Balancing the F-14

The missile was large and heavy and an absolute pain in the ass to move around on deck and mount to Tomcats. Since the Tomcat was the only thing in the inventory that used it, it also took up storage space (a considerable amount of it). Sparrow missiles were used on both the Tomcat and the Hornet, the Navy loves cross platform use because it lets them carry more. With the disappearance of the soviet bomber threat, there was no reason to keep a large, expensive missile that was only used on one platform, when looking forward at the sorts of conflicts the US was likely to fight the Sparrow could do the job more than adequately, while being cheaper, easier to mount and move, and take up less space on the carrier.

Space on a carrier and commonality with other platforms is likely a very big factor, yes.

The Phoenix has never been replaced. If you're referring to the AMRAAM, that was a replacement for the Sparrow, using quite a bit of technology learned from the Phoenix.

I am talking in the USN inventory not the Tomcat specifically, the replacement would be the AIM-120 (Which as you said, also replaced the AIM-7). So yes, it was replaced. Even if something doesnt get a direct replacement it still does get replaced. Thats like saying the F-14 never was replaced. Sure, it never had a direct replacement that could fill the roles an F-14 could do - but in effect it was nonetheless replaced.

F-14s were relagated to carrier defense during ODS, as was their originally intended role, giving way to the Eagles for work over country. Tomcats employed in this role traditionally did fly with two Phoenixs, however they were not deployed in a location to use them. This is part of the politics of the war, not because the Tomcat was perceived of as inferior.

I know that they had carrier defense role during Desert Storm and neither did i say the F-14 is inferior. It has the same AIM-7 missiles as an F-15 would have and a more powerful radar etc.

My point was this: If a capability is just THAT good, military planners would logically incorporate it in their overall strategy and ignore the politics. Not all F-14's would be needed for BARCAP anyway, but i will give you that politics of war is a good enough reason and the rest is just pure speculation.

The Phoenix seeker head was used as the model for the AMRAAM, if you're talking about sheer size, it's because the threat of a large bomber force is no longer there. The AMRAAM and similar missiles has a sufficient range to handle the most common threat, a fighter sized target, furthermore AMRAAMs are deployable from every single platform, from Harriers to Eagles to Falcons and Hornets. If a similarly sized missile of the Phoenix were deployed, it'd be limited to two on Eagles and that'd be it. The military doesn't like super specialized weapons only available on a single airframe, especially not after the cold war where military budgets shrank considerably.

I am talking about a missile similar in doctrinal use to the Phoenix. There seems to be little to no interest in it despite the re-emergance of Russian Long Range Aviation. This could be attributed to reducing defense budgets quite easily however.

Because of weight. Each Phoenix missile adds an additional 1000lbs to the aircraft, and each Phoenix rail adds another 400lbs. Adding that much weight, around 8000lbs to a Tomcat expected to get into a dogfight, would have significant effects on the performance of the aircraft, putting them at a disadvantage.

Makes sense. However that also makes it as not ideal to use against fighters then, simply because of its extra weight which probably is another reason for its retirement, just not a very practical missile for the plane, ground crew or hosting ship.

Keep in mind that i am talking about the people that say stuff like "AIM-54 is the best missile ever they should have just mass produced them and scrapped all other programs etc" :thumbup:

My point was this: If a capability is just THAT good, military planners would logically incorporate it in their overall strategy and ignore the politics.

That's funny.

Tell me- do you have any knowledge on the matter of the USAF failing to extend E-3 flights to the east, thereby giving both a coverage blind spot to radar range along the Gulf, as well as a Link reception dead zone? And that Navy planners were required to facilitate full Link capability using a series of land-based repeaters, along with miles upon miles of hard cable run along the desert?

If Link is so good, why wouldn't the USAF want to help the USN facilitate having access to it?

I am talking about a missile similar in doctrinal use to the Phoenix. There seems to be little to no interest in it despite the re-emergance of Russian Long Range Aviation. This could be attributed to reducing defense budgets quite easily however.

Don't anybody tell him about the range of the AIM-120C-8/D.

