Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-14 Tomcat.... What should have been!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Fastam View Post
    It's a recycled phrase though, I've heard it many times in the F14 vs F18 debates. The serviceability and maintenance hours required on the F14 are very public. 60-70 man hours every flight hour for the F14. The SH is around 15.
    As it should be. You're talking about a time when the F-14 was actively being phased out, with a handful of squadrons left. Versus a brand new aircraft with parts still being produced from the factory floors.

    I'd be curious to see what the maintenance hours of the F-14A was in 1980.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Fastam View Post
      I am paraphrasing an article that interviewed pilots that transitioned from the F14 to the Super Hornet. In fact it's from the same blog that the first poster linked.

      It's a recycled phrase though, I've heard it many times in the F14 vs F18 debates. The serviceability and maintenance hours required on the F14 are very public. 60-70 man hours every flight hour for the F14. The SH is around 15.

      Do you dispute those numbers? I am always willing to hear difference perspectives.

      Can we talk combat radius? I've looked a the tomcats numbers. In you opinion what was a standard fleet defense misson combat radius?

      .
      can you compare those numbers to an ASF-14 without all of the legacy equipment that made it so maintenance heavy?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by desertswo View Post
        Here is a typical combat load out for a Tomcat when I was calling the shots in the air war "back in the day." Two Phoenix, two Sparrows, and two Sidewinders. However, what else does that puppy have hanging underneath her? That's right, drop tanks. So you are talking not only the Tomcat's internal load that was the quite unusual, but the drop tanks, and I believe a conformal tank as well, but that was after I was working them.


        CAP for the Tomcat was well away from the fleet formation, out along the threat axis well beyond what a Bear of Backfire would need to close to in order to launch. Also, the KA-6B was a much better gas station than anything we have out there today. They routinely gave the flight surgeons the task of driving them so that they could keep their deck quals current. USN flight surgeons are interesting dudes; half in the bag a lot of the time. No, they were great guys, but a little odd now and then. And that AWG9 radar? Never even radiating until cued by the E-2C using the data link. Even then, one of those Soviet bombers wouldn't necessarily know they were being targeted, because the AWG9 was a "track while scan" radar, much like the SPY-1 systems. They could track 48 contacts and engage six if they were carrying six AIM54s, which they never did, although it does give one a bit of a chub looking at them that way. The Phoenix only went active itself until the last few seconds of flight, not enough time for a bomber crew to react. When considering the F-14/AWG9/AIM54/E-2C should be looked at in the same way as the M1A2/Apache/MLRS is considered as one total weapons system, because that is exactly what it was. None of it was ever supposed to be "stand alone."
        Your assessment of the of the AWG9 ,doesn't match it's actual performance in Combat. There a several documented cases during the First gulf war of Mig 25s detecting the AWG9s emissions and exiting the engagement. During the many years of the no fly zone, F14s attempted to shoot down Mig 25s with the AIM54 and failed. It should be noted that in the same engagement F15s also failed to shoot down the Mig25s.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
          can you compare those numbers to an ASF-14 without all of the legacy equipment that made it so maintenance heavy?
          No you can't. It was never built. Nor do we know that if it was built would it have had the performance that gruman said it would on paper. We know from both the super hornet and F35 development and manufactures routinely use highly ambitious performance claims that fall short.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Fastam View Post
            No you can't. It was never built. Nor do we know that if it was built would it have had the performance that gruman said it would on paper. We know from both the super hornet and F35 development and manufactures routinely use highly ambitious performance claims that fall short.
            exactly, you cant.

            but yet you keep talking about the legacy equipment on a tomcat and comparing it to a superhornet.

            apples to oranges.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Fastam View Post
              Your assessment of the of the AWG9 ,doesn't match it's actual performance in Combat. There a several documented cases during the First gulf war of Mig 25s detecting the AWG9s emissions and exiting the engagement. During the many years of the no fly zone, F14s attempted to shoot down Mig 25s with the AIM54 and failed. It should be noted that in the same engagement F15s also failed to shoot down the Mig25s.
              I can't remember if I am recalling history or Red Storm Rising but I recall F-14 crews using the big AWG-9 to actually scare away enemy aircraft .. as in, that was the intention and it worked. Maybe someone can confirm if I am remembering this correctly.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                I can't remember if I am recalling history or Red Storm Rising but I recall F-14 crews using the big AWG-9 to actually scare away enemy aircraft .. as in, that was the intention and it worked. Maybe someone can confirm if I am remembering this correctly.

                Probably a modification of history is what you are recalling. You see the Iraqi werr very familiar with the AWG-9 having fought the Iranians for 8 years. I have a few book abouts the gulf war that detail the engagements. As soon as an F14 turned on the radar (what mode i don't know) they iraqis bugged out. Eventually the usn and usaf got the idea of useing the F14s to push the ire fighters into flights of F15s.

                Chogy would be the most informed poster on those events on this board.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                  exactly, you cant.

                  but yet you keep talking about the legacy equipment on a tomcat and comparing it to a superhornet.

                  apples to oranges.
                  Actually I see it the other way around. You are comparing a paper airplane vs a real plane that has been heavily used in 4 separate conflicts now. There have been lots of pretty drawings of planes with shinny specs over the decades that didn't get built. The advanced tomcat didn't even get a mock up. That should tell you how much of a non starter it was. I refuse to compare a brochure to real life.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                    You know how a picture is worth a thousand words? Well, what do you think? LOL!!:hug: 30 MK82 bombs!



                    You can sort of tell about the quality of a USN airplane, by the length of time it takes the Air Force to raise their hands and say, "ME TOO!!!!" In the case of the A-7, it wasn't long, and they replaced three legacy aircraft with it. It was indeed very good in the interdiction mode, as it replaced the A-1 Skyraider in both services as well. It was a tough, bomb truck, but as I said, load it up with AA weapons and it could hold its own against a lot of aircraft that were in the inventory in other countries back in the day. The guys that flew them loved their jobs, I know that.

                    I was briefly out of the AAW picture, doing my fleet engineer gig, either teaching or inspecting, when the Hornet actually hit the fleet, so I wasn't really aware of the conversations that were probably going on, but I can't imagine the Marines, who track the number of main gun tubes aboard ships in the Navy inventory would have been too happy about reduced range and load for an airplane that is supposed to perform both the CAS and deep interdiction roles.
                    Correct me if im wrong here as I don't know a lot about the A7. But didt it have an air to ground radar only? Thus making utilization of the AIM7 impossible? Their is a former A7 pilot over on F16.net. im fairly sure that he mentions no air to air modes. But his was an air force plane.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Fastam View Post
                      Your assessment of the of the AWG9 ,doesn't match it's actual performance in Combat. There a several documented cases during the First gulf war of Mig 25s detecting the AWG9s emissions and exiting the engagement. During the many years of the no fly zone, F14s attempted to shoot down Mig 25s with the AIM54 and failed. It should be noted that in the same engagement F15s also failed to shoot down the Mig25s.
                      Gee, I only monitored both Northern and Southern Watch for the Chairman as a battle watch commander in the NMCC over the three years of my stint on the Joint Staff. I wouldn't have a clue about what was REALLY going on.

                      My "assessment" isn't an assessment at all, but real knowledge from documents that have "SECRET NOFORN" emblazoned across the top and bottoms of both the front and rear covers and the titles of which begin with acronyms like "NATOPS" and "NTP." See, when one graduated from the SWOS Department Head Course, a six month long marathon of academic pain conducted at SWOS in Newport, Rhode Island, the final exam if you will was the Tactical Action Officer exam. You didn't pass, you weren't going back to sea. You don't even want to know about that, because it literally took all day and involved being able to practically apply a data dump of every factoid from both the Soviet and US order of battle. In other words, I've forgotten more about all of this stuff than most people here. Add to that my experience in actual employment of all of these systems from the aircraft to the SM family of missiles to the MK-45 5"/54, to SLQ-32, and when it's really pucker time, R2D2, or as my British friends refer to him, "the Dalek," and I'm betting that there are just a few things you won't find in your book.

                      Now, just so we all understand my point regarding the Soviet crews knowing they were targeted, I didn't say they wouldn't detect the AWG9. I said they wouldn't necessarily know they were being targeted, and they wouldn't. It's not like the big AN/SPG-55B fire control radars on the NTU Leahy-class cruiser in which I was chief engineer, which when pointed at an aircraft left little doubt in the mind of the crew that they had been lit up and their lives for the next little bit might just be as the 17th Century Thomas Hobbes famously wrote in Leviathan, ". . . nasty, brutish, and short." With the AWG9, they'd know they were being painted but that's about it. Why? Because, once again, it's track while scan. If the MIG drivers exited the engagement it's because they figured that they might just have the cock if they continued on their present vector.

                      More to the point, one REALLY cannot appreciate what the engagement controllers in the E-2C are doing as part of the great game, because it is they, even more than the fleet AAW commander, my CO, who really were running the show and when going silent sam on the bad guys, with only the Hawkeye's APS-125/126 radiating, the targets were even more clueless. Again, being painted, but not specifically targeted . . . and yet they were, and the Hawkeye was feeding the Tomcats all they needed to know via TADIL C. No voice comms at all, so again, the bad guys wouldn't necessarily know they are being targeted because a lot of the vocal chatter characteristic of an engagement controller, whether air, land, or sea based, running the show just wasn't there. You know what most people don't know is that the Air Force E-3 Sentry's didn't originally have data link capability planned but it was added simply because it was assumed that in a Joint world, they'd be controlling F-14s at some point.

                      What was really cool is that I could see the entire engagement and all of the data being exchanged via, at that time, TADIL A/B, aka Link 11 at the time. While the guys in the back of the Hawkeye or Sentry, or my own guys down in "tracker alley" were controlling the engagement, I had overall responsibility during my six hour watch period. The TAOs in that situation "control by negation." In other words, if the guys doing the leg work give an order with which I or my CO didn't agree, I could step in and reorder the priorities. That might be necessary if, as but one example, friendlies have wandered into the Missile Engagement Zone (MEZ) and we were in imminent danger of a blue on blue engagement. That's why the fleet AAW commander is the senior CO of any CGs in the force; a senior Captain in his second command ride. Only he has both the air picture, and the AAW missile defense picture necessary to really perform the duty. He, or his TAOs, are the guys who are authorized to do things like announce, "This is Alpha Whiskey, air warning red, weapons tight," or "weapons free." When it's free then the devil's gone down to Georgia and some crazy shit if fixing to transpire . . . or what we call "fun."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        ^Just to fill in one small gap that some might not realize, a radar in dedicated tracking mode is different from a radar in search mode. Your system might alert you to a search signal but some (most) fighters can also track without changing the signal in a detectable way. Also, the TADIL-C hardware was still in the E-3 until recently; I can't remember if it was removed during an IFF upgrade a couple of years ago or if they were going to leave it until the jet went under the knife for the big Block 40/45 upgrade taking place right now.

                        Originally posted by Fastam View Post
                        And how many F14Ds were built? Only 55. Why? Because it was too expensive, not because of the development costs. The cost of meep the damn things in the air. The maintence hours were horrendous.

                        Just because the F14 had a datalink doesn't mean it could do the things the current super hornet can via CEC. The APG71 while a massive improvement over the AW9 in reliability, is still a generation behind the APG 79.
                        I'm totally not arguing on the maintenance cost issue. The Super Hornet absolutely wins on that count. But to use technology that did not exist when the F-14 was retired isn't really making a fair comparison. The APG-79 didn't even start to come on line until several years later, 07 or 08 I think. The APG-71 was firmly 1980s tech, and superior to the APG-73 in service at the same time. I seriously doubt the Navy would've left either fighter out in the cold with how far the newer radar sets have come in recent years. If you really want to argue that fighters now, 10 years later, are better, I can understand your case. But that's the case with *every* fighter. F-16s and F-15s have seen upgrades that make them noticeably superior to their decade-previous selves, too. My main reasons for calling the F-14 better are that for the air-to-air defense mission, it had the superior kinematics, range, and (until recently) radar for a BVR intercept. Air to ground, the Tomcat wins on range and payload. There's no question that the superior avionics and modern radar make life much easier for a Super Hornet driver these days though, but for all the talk of "it's not the hardware, it's the pilot" that's only half the truth.

                        Its funny you mentioned Afghanistan. I had read several account if them being very important because their buddy tanking ablitye alowed them to refuel legacy hornets and F14s. Plus keep up with a strike package. Something the S3 could not do.
                        Supporting a strike from the Gulf into Afghanistan using tank-configured Hornets would be a nightmare. Just doing rough guesstimates in my head (it was something we knew about but not in detail because thank god we had KC-135s and 10s), it would be more tankers than strikers.
                        Last edited by Jimmy; 09 Dec 14,, 07:48.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                          Gee, I only monitored both Northern and Southern Watch for the Chairman as a battle watch commander in the NMCC over the three years of my stint on the Joint Staff. I wouldn't have a clue about what was REALLY going on.

                          My "assessment" isn't an assessment at all, but real knowledge from documents that have "SECRET NOFORN" emblazoned across the top and bottoms of both the front and rear covers and the titles of which begin with acronyms like "NATOPS" and "NTP." See, when one graduated from the SWOS Department Head Course, a six month long marathon of academic pain conducted at SWOS in Newport, Rhode Island, the final exam if you will was the Tactical Action Officer exam. You didn't pass, you weren't going back to sea. You don't even want to know about that, because it literally took all day and involved being able to practically apply a data dump of every factoid from both the Soviet and US order of battle. In other words, I've forgotten more about all of this stuff than most people here. Add to that my experience in actual employment of all of these systems from the aircraft to the SM family of missiles to the MK-45 5"/54, to SLQ-32, and when it's really pucker time, R2D2, or as my British friends refer to him, "the Dalek," and I'm betting that there are just a few things you won't find in your book.

                          Now, just so we all understand my point regarding the Soviet crews knowing they were targeted, I didn't say they wouldn't detect the AWG9. I said they wouldn't necessarily know they were being targeted, and they wouldn't. It's not like the big AN/SPG-55B fire control radars on the NTU Leahy-class cruiser in which I was chief engineer, which when pointed at an aircraft left little doubt in the mind of the crew that they had been lit up and their lives for the next little bit might just be as the 17th Century Thomas Hobbes famously wrote in Leviathan, ". . . nasty, brutish, and short." With the AWG9, they'd know they were being painted but that's about it. Why? Because, once again, it's track while scan. If the MIG drivers exited the engagement it's because they figured that they might just have the cock if they continued on their present vector.

                          More to the point, one REALLY cannot appreciate what the engagement controllers in the E-2C are doing as part of the great game, because it is they, even more than the fleet AAW commander, my CO, who really were running the show and when going silent sam on the bad guys, with only the Hawkeye's APS-125/126 radiating, the targets were even more clueless. Again, being painted, but not specifically targeted . . . and yet they were, and the Hawkeye was feeding the Tomcats all they needed to know via TADIL C. No voice comms at all, so again, the bad guys wouldn't necessarily know they are being targeted because a lot of the vocal chatter characteristic of an engagement controller, whether air, land, or sea based, running the show just wasn't there. You know what most people don't know is that the Air Force E-3 Sentry's didn't originally have data link capability planned but it was added simply because it was assumed that in a Joint world, they'd be controlling F-14s at some point.

                          What was really cool is that I could see the entire engagement and all of the data being exchanged via, at that time, TADIL A/B, aka Link 11 at the time. While the guys in the back of the Hawkeye or Sentry, or my own guys down in "tracker alley" were controlling the engagement, I had overall responsibility during my six hour watch period. The TAOs in that situation "control by negation." In other words, if the guys doing the leg work give an order with which I or my CO didn't agree, I could step in and reorder the priorities. That might be necessary if, as but one example, friendlies have wandered into the Missile Engagement Zone (MEZ) and we were in imminent danger of a blue on blue engagement. That's why the fleet AAW commander is the senior CO of any CGs in the force; a senior Captain in his second command ride. Only he has both the air picture, and the AAW missile defense picture necessary to really perform the duty. He, or his TAOs, are the guys who are authorized to do things like announce, "This is Alpha Whiskey, air warning red, weapons tight," or "weapons free." When it's free then the devil's gone down to Georgia and some crazy shit if fixing to transpire . . . or what we call "fun."
                          So given that you were air warefare officer. With intimate detials of the no fly zones. Do you dispute that the F14 more than once couldnt engage iraqie migs because either A) the AIM54 missed. Or B) the Iraqi fighters detected F14s emissions and left the engagement?

                          Btw all accounts of these incidents i read say that the F14s had awacs support.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                            ^Just to fill in one small gap that some might not realize, a radar in dedicated tracking mode is different from a radar in search mode. Your system might alert you to a search signal but some (most) fighters can also track without changing the signal in a detectable way. Also, the TADIL-C hardware was still in the E-3 until recently; I can't remember if it was removed during an IFF upgrade a couple of years ago or if they were going to leave it until the jet went under the knife for the big Block 40/45 upgrade taking place right now.



                            I'm totally not arguing on the maintenance cost issue. The Super Hornet absolutely wins on that count. But to use technology that did not exist when the F-14 was retired isn't really making a fair comparison. The APG-79 didn't even start to come on line until several years later, 07 or 08 I think. The APG-71 was firmly 1980s tech, and superior to the APG-73 in service at the same time. I seriously doubt the Navy would've left either fighter out in the cold with how far the newer radar sets have come in recent years. If you really want to argue that fighters now, 10 years later, are better, I can understand your case. But that's the case with *every* fighter. F-16s and F-15s have seen upgrades that make them noticeably superior to their decade-previous selves, too. My main reasons for calling the F-14 better are that for the air-to-air defense mission, it had the superior kinematics, range, and (until recently) radar for a BVR intercept. Air to ground, the Tomcat wins on range and payload. There's no question that the superior avionics and modern radar make life much easier for a Super Hornet driver these days though, but for all the talk of "it's not the hardware, it's the pilot" that's only half the truth.



                            Supporting a strike from the Gulf into Afghanistan using tank-configured Hornets would be a nightmare. Just doing rough guesstimates in my head (it was something we knew about but not in detail because thank god we had KC-135s and 10s), it would be more tankers than strikers.

                            Did the F14 really have much superior kinematics whilist loaded for combat? Just how fast could a tomact go with even the 2 AIM54/7/9 combo? Definitely not faster than the aerodynamiclly superior eagle which couldn't break mach 1.5-6 combat loaded.

                            A super hornet will do Mach 1.4 with 6 AIM120s and 2 aim9s. The APG79 matches the bvr performance of even the APG71 the AIM120d has equal range as the Aim54 but a better chance of hitting the target.

                            Within visual range a tomact is no match at all for the SH even without playing with HOBS heaters.

                            Do i really need to post the videos of super hornets doing flanker maneuvers but whilist carrying 8 missiles? Turns that no tomact would ever dream of trying?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Fastam View Post
                              Did the F14 really have much superior kinematics whilist loaded for combat? Just how fast could a tomact go with even the 2 AIM54/7/9 combo? Definitely not faster than the aerodynamiclly superior eagle which couldn't break mach 1.5-6 combat loaded.

                              A super hornet will do Mach 1.4 with 6 AIM120s and 2 aim9s. The APG79 matches the bvr performance of even the APG71 the AIM120d has equal range as the Aim54 but a better chance of hitting the target.

                              Within visual range a tomact is no match at all for the SH even without playing with HOBS heaters.

                              Do i really need to post the videos of super hornets doing flanker maneuvers but whilist carrying 8 missiles? Turns that no tomact would ever dream of trying?
                              Fastam, stop stating that the current F/A-18E/F has capabilities in some ways superior to the F-14 Tomcat 20 years ago. WE KNOW. It's what happens when you compare something new to something old. To be honest, all your doing is pumping the F-14's tires, because essentially, only recently has the Super Hornet started the replicate some of the capabilities the F-14 provided decades earlier, with the introduction of the AESA radar set and AIM-120D long range missiles.

                              This shouldn't be surprising, given that the Tomcat was designed primarily as a fleet air defense fighter and the Super Hornet took it's form from a multi-role fighter that was developed from a lightweight fighter prototype. The Super Hornet is a great fighter, so was the Tomcat. Sweet.

                              I don't think anyone is arguing the Hornet is/was tighter turning than the Tomcat. As yes, please feel to post the videos you speak of, I'd enjoy watching them.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                                Where did you get the cruise speeds for the F-14 and F-15? These numbers fascinate me, as I would have guessed the F/A-18 the slowest design, cruise or otherwise.
                                Google again, typed in "Super Hornet Cruise Speed" and did the same with both the Eagle and Tomcat. I cross checked only with one or two military sites / Wikipedia.

                                I beginning to think that when they designed the Super - Hornet, they did so in name only. It's a big disservice to the engineers that designed it in collaboration with the USN... and the USN would have given them some metrics they wanted to say the plane is not good. Invariably bigger will get you further there is no doubt, my only point was how much further.

                                Im just a douche - but the SH wasn't designed to be an inferior platform. It was designed and developed and delivered on time budget and cost. That tells me that the USN kept out requirements that it must be able to run faster or feature new cutting edge features.

                                With the greatest respect to those in the know here, and it hasn't exactly called it a shit plane... merely an inferior plane I'd be wary of undermining confidence or conversely giving confidence to a potential adversary. The bottom of the line is, It's maintenance hours are much less, it's sortie rate is therefore much higher, and when it does sortie, it potentially completes its mission quicker. In addition to all the above, the whole lot of them are networked and can carry a missile just as effective as the AIM 54 ever was (except more reliable), and any of them can tank. Who the fark would want to tangle with a dynamic target loaded with that?! You have a sortie rate generation that is so large, is it even practically feasible to have more than 40 Hornets on deck?

                                BTW stwo, there is something very very sexy about a corsair loaded up :).
                                Appreciate the stories as usual.
                                Ego Numquam

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X