list right up front, but I'm not sure where it should go towards the end. I didn't change the section due to the mediation issue. -- Dual Freq 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the list. I agree with the drop list argument, I also think there were several problems with the list besides that none of it is sourced. If it should be in the article, it shouldn't be at the top. I also agree with the Superbird comment, and concur that this article needs to be cleaned up hopefully during this mediation process. -- Dual Freq 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have many problems with the current text as expressed in my request for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat. You are all invited to participate to hash out the content in light of a recent edit war over the article between myself and Wiarthruhu (who signs as matador300). -- Mmx1 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't just Tomcat chauvinism on my part. I was a member of a elite F-14 squadron, (VF-211,'79 to '83), I worked in the Avionics and Fire Control Shop and we used to kick the Airforce's backside so hard and so often that I had lost all respect for them up until the first Gulf War. 80% of our pilots were Topgun grads, and a third were former instructors there, which was unusual at the time. We would "kill" state-side Airforce birds during wargames on average at a ratio of 7 to 1 to as bad as 12 to 1.
A-4s, F-4s, F-5s, F-15s, F-16s and even F-18s were all lunch. (The Vietnam era birds were flown against because they had the same flight characteristics as several Soviet Migs then in the inventory) Even the Airforce elite outfits flying out of Japan only got as good as 4 to 1. A Tomcat flown by a skilled and aggressive pilot is a truely formidable opponent. I used to observe the dogfights at Nellis AFB through the TACTs station at our base in Mirimar, Calif.
The best fighter pilot I ever met was my Skipper, Commander Ernst. I saw him and his wingman take on and destroy a flight of 4 F-15s. And he did this AFTER his wingman was shot down. (He was ordered to break left, messed up and broke right) Commander Ernst then went nose up into the sun so they couldn't lock up 'winders on him and accellarated away from them in a climb, when he got far enough away he spun the bird, dived down on them with the sun still behind him and fed the lead element a sidewinder apiece. (The 9L version was very good for head on attacks) The remaining element broke in different directions and were brought down one at a time. And that was just one example.
C'mon folks! We could see and lock up on targets as small as an F-5 at a 110 nauticals miles out! And against ground clutter! We would often lock them up at that range as soon as they had wieght off wheels. No other fighter had even a third of that radar range, and nowhere near the discrimination. The good ones maybe got to maybe 25 miles. The majority were around 12 to 15 NM. How much warning does a good fighter pilot need? Add to that the fact that the belly acts like an extra wing, giving an extra 40% more lift than its wing surfaces alone. I've seen them do snap rolls, pitch their noses up and turn within a quarter mile at just under mach.
The main draw back? EXPENSIVE. Expensive to buy, expensive to maintain. Thats why the F-18 replaced it. My Squadron had 14 birds, (12 active, 2 spares) at 45 million (1980)dollars apiece. Thats well over half a billion dollars for just one squadron. For perspective the carrier I was on only cost 4 billion. The f-18 cost less than half that. After the Soviets folded we had no worthy opponents for it to be cost effective.
And who came up with that 6 g nonsense? After one particularly ferocious exercise where we were practising brigade tactics (12 on 12) Then Lt, now Adm. Stufflebeam bent his plane so hard the wings drooped, and couldn't fold back in, and it was pissing fuel at the wing roots. The Airframes boys and engineers said that that took close to 11g's to do. But thats a onetime, extreme example. They didn't like the pilots to do more than 9. (The powers that be were really miffed at him. I'm glad to see it didn't hurt his career. They did manage to fix the bird.) BigDon 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any images in the article clearly showing it unswept. How about including Image:Wing.tomcat.unswept.750pix.jpg? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-16 t20:19z
Um, other than the one at top? -- Mmx1 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggested points of cleanup:
Needs sourced expansion on acquired strike capabilities and CAS integration in its later years.
Complete rewrite of the reasons to cut out OR ("fashions of the time"?). Notable problems (that should not be kept):
Nix the plastic kits. Most military aircraft have many kits made; and they hardly count as "popular culture". Noting the properties of particular models is irrelevant to the aircraft. -- Mmx1 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The recent Ace Combat addition / subtraction is a perfect example of what I dislike about pop culture sections. Everyone has a favorite game/tv show or whatever. I guess someone needs to go around to all 20+ a/c pages and Add Air Combat series to the pop culture section. Actually, that was sarcasm. AC5 is an arcade game, not a simulation. Weapons noted on the AC5 page include the XLAA missile, also used by the MiG-31 in the game. What company makes that missile and its cousin the popular and well known SAAM? Of the current pop culture section, I'd say the arcade game and manga one seater can be removed. Don't ask me what to do about Fleet defender, I suppose it counts as a sim, but I have no problem with ditching it too and simply saying a bunch of games include the F-14. No need to list every single game that has an F-14 or Pseudo-F-14 in it. I'm sure this will create an argument, which will prove that the pop culture section is only useful for starting problems with no real purpose. Dual Freq 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, the Ace Combat series is a best selling game, one of the core licenses for Sony platforms, and has gone through nearly 10 different incarnations on at least 4 different platforms. Your arguement about the missiles is irrelevant: Namco was only able to get the licensing for the planes, not for the missiles used in the planes. It's certainly more worthy of inclusion than some time-travel movie from the 80s that nobody ever saw. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
At some point, all the uncited material is going to have to be removed from this article. This article is large to have so few citations. It's also in the top 5 on a google search using F-14 and the uncited material could be misleading to people looking for accurate information. Please add verifiable and reliable citations for any material that you have added. -- Dual Freq 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hell, this term even appears on the F-14 Tomcat Wikipedia discussion page.