That's funny.

 

Tell me- do you have any knowledge on the matter of the USAF failing to extend E-3 flights to the east, thereby giving both a coverage blind spot to radar range along the Gulf, as well as a Link reception dead zone? And that Navy planners were required to facilitate full Link capability using a series of land-based repeaters, along with miles upon miles of hard cable run along the desert?

 

If Link is so good, why wouldn't the USAF want to help the USN facilitate having access to it?

 

 

 

Don't anybody tell him about the range of the AIM-120C-8/D.

1. I ended that statement with "It could easily be explained with politics of war and it is just speculation"

2. I said doctrinally, you are speaking about range. Not the same thing.

1. It's not speculation at all, given the USAF's claims of incompatible IFF (invalid) and overland radar performance (proven invalid).

2. How many currently operational USN Bug drivers, in both flavors, do you know to speak about USN doctrinal employment of the AIM-120D? Because I've got a whole stash of them, and they'll tell you that the reason Navy, for it's part, wanted the range was doctrinal against a particular nature of threat.

Don't ever confuse your perception of what is expressed by a force is the nature of it's actual intent.

1. It's not speculation at all, given the USAF's claims of incompatible IFF (invalid) and overland radar performance (proven invalid).

Sure, i simply did not know that. My OP was a question which Tinak replied to and i more or less agreed and said that it made sense together with a clarification of my original thought.

2. How many currently operational USN Bug drivers, in both flavors, do you know to speak about USN doctrinal employment of the AIM-120D? Because I've got a whole stash of them, and they'll tell you that the reason Navy, for it's part, wanted the range was doctrinal against a particular nature of threat.

If absolute stand off range as the Phoenix was designed for would still be a priority, a bigger missile body could accomplish that due to the same effective engines that makes the AIM-120C-8/D achieve that impressive range. Now there might be other limitations, such as effective ways of guiding said missile over those extreme ranges, the idea that they might not maintain guidance over that distance and a million other things. Truth is however, from a design stand point there is not a single missile in the USN or USAF inventory that fills the specific role that the AIM-54 did in the 1970s and 80s when that range was absolutely unmatched.

Don't ever confuse your perception of what is expressed by a force is the nature of it's actual intent.

I dont even know what you mean by this, also no need for the passive aggressive tone from your first post.

I think it has been established that the Aim-54 is extremely bad against fighters, as it was meant to shoot down Soviet bombers at long range.

Really? Where was this established?

Certainly the USN tested the AIM-54 against maneuvering targets and it was the first US missile that could hit a target pulling more than 1-2 Gs.

It shot down a QF-86 drone pulling 6 Gs in 1973, the above shot is testing for the AIM-54C. Notice this is a close range tail-chase shot. Doesn't seem to be the way one would test an "anti-bomber" missile.

For more details from a Tomcat driver, check out this article:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

The mid-portion of the article has a nice discussion on the intended use of AIM-54 and how that changed in the mid-80s, plus the expected benefits of the AIM-54C vs the AIM-54A.

I wouldn't read too much into the Phoenix's retirement as a sign that it couldn't hit a maneuvering target. The AIM-120 offered the capabilities of the AIM-54 (except the range, which was not often that relevant) in a missile that was 1/3rd the weight.

Even an F/A-18C can carry 6 AIM-120s without much performance hit, while even the large and every powerful F-14B/D would notice a performance hit from carrying 6 AIM-54s (combined weight of roughly 8,000 lbs!).

A missile smaller than the AIM-7 with the capabilities of the AIM-54 was the dream, but it was not feasible in 1972 - hence the Phoenix. By the early 1990s, it was possible and the other 4th gen fighters received the AMRAAM. The range wasn't worth carrying a missile that was 3 times heavier, hence it disappeared when the Tomcat retired.

I have yet to see a credible source state the AIM-54 couldn't hit a fighter. Do you have one you could share?

-Nick

I don't think you have to be afraid for a long range shot aim-54. When you go full defensive you will bleed its energy quickly. Though I think lethality will be much higher when it is fired at aim-120 distances or slightly longer ranges. It will definatly be Lethal for fighters at those ranges.

there were many Migs shoot down by 54 at Iran Iraq war,

but 'murica didn't like persia boyz had much victory and run the bird better then them.

so they just didn't confirm the result. lol

they did this type of cheat game such many times, not only korea but also vietnam,

very funny system the 'murica military have, if they doesn't like or feel shame about the result/victory/lost, they just ignore them, just like ostrich.

Just complementing what Blacklion213 said, in this video you can see an AIM-54C turning hard and hitting a target:

That was a very tight turn wasn't it? :)

Edit:

I think the target hit by the AIM-54C in the video was the QF-4 that Blacklion said.

That being said, I think it has been established that the Aim-54 is extremely bad against fighters, as it was meant to shoot down Soviet bombers at long range.

Lol that's what they said about the Sa-2 :lol:

Balance the F-14? because this is a flight simulation........Picard facepalm needed. SO much social media misinformation in this thread. I'm going to develop a flight sim called Opinions Matter, where armchair commando opinion dictates the FMs and all parts of the "simulation".......

that's called war thunder

I don't think you have to be afraid for a long range shot aim-54. When you go full defensive you will bleed its energy quickly. Though I think lethality will be much higher when it is fired at aim-120 distances or slightly longer ranges. It will definatly be Lethal for fighters at those ranges.

The problem is that u wont know the aim 54 is on its way until its within 10 miles, and then u have about 15-20 seconds to react. Unless u wanna go "full defensive" as soon as u see a F14 on your RWR.

Balance the F-14? because this is a flight simulation........Picard facepalm needed. SO much social media misinformation in this thread. I'm going to develop a flight sim called Opinions Matter, where armchair commando opinion dictates the FMs and all parts of the "simulation".......

To be fair that's the fault of some people who didn't comprehend the OP, which was spot on in that it was a request for another aircraft with a comparable/favourable set of features to balance out the sides, rather than requesting a nerf of the F-14's capabilities for game "balance".

If the Aim-54 becomes a problem, it'll probably be mission designers who tackle it by simply disallowing it, forcing the F14 to take a Sparrow+Sidewinder loadout only. Which if we're honest, won't be a problem, as the -F/-M versions we'll probably get still have a range of nearly 40nm (according to Wikipedia).

3. Why was it not used more extensively in the air-to-air role in for example Desert Storm? Surely stand off range means less overflight of Iraqi SAM and therefor less risk to american crews yet the USAF F-15's did all of that with AIM-7's.

The Tomcats didn't have a sufficiently reliable IFF system and were rarely or never cleared for BVR in Desert Storm, hence no reason to carry the Phoenix. (AFAIK this went for everything other than the F-15C, which had the NCTR system.)

The Navy and Marines were also really, really bad at A2A in Desert Storm:

Combined, the Navy/Marines fired 21 Sparrows and 38 Sidewinders from F-18s and F-14s scoring one kill with a Sparrow (PK = 4.8%) and two with Sidewinders (PK = 5.3%)

(source: Promise and Reality: Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Combat, p. 16)

Also, you really shouldn't talk about the O.G. Phoenix and the AIM-54C as if it was the same missile. It might look the same, but I'd wager my butt that there differences in reliability are an order of magnitude or greater.

AIM54c was designed up to the spec to intercept sea skimming mach 2-3 sea skimming nuclear ASMs.

I think it should do fine against a often subsonic fighter sized target. ;D

The Tomcats didn't have a sufficiently reliable IFF system and were rarely or never cleared for BVR in Desert Storm, hence no reason to carry the Phoenix. (AFAIK this went for everything other than the F-15C, which had the NCTR system.)

 

The Navy and Marines were also really, really bad at A2A in Desert Storm:

 

 

 

(source: Promise and Reality: Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Combat, p. 16)

I don't think you can make such a strong assertion off just one statistic (or an opinion piece)?

Especially in this case where you are simply dividing kills by missile launches.

For example, in one of the only real USN engagement of the Desert Storm conflict, a pair of VFA-81 Hornets fired at a pair of intercepting MiG-21s. Lt CMDR Mark Fox initially fired a Sidewinder. He watched the trajectory and feared it would miss so he launched a Sparrow. The Sidewinder still hit and destroyed the MiG-21 while the Sparrow hit the remaining MiG-21 fuselage. Shouldn't both shots count as a hit? Pk for the Sparrow is now 0.5 despite a real Pk of 1.0 (accounting for the wingman's single Sparrow shot which was a kill as well).

Also, there were (probably) a lot of shots taken out of parameters with a very low Pk, likely during an intercept of a fleeing aircraft where the pilots "try it", but don't expect success. Should this qualify as "really really bad at A2A" when if they never took the shot the statistics and perception would have been much better?

From what I have read (which was a summary by "Hey Joe" Parsons several years ago), the VF-1 F-14A shoot down of a Mi-8 was the only F-14 encounter with enemy aircraft. Everything else was (perhaps) a few radar contacts at long range of aircraft fleeing and no shots were taken. The VF-1 Tomcat launched a lone Sidewinder and scored a hit.

Lt. Nick Mongillo fired a single sparrow at a MiG-21 and scored a hit. These don't seem like instances of poor performance. Do you have details on the many other shots that took place? I can't find any mention of these other engagements.

-Nick

PS - I am also confused, why is the need to fire multiple missiles to destroy an enemy aircraft a sign of "poor performance"? Certainly other weapons generally require multiple shots to be effective. I'd love to see the Pk for a US 0.50" machine gun round during WWII....probably a lot of zeroes in front of it. :)

Since you only carry 6-8 missiles even in the best case and they cost the tax payer tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars each, you really shouldn't waste them. Taking a lot of shots that have a low likelihood of hitting is at the very least a sign of poor discipline, but also indicates that your pilots may not have a proper understanding of the engagement envelope. Either way it's a failure in training and can be remedied. You Americans might be able to afford such things (at least in the short term) but lesser air forces usually do not acquire more live missiles than maybe 2-4 combat loads per aircraft. I don't believe more than a few hundred live rb 04's were ever built, for example. That's how expensive those things are.

e: Higby just cites "GWAPS" for his numbers and I really can't be bothered to go read through all that

Since you only carry 6-8 missiles even in the best case and they cost the tax payer tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars each, you really shouldn't waste them. Taking a lot of shots that have a low likelihood of hitting is at the very least a sign of poor discipline, but also indicates that your pilots may not have a proper understanding of the engagement envelope. Either way it's a failure in training and can be remedied. You Americans might be able to afford such things (at least in the short term) but lesser air forces usually do not acquire more live missiles than maybe 2-4 combat loads per aircraft. I don't believe more than a few hundred live rb 04's were ever built, for example. That's how expensive those things are.

 

e: Higby just cites "GWAPS" for his numbers and I really can't be bothered to go read through all that

Better to ensure a hit with overkill than to let an enemy through to hurt your friends, something more combat experienced Air Forces teach to their pilots. :music_whistling:

Higby just cites "GWAPS" for his numbers and I really can't be bothered to go read through all that

So you agree - best not to make sweeping subjective statements such as "really really bad at A2A" without the specifics. :)

It's interesting that half of F-16 launches during Desert Storm were "accidental", wonder if the USN/USMC was similarly afflicted (and why...?).

also indicates that your pilots may not have a proper understanding of the engagement envelope.

I didn't realize that I had pilots...;) I'm not trying to make this an issue of Nationalism - I would have made these comments if you said such things (pretty rude IMHO) about the French Airforce, RAF, RCAF, Swedish Airforce, SAAF, JASDF, etc, etc.

Since you only carry 6-8 missiles even in the best case and they cost the tax payer tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars each, you really shouldn't waste them. Taking a lot of shots that have a low likelihood of hitting is at the very least a sign of poor discipline, but also indicates that your pilots may not have a proper understanding of the engagement envelope.

Yes possibly (though a classic situation for humans under duress - no modern pilots have much true combat experience - especially in air-to-air). No doubt pilots were also motivated to make the most of any opportunity (shootdowns can be quite good for a pilots advancement and career). Plus, the cost of the weapon is still quite small compared to the high value of the human operator or the direct cost of the airframe (like the British say: "penny-wise, but pound foolish"). After Lt. Scott Speicher was shot down by a MiG-25, most pilots were taking the enemy threat quite seriously.

Still, I haven't read a thing about these other potential "engagements/weapons launches". I'm curious about the circumstances - if anyone else on the forum can shed light - LunaticFringe??

I don't believe more than a few hundred live rb 04's were ever built, for example. That's how expensive those things are.

That's an issue and since this thread is Tomcat related, combat use of the Phoenix was subject to much more scrutiny because of the cost.

Instead of comparing the Sidewinder and Sparrow to the RB 04, wouldn't the Skyflash be a more relevant comparison? Would pilots receive the same degree of criticism for using the Skyflash if they perceived a threat?

-Nick

I didn't mean "your" as in "the pilots belonging to you degenerate Americans", just in a more general sense. I should just have written "the pilots" instead, that would have been clearer. No nationalism and no offense intended :)

Instead of comparing the Sidewinder and Sparrow to the RB 04, wouldn't the Skyflash be a more relevant comparison? Would pilots receive the same degree of criticism for using the Skyflash if they perceived a threat?

I actually found the numbers for the rb 04. There were 315 rb 04E's delivered (to be used on a total of about a hundred AJ 37's - you get one load of two missiles per aircraft, basically). Weirdly enough though there were 889 rb 05A's (that's the MCLOS one). I guess it was cheaper since no radar.

Available numbers (source: Sipri) indicate there were around 1800 Skyflashes purchased for around 150 JA 37's. I suspect that number may be too high but let's assume it's correct, which gives around ten missiles per aircraft, and it could only carry two at a time.

Add to this the fact that any war at all for the Swedish air force during the Cold War would almost by definition be an existential one (that's why you see the stuff about deploying E1 completely without regard for own losses in a "decisive situation") and that the Swedish air force didn't even attempt to escort strike aircraft - it was all about trying to shoot down (nuclear) bombers or Il-76's dropping paratroopers. With that in mind I think that yes, a JA 37 pilot would definitely be disciplined about taking missile shots irresponsibly.

That's a different doctrine for a different war, though. Still, the USAF had radically different numbers in ODS, indicating that they at least did something different.

e: at least on the F-16 there were something like 30 accidental Sidewinder launches in ODS simply because of poor ergonomics. Don't know if this was the case on any other aircraft though.

Speaking of David "Hey Joe" Parsons a direct quote of his tells me that A-A config was decided at squadron level (Libya mid 1980s) - e.g. VF-102 chose AIM-7/9 because they expected to get into dogfights so wanted a lighter loadout - but VF-33 used 2 of each AIM-9/7/54 despite the extra weight.

There was no Vis ID requirement in the late 80s because Libya had MiG-25PDS / MiG-23MF/ML with all aspect BVR weapons - in the 1989 engagement the F-14As fired the first 2 x AIM-7s at over 10 miles (both missed).

The Tomcats didn't have a sufficiently reliable IFF system and were rarely or never cleared for BVR in Desert Storm, hence no reason to carry the Phoenix. (AFAIK this went for everything other than the F-15C, which had the NCTR system.)

 

The Navy and Marines were also really, really bad at A2A in Desert Storm:

 

 

 

(source: Promise and Reality: Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Combat, p. 16)

 

 

Also, you really shouldn't talk about the O.G. Phoenix and the AIM-54C as if it was the same missile. It might look the same, but I'd wager my butt that there differences in reliability are an order of magnitude or greater.

Eh kinda but nor really. Joint force cohesion wasn't up to snuff in DS1. AIM-54 was carried but the F-14 had trouble tanking of the Air Force tankers at altitude with the 2/3/2 loadout+tanks. THe Air Force tankers flew at the higher cruise speeds Air Force aircraft flew at and assumed the F-14 tanked like and F-15. The F-15 had NCTR on its radar and could therefore satisfy all shoot criteria, the AWG-9 did not, even though it was discussed adding it in the early 80s. The F-14D's APG-71 had NCTR, but wasn't ready for combat in 1991. So the Air Force was correctly leery about using the Tomcat BVR over land- where there were always more friendlies than bogeys, and they were afraid of blue on blue shots. So it was decided the F-14 would do blue water defense and escort some strikes. During the strikes, the Iraqis specifically held their fighters until the F-14s flew by, then blasted at the attack aircraft- this is specifically why Mark Fox and wingman got their J-7 kills.

 

That's a different doctrine for a different war...

Well, that's the catch. All examples of US engagements are foreign wars with a huge one-sided advantage. In such an environment, it pays much more to expend stores in abundance than to risk a shooting down of your own plane by what is described in the media as a third-world airforce. If that happened it would be a big embarrassment for the USAF and the government, costing much more than a couple of tens of thousands of dollars of a missile, which is probably already near the end of its shelf life and would need to go back to the manufacturer for refurbishment (which again costs bucks). Hence, in every US engagement you have a gross over-expenditure of ordinance of all kinds (they even gave it a catchy name "shock and awe"). This is of course officially justified by preserving the lives of US servicemen and women, but nobody (out of the people who make decisions) really cares about that. Its about maintaining a good domestic and international PR and giving the military industry stuff to do at the same time... yay!

Add to this the fact that any war at all for the Swedish air force during the Cold War would almost by definition be an existential one (that's why you see the stuff about deploying E1 completely without regard for own losses in a "decisive situation") and that the Swedish air force didn't even attempt to escort strike aircraft - it was all about trying to shoot down (nuclear) bombers or Il-76's dropping paratroopers. With that in mind I think that yes, a JA 37 pilot would definitely be disciplined about taking missile shots irresponsibly.

 

That's a different doctrine for a different war, though. Still, the USAF had radically different numbers in ODS, indicating that they at least did something different.

I agree that the "existential war" changes the mindset, but it is also the type of war that both the USN and USAF spent most of the Cold War expecting. The USN was also expecting to operate pretty independently, Desert Storm clearly exposed the USN's limitations when operating as part of a coalition. That may have been the biggest lesson and a large part of the reason why they had so many fewer encounters with enemy aircraft.

New doctrines would be adopted and the USN's performance in later coalition conflicts would be much smoother (Allied Force, for example).

As for the USN doing something different than the USAF - well maybe...

There were so many operational/environmental differences in terms of their operations, hard to know what made the difference. The USAF F-15Cs having priority for all CAPS and intercepts could have been a deciding factor. As in having a classic head-on intercept with great SA vs chasing down an enemy, etc. I think it's really hard to appreciate the issues without the details of these firings. I'm still surprised that there were so many shots given what I have read about USN ops during Desert Storm - most I've what I read was a real lack of enemy contact, especially for F-14s.

Lastly, this discussion and the Higby paper raises the issue of what constitutes effective BVR - what are reasonable expectations? To me, BVR seems like a less reliable way to make a kill (longer ranges will affect kill probability alone), but is it reasonable to walk away from the concept when your enemies are prepared to employ it? That's the strangest part of the Higby paper - does he really feel that WVR is the only capability that the US should offer to it's crews? Even "lightweight fighters - aka the F-16 only" have progressively added capability and expanded their BVR capabilities. I have a hard time believing that operational flexibility is a detriment to survival and success.

I think the lesson of early BVR was not depend on it, but ignoring it all together makes the same mistake as depending on it. I find it ironic that Higby is really missing the point and advocating for the approach that his paper is supposed to criticize: plan for one type of combat and expect that complete superiority in that one modality will allow to prevail in a wide variety of different circumstances. That was tried...and it failed. The mantra of the 4th gen fighters is maximize your operational flexibility and be prepared to do everything, at least with some degree of proficiency. Follow on designs have not changed their course and no one is currently making a fighter that will only work in WVR or only work in BVR. That probably offers better insight.

-Nick