F-14 Today if Stealth Wasn't a Thing?

I'm probably getting carried away in the release hype, but I hope someone can give me good reasons why a new Tomcat variant wouldn't work in RL combat today under the following conditions:

1. Low Observable has been defeated. F-22, F-35, Silent Eagle, J-20 and Su-57 are all as observable and targetable as any 4th gen a/c currently

2. New sensors and avionics suite in line with F-35C (with current sensor fusion issues rectified)

3. Full FBW (I don't think DFCS counts as FBW, right?)

4. Compatibility with AIM-9 and AIM-120 series

So basically, an F-14 airframe around F-35C kit with stealth not being a consideration - how would it go?

The competitor of the Tomcat is the Super Hornet, not the F-22 or the F-35, and as things stand the F/A-18 would still be the preferred platform because it is cheaper and easier to fly and keep operational.

The F-14D was roughly on par with modern 4th generation fighters, and had there been enough interest to keep it flying it would have undergone testing and certification to fire the AIM-120 and the newest AIM-9 models.

It would work, just look at the various F-15 modifications. With a new radar system and upgraded Aim-54s, it could be quite lethal. How much it would cost, and how difficult it would be to maintain is an other question though...

Basically you're talking about using the airframe with new electronics and comparing said airframe.

From a design perspective, the F14 was clearly very fast, definitely a good thing.

Making up for that, it was heavy, expensive, complicated and more difficult to maintain. My understanding is that they were nicknamed the "hangar queen", due to their maintenance requirements.

I can't think of a new swing wing aircraft being developed in the last couple of decades, despite it's advantages in drag. There's probably a good reason for that, a reduced complication will almost certainly be part of it.

For all of the above, don't get me wrong, I don't have a downer on the F14 in DCS. I've very much pre-ordered and am looking forward to it. However, in reality, there's probably better solutions.

I'd say even without all the fancy stuff, just upgrades to use AMRAAMs and X-Winders the Cat would still rule the skies. But I've often read it's been a maintenance hog especially in the last years, probably still not even comparable to the Eurofighter Typhoon, which would be just too expensive in upkeep for the US DoD and Govt, for good reasons. Just to compare that with the F-35 which is often getting mocked:

One EF costs about 134,200,000 € per unit which is about $152,200,000 US. Back in 2009, the complete operating cost for one flight hour was 73,992 € ($83,910 US). Data taken from here. In Sep 2014, 42 out of 109 of them were ready for use in the GAF, that's 38.5%. In 2017, ~39* out of 128 were operational which is a mere ~30.5%.

In 2015, the USAF F-35A CPFH was $42,200 US and the mission-capable rate was 68.6% according to this article. Unit cost is varying somewhere in between $ 85,000,000 US and $90,000,000 US according to my search tries.

Couldn't find any Tomcat CPFH numbers though. Unit cost was $38,000,000 US in 1998. Google spits that out in a nice table on top of the links.

*GAF EF complete count, availabe, mission-capable/operational 2017

Back in the days of the cold war it's been said that the W. German Army was just there to make the enemy laugh their posteriors off until an actual army arrives. Today this is even more true than ever...

The competitor of the Tomcat is the Super Hornet, not the F-22 or the F-35, and as things stand the F/A-18 would still be the preferred platform because it is cheaper and easier to fly and keep operational.

 

The F-14D was roughly on par with modern 4th generation fighters, and had there been enough interest to keep it flying it would have undergone testing and certification to fire the AIM-120 and the newest AIM-9 models.

It was my impression that the motivation for retiring the F-14 was mainly financial. You're absolutely right about the F-18 E/F being the more apt comparison, I was just using the F-35 because it has the newer tech.

It would work, just look at the various F-15 modifications. With a new radar system and upgraded Aim-54s, it could be quite lethal. How much it would cost, and how difficult it would be to maintain is an other question though...

I knew the fingerprints of the USN accountants were all over the decision to retire the Tomcat, but I hadn't realized maintenance had been such an issue even after the GE engines replaced the P&W.

Basically you're talking about using the airframe with new electronics and comparing said airframe.

From a design perspective, the F14 was clearly very fast, definitely a good thing.

Making up for that, it was heavy, expensive, complicated and more difficult to maintain. My understanding is that they were nicknamed the "hangar queen", due to their maintenance requirements.

 

I can't think of a new swing wing aircraft being developed in the last couple of decades, despite it's advantages in drag. There's probably a good reason for that, a reduced complication will almost certainly be part of it.

 

 

For all of the above, don't get me wrong, I don't have a downer on the F14 in DCS. I've very much pre-ordered and am looking forward to it. However, in reality, there's probably better solutions.

Understood, and although I hadn't considered it as such, I guess my question does wind up just comparing airframes. Good point about not having newer swing wing designs, I guess every extra servo or motor that's needed is one more thing to maintain. While appropriate defense expenditure post cold war is debatable, I imagine it would be trying to service those maintenance needs on the boat.

I'd say even without all the fancy stuff, just upgrades to use AMRAAMs and X-Winders the Cat would still rule the skies. But I've often read it's been a maintenance hog especially in the last years, probably still not even comparable to the Eurofighter Typhoon, which would be just too expensive in upkeep for the US DoD and Govt, for good reasons. Just to compare that with the F-35 which is often getting mocked:

 

One EF costs about 134,200,000 € per unit which is about $152,200,000 US. Back in 2009, the complete operating cost for one flight hour was 73,992 € ($83,910 US). Data taken from here. In Sep 2014, 42 out of 109 of them were ready for use in the GAF, that's 38.5%. In 2017, ~39* out of 128 were operational which is a mere ~30.5%.

 

In 2015, the USAF F-35A CPFH was $42,200 US and the mission-capable rate was 68.6% according to this article. Unit cost is varying somewhere in between $ 85,000,000 US and $90,000,000 US according to my search tries.

 

Couldn't find any Tomcat CPFH numbers though. Unit cost was $38,000,000 US in 1998. Google spits that out in a nice table on top of the links.

 

*GAF EF complete count, availabe, mission-capable/operational 2017

 

 

Back in the days of the cold war it's been said that the W. German Army was just there to make the enemy laugh their posteriors off until an actual army arrives. Today this is even more true than ever...

I had no idea the comparison was that bad for the Typhoon against the F-35. I'm almost speechless. I knew making the EF was a large financial investment for a non-stealth 4th gen fighter, but those readiness figures... it doesn't matter whether something might be superior as an airplane if it has half the readiness rate.

Thank you everyone, this is very informative, much appreciated :)

How do the metrics/definitions for readiness rate compare between the US and GAF? Do they use the same, or are they different?

WRT - The availability rate and maintenance vs flight hours of the F-14, these were comparable with other 3.5 gen aircraft.

To the best of my knowledge their availability during their final cruises was much improved simply because the competition for spare parts was so low they had buckets full of spares allowing most problems to be solved by pulling assemblies / black boxes and replacing them.

During their more active service with multiple squadrons per ship performing high tempo operations post 2001, contention over spare parts was much higher and there simply was not the reserves of parts as the aircraft were already known to be due for retirement (planned) 2008 - the DOD was not going to order up vast reserves of parts when the maintenance crews at squadron level could pull and fix many of the parts rather than replace them.

Further - in this example of a 'modernised' jet the vast majority of issues would be solved with newer more reliable electronics coupled with a reduction in hydraulic components.

An AESA antenna for the AWG-9 / APG-71 would much like the APG-63 v3 F-15s have eliminated bleeding noses. A new FBW control system with electric actuation would eliminate many more potential issues with control surfaces.

In short - the airframe of the F-14 on paper is completely sound and even sticking with engines in the F110 power class, new build jets with completely modernised internal components coupled with a supply chain would have much much better availability rates and flight / maintenance ratio than the real F-14 A-D models did.

The reality is all the real jets were old, rebuilds of older jets, and all of the more extensive new build F-14 designs from the Quickstrike to the AT21 were not built.

When tax dollars on this scale are being waved around there will always be a tension between improved internals for a known design being relatively low risk vs new designs with the potential to be all of this with improved performance and more.

Back in 2009, the complete operating cost for one flight hour was 73,992 € ($83,910 US).

Sorry but I find that very hard to believe, for one single flight hour, I think this is a case where wiki is wrong again.

Sorry but I find that very hard to believe' date=' for one single flight hour, I think this is a case where wiki is wrong again.[/quote']

 

If you factor in overhead for airfield, fuel, maint, training of pilot, etc, in this day and age that is still difficult to say 80k+ is the per hour cost (if it is, there should be multiple heads rolling for this failure).

 

That being said, part of these newer jets is really to make waging war a really bad financial decision - come in under-tiered and you die in transit, come in with like airframes and your grandkids pay your bill...

 

Nothing to back this up but it is effective in keeping the big players unwilling to fight.

Understood, and although I hadn't considered it as such, I guess my question does wind up just comparing airframes. Good point about not having newer swing wing designs, I guess every extra servo or motor that's needed is one more thing to maintain. While appropriate defense expenditure post cold war is debatable, I imagine it would be trying to service those maintenance needs on the boat.

Aircraft development is interesting. It's seems to follow a similar pattern to this:

2001 BC Here, eat this root.

1000 AD That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.

1850 AD That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.

1920 AD That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill.

1945 AD That pill is ineffective. Here, take this penicillin.

1955 AD Oops... bugs mutated. Here, take this tetracycline.

1960-1999 AD 39 more “oops”... Here, take this more powerful antibiotic.

2000 AD The bugs have won! Here, eat this root.

It was initially difficult to get jets to go supersonic, until the developed things like area rule airframes and moving inlet ramps, yet they've gone full circle and it seems they're not needed anymore.

Sorry but I find that very hard to believe' date=' for one single flight hour, I think this is a case where wiki is wrong again.[/quote']

 

I expect that depending how far back in the supply chain you choose to go, you can make up pretty much any figure you like for these kind of things. That said, I don't think those wiki figures are inaccurate. Some googling gives figures in the same order of magnitude for modern fighters.

 

How do the metrics/definitions for readiness rate compare between the US and GAF? Do they use the same, or are they different?

Don't know actually. There could be differences.

Sorry but I find that very hard to believe' date=' for one single flight hour, I think this is a case where wiki is wrong again.[/quote']

 

Source given there is directly from the Govt, they got the numbers from JG74: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/027/1702787.pdf

 

Wie hoch waren die Gesamtkosten des Eurofighters pro Flugstunde in den Jahren 2007, 2008 und 2009?

 

[...]

 

Mit Erreichen eines statistisch stabileren Flugbetriebs wurden die Kosten für das Waffensystem EUROFIGHTER erstmals für das Jahr 2009 mit 73 992 Euro ermittelt.

 

Die Berechnung basiert auf dem Betrieb von 48 von insgesamt 180 Luftfahrzeugen EUROFIGHTER durch Deutschland in 2009.

 

How much were the total costs of operating the EF per flight hour in 2007, 2008 and 2009?

 

[Chit-chat about how it was calculated for 2007 and 2008 based on Tornado numbers left out]

 

When getting to statistically stable flight operations [due to the transition from the Tornado] the costs in 2009 have been determined to be 73,992 €.

 

The calculation is based on the operation of 48 out of 180 EF by Germany in 2009. [Must have used foreign ones as well since they just have 128 years later]

The F-14 was simply too old and too much a maintenance hog by end of life. I love the jet, and believe something of its and the F-4's lineage should be still in the inventory.

However, utility combat jets are the big thing now. I don't like the "jack of all trades, master of none" approach. What I would like to see is a sort of "modular" jet, where the airframe shares a large amount of components, including engine. Keep as much standard as possible, but build one variant with conformal fuel tanks and a more aggressive wing sweep, with a radar geared more towards air-to-air combat, and a loadout more focused on long-range missiles. Another aircraft would have a heavier wing to allow for larger bomb loads, and an avionics package (also modular) that is geared towards night intruder, precision strike, and the like. Maybe a third variant that aims towards lighter, fast in and out strike missions.

Sounds an awful lot like the F-15C and F-15E, Hat.

Sounds an awful lot like the F-15C and F-15E, Hat.

Shh!

:music_whistling:

Or let's make an airframe that fulfils the Air Force, Navy, And Marines needs. Let it be modular, with different wings and bigger tanks for the navy, VTOL capability for the marines, and low cost for the Air Force, but sharing the avionics, engine and other common components. Oh wait, that's F-35, that went really well :music_whistling:

Back to the F-14, even if you forget the stealth, it was an airframe designed in different times, when avionics were big, heavy and required dedicated person in the cockpit to operate, engines were big and used more fuel, even missiles were bigger, and many aerodynamics designs were still unknown. There's a reason why no aircraft designed in the '80s or later has variable swept wings, it's that computer aided design and FBW systems made such things obsolete. Plus it doesn't work well with stealth.

That doesn't mean F-14 with upgraded systems and avionics wouldn't be a powerful opponent, but it would still be inefficient by modern standards. Would it be more cost effective than designing another airframe from scratch, that's anyone's guess.

Or let's make an airframe that fulfils the Air Force, Navy, And Marines needs. Let it be modular, with different wings and bigger tanks for the navy, VTOL capability for the marines, and low cost for the Air Force, but sharing the avionics, engine and other common components. Oh wait, that's F-35, that went really well :music_whistling:

 

Back to the F-14, even if you forget the stealth, it was an airframe designed in different times, when avionics were big, heavy and required dedicated person in the cockpit to operate, engines were big and used more fuel, even missiles were bigger, and many aerodynamics designs were still unknown. There's a reason why no aircraft designed in the '80s or later has variable swept wings, it's that computer aided design and FBW systems made such things obsolete. Plus it doesn't work well with stealth.

 

That doesn't mean F-14 with upgraded systems and avionics wouldn't be a powerful opponent, but it would still be inefficient by modern standards. Would it be more cost effective than designing another airframe from scratch, that's anyone's guess.

The F-35 isn't exactly what I'm talking about. It's the same basic aircraft, doing everything. I'm talking about three different aircraft, each doing a different job, but sharing as many parts as humans possible, as well as an avionics interface.

I'm talking about three different aircraft, each doing a different job, but sharing as many parts as humans possible, as well as an avionics interface.

That's exactly the premise behind F-35 project , F-35A, B, C are very different aircraft, they are just called the same so it's easier to sell to Congress and public. ;)

Sounds an awful lot like the F-15C and F-15E, Hat.

Or the F-111A and B ;) that went even better than the F-35!

That's exactly the premise behind F-35 project , F-35A, B, C are very different aircraft, they are just called the same so it's easier to sell to Congress and public. ;)

They're all multi-role jets, my idea is to have three variants fill fleet defense/interceptor, light attack, and medium attack/intruder roles.

The real difference is that the B is cool while the others are not

Or let's make an airframe that fulfils the Air Force, Navy, And Marines needs. Let it be modular, with different wings and bigger tanks for the navy, VTOL capability for the marines, and low cost for the Air Force, but sharing the avionics, engine and other common components. Oh wait, that's F-35, that went really well :music_whistling:

 

Back to the F-14, even if you forget the stealth, it was an airframe designed in different times, when avionics were big, heavy and required dedicated person in the cockpit to operate, engines were big and used more fuel, even missiles were bigger, and many aerodynamics designs were still unknown. There's a reason why no aircraft designed in the '80s or later has variable swept wings, it's that computer aided design and FBW systems made such things obsolete. Plus it doesn't work well with stealth.

 

That doesn't mean F-14 with upgraded systems and avionics wouldn't be a powerful opponent, but it would still be inefficient by modern standards. Would it be more cost effective than designing another airframe from scratch, that's anyone's guess.

What you say about the F-14 makes a lot of sense, it was built to provide space and weight capacity that isn't needed now, so it would be unnecessarily cumbersome today. Cheers :)

They're all multi-role jets, my idea is to have three variants fill fleet defense/interceptor, light attack, and medium attack/intruder roles.

Looking again at F-35 concept and how much problems it has, cramming even more diverse roles into a single airframe sounds like a recipe for failure. Could be cheaper to actually make three different airplanes like in the old times.

Of course stuff like that has been done in the past, but not in the modular fashion, more like reusing the design to fulfil various roles, or sharing common aerodynamics design, which is the hardest to get right. Planes like Su-27 and Su-34, MiG-23 and MiG-27 (also Su-24 has similar layout), Tornado ADV and IDS, or recently, MiG-31 and MiG-31K converted from interceptor to the role of hypersonic missile carrier.

Who knows, maybe if F-14 were still around, they would be converted to similar role or as an anti-hypersonic-carrier platform.

Man hours will always go up when the assembly line is shut down.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Anyone that says the Hornet/Super Hornet would have outperformed the planned future Tomcat needs to pull their head out of their ass.

The future for the F-14 looked more like an F-22 with swing wings that the F-14 we know. It simply would have been better in every single regard. Range, weapons, speed, maneuverability, and yes stealth. The Super Hornet is a dog.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142