An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia -- matador300 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a proposal and I'm seeking input on it in the hopes of reaching a consensus among those taking an interest in the F-14 article. A considerable amount of space is now being taken up by the discussion of the F-14 replacement by the F/A-18. I'd like to strip this discussion out of the article. By its very nature, it is subjective and almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid advocacy. Any discussion of which aircraft is "best" and the motivations (either political or military) for the replacement will be opinions, not facts. Quoting sources that are themselves opinions will not resolve the issue, since sources can be found to support virtually any position. As such, this discussion has no place in a Wikipedia article. I think simply saying that the F-14 has been retired and its role is now filled by the F/A-18 should be sufficient. Please indicate your views on this proposal. Dabarkey 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
To satisfy a certain editor who insisted on scattering useless tags all over the article challenging obvious facts I already showed him before, I've supplied references. Sheesh, and I don't get any thanks for the work I do. -- matador300 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-Wiarthurhu, before creating a seperate page for the F-14s Iranian service history I think we need a general consensus weather it should be incorporated into the text of the F-14s general history, or really deserves its own seperate article. Aircraft articles must be comprehensive and stand on their own. All the other aircraft articles I've written and edited have included the service history of the plane for all of its users. In other words we don't have one article about the Spitfire in RAF service, another for its U.S. service history, and another for Australian operations, and so on. I believe that the plane's Iranian operations belong in the body of the text on the F-14s overall history to be consistant with aviation articles on this site.-- Ken keisel 17:10 21 August 2006 (UTC)
F-14 Bureau Numbers and F-14 Losses basically says 712 F-14s built 141+ lost for various reasons. That's F-14A 557(that includes the 12 experimental) US / 79 Iran, 38 F-14B and 37 F-14D. That only adds up to 711 but maybe 712 is the 80th one not delivered to Iran. I'd like to add this info to the variants section, but I'm not sure of the sources. FAS and a book I have both say 557 F-14A, so that's fairly clear as is the 79 to Iran. FAS also agrees with the 37 F-14D. The rest relies on the M.A.T.S. page. Anyone out there have anything more concrete? With 712 total and 141 lost, thats almost 20% attrition, and 11% of the total F-14s that went to Iran. Dual Freq 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can independently verify the information too. I could call up the Iranian pilot/rio and they could tell me the same lie they told Cooper and the Smithsonian. Just because a lie is repeated to two or more people doesn't mean its independently verified. It still comes down to one or two sources embellishing on the truth or outright lying. I'm sure you could find hundreds of pilots who have stories to tell, and the stories get better every time they are told. Yeah, I shot down 1 plane, no it was 2, no it 4. Maybe next year it will be 6. Please. This section is overweighting this article, it needs to be trimmed/removed. Is there anyone else who is willing to step in here and remove this nonsense? I'd suggest putting the F-14 Tomcat in Iranian Service article up for AfD if this stuff is going to stay here. ONE of them has to go. I'd prefer they both go. Dual Freq 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were more of an expert than the Smithsonian. You seem to have a real problem with the fact that the Iranians used this plane more in combat than the U.S. You're exaggeration of attempts to use legitimate sources for this article is biased, and nothing more than vandalism. There's nothing left in the article now to confirm that they ever used the plane in combat at all.- Ken keisel
Thank you for using more informative edit summaries; that is much more helpful, and thank you for catching the typo. As you can verify for yourself, the source does state "Mig-25" [18]. The current text cites both Cooper and other sources and makes it clear which claim comes from where. AerospaceWeb is a publication of qualified experts, not a "chat room", and is in agreement with FAS, Globalsecurity, as well as paper sources provided by Dual Freq above; it is a preferred source because it lays out multiple POV's and is easily verifiable. -- Mmx1 18:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If you look carefully you'll find that aerospaceweb.org articles generally reference each other. I stopped using them for reference when I discovered the "source" for one author's research was an article that referenced as a "source" an article by the first author. That's a cheap way for several authors to try to give their research validity, they simply get together and decide how to reference each others research. GlobalSecurity is better, and updates its information more quickly, but I've noticed that it adds information too quickly and corrects itself so often that using it for reference too often makes the reference bad when they discover their information was wrong to start with, and they correct themselves. I am curious how you can reference NASA and RAND and still discount Smithsonian. They often cross publish the same articles. I have no problem with moving the "combat history" to a seperate page as long as there are links to it at key points in the article, and as long as the "combat history" article contains examples of all the research done on the subject without bias, including Tom Cooper's research.- Ken keisel 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
What about the attrition and numbers, anyone have any better source for that information so I can add it to the variants section? Dual Freq 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |