Operator

An American F-14 with an US Naval pilot and US onboard Avionics I'd agree with. Especially with 6 Phoenix missiles at it's disposal.

Gun Grape

Then you would be wrong. I prefer to listen to the former F-14 flying Naval Aviator WAB member Who said:

Operator

I'm all for a learning experience so maybe he could explain his reasoning a bit more. No doubt he has bucket loads more knowledge than me!!! Pilots and training being all the same it'd be hard to doubt his statement. But all Pilots and training aren't always equal so with these variables why wouldn't an F-14 be able to stand up. Once again not doubting wabpilot's credibility just looking for an explanation seeing as he most likely has 1st hand knowledge.

JA Boomer

wabpilot,

I would also be interested in your comments regarding this topic. Would you mind further explaining why the F-14 is not on the same page as the F-1, F-16, F/A-18 in the air-to-air arena? What specifically is it about the Tomcat that gives puts it at a disadvantage?

On paper, the F-14 would not seem to be at a disadvantage, it had the most powerful radar set of the 'teen' series, and similar missile and avionics stats, although maybe they were not updated as frequently as some of the other airframes.

The only thing I can add from my own experience, is that the F-14 did not seem to very far behind in the turning, maneuverability, and slow speed performance capability when I have seen it flying, or during air show performances.

wabpilot

No prob JA.

The F-14 was designed to do a couple of things really well, and Grumman snuck in a few other benefits along the way. The F-14 is a great fleet air defense fighter. It hauls lots of missiles and lots of fuel and a good sensor set. The AIM-54Cs are supposed to be maneuverable enough to take down a fighter. That's one of those "it depends" kind of things. The 54C is no Sparrow or AIM-120 and it's in no way shape or form a Sidewinder. Still, it can bust up a fighter raid and do some damage. Close up, the 54C is worthless. I'd jettison it in a WVR fight. What the F-14 does really well is shoot down bombers, bomb laden fighters and cruise missiles. That is the primary mission and a mission for which only the F-18F comes reasonably close to performing. Even the F-15C won't kill cruise missiles like the F-14 can. And the F-14 can stay on station 250 miles from the deck for two hours without refueling. In short, mission one is to build a barrier that forces any enemy to launch his missiles at long range. Mission two is to attrit those missiles so the inner ring air defenses do not get overwhelmed. The AIM-54C and AIM-7 will do that better than any other pair of missiles out there. Mission three is to fight against any MiG-23 or earlier fighters and win every time. It will do that very well.

The problem for the F-14 comes against the MiG-29 and Su-27 types. They are both smaller and more maneuverable. Although neither has the avionics capability of the F-14. (Especially the F-14D.) By the time the MiG-29 was available to us for evaluation, my report from 1982 about our boys flying our plane not always being able to beat our boys flying their planes was proved out. Normally we can defeat any Soviet/Russian fighter out there, but not always.

The F-15 is a different problem for the F-14. Unlike the MiGs and Sukhois, the F-15 has great avionics. The pilot workload is much lower for the F-15 than in the F-14, allowing the pilot to concentrate his efforts on the opponent. The F-15 has some dangerous points on the performance envelope, but the flight management computer takes care of those. That is not the case with the F-14. The naval aviator has to spend a lot more mental effort on aircraft control. Couple the F-15's better avionics with its better maneuverability and it is a very difficult adversary for the F-14.

The F-18 and to a lesser extent F-16 are even more manueverable than the F-15. They are both designed with that intent and the US got what it asked for. In any given WVR engagement, an F-18 should be able to gain position on an F-14 within two turns. It's that stark. Like I said earlier, BTDT, got the t-shirt.

Another fighter pilot and I were having a discussion about the USAF's wall of Eagles. He, an F-16 driver, and I agreed that neither his mount, nor mine at the time had much of a chance with only AIM-7s. With AIM-120s and a two to one advantage, he thought a few F-16s might survive an encounter with a wall of Eagles. I think the same is true for the F-14, although with our ability to turn and burn, I think there would be more survivors. With the AIM-54C, I think we might be able to scatter enough Eagles to push through a strike. But, to keep the hole open, it would cost us dearly. I doubt we could get our attack types back. The Eagles would run us off and kill them at their leisure. The only real way to bust through a wall of Eagles is to somehow get their AWACS. And how to do that, I will not discuss.

I saw four F-15As take out 11 adversaries. Four Mirge IVs escorted by seven Mirage F1s. Thankfully, no frogs were harmed. Just some massively wounded egos. The Mirage IV drivers were particularly disheartened, as they fully expected to be able to penetrate our minimized wall of Eagles and deliver their nukes. The ROE were changed for the next day, denying me and my gang the use of our AIM-54s. The results were a little different, one F1 got through, though only as a cruise missile substitute. The F1 was targeted by not one, not two but three different SM-1s leading the umpires to rule that he did not hit our NATO amphibious fleet. Again, no actual frogs were harmed, only their egos.

wabpilot

I can assure you that the USAF trains its F-15 pilots as well as we train our F-14 pilots. Some might say better. F-14 and F-18 aviators came from the same training pipeline so there is no qualitative difference in their performance. The F-18 community has better avionics and an easier to fly aircraft so they definitely have some advantages in a tactical engagement. (Not to mention the F-18 has a lot better maintenance history than the F-14. At any given instant in time all other things being equal there should be more F-18s available than F-14s.)

HistoricalDavid

Could the AIM-54 or a successor be adapted for USAF (and current USN) use? I find the lack of very long-range missiles for them a little odd. Would be useful in faster, longer-range patrols and interceptions.

__________________
HD Ready?

Operator

Thanks for the break down. And just to make sure my point it taken in context. I was more so in the belief that it wouldn't be a forgone conclusion that the 14 would have no chance.

And after reading some of your older posts you put to words what I couldn't.

I didn't mean to convey that the F-14 was equal to the F-15, just that it wasn't a guaranteed victory every time they faced off though as you stated more often than not the F-14 would be defeated. And I've heard many a Viper pilots talk about a rough day at the office going against the Eagles during Red Flags. So F-14's aren't alone.

wabpilot

In the category of anything is possible with enough money and time, yes. But, it would take a much updated AWG-9 to control the AIM-54 and finding an airframe would be difficult. The better solution is the extended range version of the AIM-120, I believe it is the D model. The rather simple reason for no long range missile is this, there is no long range threat.

HistoricalDavid

Backfires, Bears or Blackjacks with AShMs? No matter how dilapidated the Russian military (and potential operators of these systems) seems, it makes sense to prepare for the worst potential threats, not merely the worst current ones.

Would it be easy to stick a booster on the AMRAAM?

JA Boomer

Thanks for the detailed explanation wabpilot!!! Fascinating stuff!

I have always loved the Tomcat, my favorite aircraft hands down; sadly I only got to see it fly twice before it was retired.

Your reply was fairly consistent with my understanding of the situation. The F-14 is the least maneuverable of the ‘teen’ series aircraft, putting it at a disadvantage during a dogfight with these fighters. The same is true with the Fulcrum and Flanker. And since the primary mission of the F-14 was fleet air defense, it might not have been as capable as these other planes in other air-to-air situations. But as your post defends, it was not at all incapable of defeating these other fighter types, and was still one of the baddest cats on the block right up until retirement.

I find it amazing how Grumman managed to create such a capable aircraft. They were asked to deliver a fleet air defense interceptor and they delivered that, plus an aircraft that was very capable in other air-to-air arenas, and also a great air-to-ground platform. I have read that F-14 had wiring from delivery that would allow them to carry air-to-ground weapons, a gift from Grumman that the US Navy did not utilize until the 1990’s.

wabpilot…I could hound you for days on end trying to gain more info on the Tomcat, I will try not to do so, but I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind answering just a few more questions?

The F-14 and F-15 were pitted against each other during the Iran fighter competition in the 70’s. The F-14 won, do you have any information as to why this was…I have read that the F-14 was stripped down to give it more power during the demonstration. Given the information you have shared, it would seem that the F-15 would have the greater thrust-to-weight ratio and is the better overall air-to-air fighter. Was it that the Shah (who was at the fly-off?) was simply impressed with the F-14 or maybe it’s more powerful radar? I’m just wondering why they choose the Tomcat over the Eagle.

As a side note, I just recently read a document that talked about how Canada tried to get the F-14 transferred from Iran to Canada after the change in government in Iran and the US suspending support for the aircraft. Wow, how I wish that deal had gone through! Haha

Also, I’ve read a quote from an F-15 pilot saying “we down get low with the F-14”. Is there any truth to this, in a dogfight is the F-14 more lethal at low altitudes?

Last one, I promise! I know that the F-15E Strike Eagle gives its pilots a fairly bumpy ride down low to the ground due to its low wing loading. Given that the F-14 shares some design similarities with the Tornado and the F-111 (two of the best low-level attackers around) does the F-14 have good high speed low-level handling characteristics? I’m not sure I you and your squadron mates ever practiced low-level bombing techniques.

wabpilot

No problem.

That I do not know.

I think after you helped one of our diplomats get out the chances of Iran giving you anything was over and done with.

Variable geometry. The F-14 is very much at home in lower altitudes. The F-15 is more comfortable up high.

I'll post more on this later, I have to pick the grand kids up from school.

wabpilot

As promised, a little more about bombing from the F-14. Late in my career, I commanded the AIMD at Oceana. As such, I had a bunch of F-14s in my hangar and on my ramp. One fine day, an old friend of mine who by then was at the Pentagon doing something highly classified, showed up at my office asking interesting questions about some old Grumman software. He had some interesting documentation that I had long thought existed somewhere. What he had was the instructions for activating the bombing modes on the AWG-9. We had one of my hagar queens powered up so we could run some tests. Amazing thing, the software on the old bird did just what the highly classifed document said it would, it did appear to give a bombing solution. At least one aimed at the wall. The next step was to try and fly a bombing profile.

That was more difficult. It's one thing for the boss to hook up a GPU to a plane that is being scavenged for parts and aim the IRST at various spots on the wall. That just affirmed most of my crew's impression that I was crazy. It's quite another to order an ordy chief to roll over some inert Mk 76s for release testing. By then, most of the crew thought something was seriously wrong. I had my planning staff going over bomb profiles. I had my engineers checking and re-checking load stresses. I had my ordies loading and unloading bombs from the ejector racks. In a week, I had satisfied myself that the original data on bomb carriage was incomplete but suggested that we could safely depart with Mk 76s. By then, my XO had called the base chaplin, the base commander, the base psychologist and my wife. He was deeply concerned that I might be unhinged. A diagnosis the psychologists were reluctant to endorse since they didn't think of it first. Finally, the base commander called me into his office for a friendly chat.

I showed him the orders I had from my old buddy. He immediately ordered the entire air station to give me what I wanted and stop asking questions. He also orded the base fire department to stand by ready for a catastrophic explosion in or around the AIMD hangars. We picked a day when the USAF didn't have anything planned for the Dare County range so they wouldn't get upset about us dropping bombs. My ABE loaded two Mk. 76s for the test. Taxi and takeoff went just fine as did climb out. The trip to Dare County is minutes at most. I made three passes at the navy target. The first was just to confirm the AWG-9 worked in the air to ground modes. It did. The second was to make a drop. My planners and engineers agreed that a straight and level drop from 12000 feet was safest. So, I dropped from 12000 just as on the test card. The bomb hit the target dead on! The third pass was the same drill. The point was to verify the second had not been a fluke. It wasn't. Another drop and another hit on target!

The trip home was far too short but, I did have to flat hat the tower. It had been ten years since someone at Grumman locked away all their bombing data and now the cat had fangs again!

From there on, I had to pass the program on to VF-101 which was co-located at Oceana NAS. I would bring in a F-14, modify the programming and do a test flight to verify that the AWG-9 and the SER's worked. Then they got the plane and flew to Roosevelt Roads for more advanced testing and to work out the various bombing profiles. It was all done on the cheap, using time available at the AIMD and at VF-101. Fuel was "borrowed" from different accounts. Lots of engineering time was charged to squadrons that had no clue what we were really doing to their planes.

Because the program had no budget and no authorization from the congress, it moved slowly. My only flights were very early test flights. The later tactical flights were done by VF-101. But, I can say the F-14 would have been a good low lever penetrator. However, we did get much better accuracy and safety from the middle altitudes. By 1986, five years after that first fateful afternoon, the F-14 was cleared for limited bomb drops. I was already retired by then. But, it felt good to know somehting I had been in on at the beginning was paying off.

When the A-12 program folded all the work we had done so cheaply in the '80s really kept naval aviation alive. If we had had even a million dollars, I think the F-14 would have stayed in production and been the medium attack aircraft for the navy from about 1989 to the end of the century.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

wabpilot

Between bean counters, the lightweight fighter mafia and stealth, it was tough to do any honest aviatin'. The people who controlled what got presented to congress were all about stealth. We didn't know what that was at the time, they were just black programs. But, those black programs got the development money. Next up were the lightweight fighter mafiosi. Correctly the LWF mafia said they could fight and win against the Sov's newest and secretest designs. But, they were saying a lot of other things like we didn't really need a medium attack aircraft other than the A-12. And all over the place were bean counters. Most of them in uniform I might add. Once honest fighting men and women were now wearing green eyeshades and standing in the way of honest aviatin'. Every once in a while though some good old fashioned honest aviatin' took place.