F-14 - Was it really that good ?

[Cytarabine]

No it absolutely did with respect to TWS radar and the AMRAAM. The AIM-54C's guidance logic was plugged directly into the AIM-120A and it was miniaturization technology that allowed other US aircraft to acquire the Tomcat's multi-target engagement capability 20 years (!) after its initial deployment. Experience and algorithms developed from the design and implementation of the AWG-9 found their way into other Hughe's products including the APG-63.

 

Remarkable how all of that ran on an 8080 processor allowing the Tomcat the ability to engage multiple hostiles. How competitive the F-14 is in DCS May be reflecting in part some issues in implementation (ECM effectiveness, lack of the need for a go active command, lack of TWS in the Hornet) but overall it reflects the fact the Tomcat is a highly capable 4th generation fighter which punches at least as hard as the rest.

[realtrance]

It's the need for pilot skill that attracts me to this, and to the MiGs modeled in/for DCS.

 

The era these planes are from was right before automation arose and improved and supplemented pilot skill.

 

That's what makes them an interesting challenge, and a blast to fly!

[Kev2go]

No it absolutely did with respect to TWS radar and the AMRAAM. The AIM-54C's guidance logic was plugged directly into the AIM-120A and it was miniaturization technology that allowed other US aircraft to acquire the Tomcat's multi-target engagement capability 20 years (!) after its initial deployment. Experience and algorithms developed from the design and implementation of the AWG-9 found their way into other Hughe's products including the APG-63.

 

 

 

The T/W difference was purely driven by the troubled development and cost over-runs of the F100 engines (and therefore the related F401 for the Tomcat). All the proposals that competed with the Grumman 303 design (of which there were at least 4) assumed usage of the F401 engine with a lot more power. The engine program simply proved unaffordable, it had nothing to do with different service branches.

 

 

 

The F-14 was designed around the EM theory and the Navy agreed with the assessment that the F-111 was a poor foundation for a fighter - hence their rejection of the program. The F-14 was a totally different airframe and inherited avionics simply because no comparable system existed for the Navy's requirements and nothing else was in the pipeline for a similar integrated weapons system. The USAF was being much less ambitious with their BVR requirements and invested energy on ergonomics to move from 2-crew to single-crew aircraft (helping to offset the F-15's high acquisition costs).

 

Neither the F-14 or F-15 incorporated design criteria for maintainability or design streamlining since both had lots of systems that had never been deployed before! You can't optimize something that has never existed before. The Falcon and Hornet had the benefit of coming later. At least both aircraft proved more reliable than the Phantom.

 

 

 

 

The F-14 is variable geometry because you can't build a Navy aircraft that can fly Mach 2.2+ and have an approach speed of 130 KIAS as the Navy required. It wasn't because of a difference in design concept, it was about requirements. If you were to ask Boyd how to design a fighter that could go head to head with a MiG-21 and defend against a Soviet bomber raid he would simply say "scrap the carrier and let the Chair Force handle the air threats"....for obvious reasons the Navy disagreed.

 

Also, funny story about all this. You know that "hit the brakes and he'll fly right by" from Top Gun that we all love to make fun of? A certain pilot built his entire BFM reputation on that one maneuver....and it was John Boyd!!!

 

He would put Nellis F-100 student in a trail behind him, let them settle in, and then perform a radical pitch up to bleed speed and land behind his students. Thats where his nickname (self-proclaimed BTW...) 20 second Boyd came from - later amended to 40 second Boyd so he could manage more consistently. His maneuver worked because there was a general prohibition against high AOA flight in the F-100 due to adverse yaw, roll reversal, and yaw based departures. Boyd addressed this by bracing his elbows on the canopy rail (sounds smart), but it does seem that he built his ACM rep on a Dolphin trick. Luckily his EM theory was good work and secured his reputation. :D

 

You should read his biography - its on Amazon.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=John+Boyd&qid=1557536604&s=gateway&sr=8-1

 

 

 

Yes, cheaper things sell better....ask Amazon. :P

 

-Nick

 

Good points on the guidance systems

 

Also i had read that bio way back when. It wasn't just the EM theory. Boyd further secured his reputation in Academia since he also had significant influence on the ground branches of the armed forces on various Military theories.

 

 

He in fact was also responsible for many educational seminars which influenced Army officials to create a the major 1982 revision US Army Doctrine FM 100-5 of the which would would become known as "Air land battle" doctrine, which moved away from defense and attrition of the 70s Army doctrine and instead put emphasis instead on maneuver warfare along with a new emphasis on combined arms utilization. The Marine corps eventually adopted boyd's theories on maneuver warfare similar as the army did, and revised their doctrinal manuals to reflect that in the 1989 "war-fighting"

Edited May 11, 2019 by Kev2go

[Top Jockey]

Yes , so you are a potential export buyer considering above two aircraft, and you don't have the unique USN requirement of defending fleets from strategic bombers armed with cruise missiles ( which disappeared after the cold war anyways), nor do you need to operate fighters from carriers.

 

So then with those not being requirements, can you as a potential buyer really justify the higher costs for something that will be as good, or marginally better at best for general air superiority based uses for the higher purchasing cost per individual aircraft, and extra maintenance associated with complexity of variable wing sweep mechanisms? Basically a cost/performance ratio consideration.

 

Yup that's probably why many foreign nations went with the Eagle. Luckily though we don't need to worry about that in a virtual simulation

 

Well, at the least for Iran the Tomcat wasn't just "as good, or marginally better than the Eagle".

In their case, they had to deal with USSR MiG-25 incursions over their territory.

 

So I guess that for the interception role, the Tomcat emerged as clearly superior to the Eagle.

[Kev2go]

Well, at the least for Iran the Tomcat wasn't just "as good, or marginally better than the Eagle".

In their case, they had to deal with USSR MiG-25 incursions over their territory.

 

So I guess that for the interception role, the Tomcat emerged as clearly superior to the Eagle.

 

Yes Iran... The only foreign user of the F14

The reason why USA sold the F14 to Iran was because of a ( later in hindsight ) Ill perceived strategic bomber threat from the USSR, hence the believed need for F14 with long standoff Aim54 capability offered to a ( at the time) allied nation not because they thought the Eagle would have been incapable of intercepting incursions from Foxbats or other fighters., It should also be worth noting the Iranians ordered the F14 at a time when the F15 was not yet available. The First tomcats that Iran had formally filled out orders for was as early as January 1974.

 

 

 

the F15 requires less support for scrambling into the air faster for interception because unlike the F14 it doesn't require summoning ground crew to attach external ground power and external AIR generator to get it running because the F15 has a battery and a APU.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Kev2go

[Hummingbird]

Yes Iran... The only foreign user of the F14

The reason why USA sold the F14 to Iran was because of a ( later in hindsight ) Ill perceived strategic bomber threat from the USSR, hence the believed need for F14 with long standoff Aim54 capability offered to a ( at the time) allied nation not because they thought the Eagle would have been incapable of intercepting incursions from Foxbats or other fighters., It should also be worth noting the Iranians ordered the F14 at a time when the F15 was not yet available. The First tomcats that Iran had formally filled out orders for was as early as January 1974.

 

the F15 requires less support for scrambling into the air faster for interception because unlike the F14 it doesn't require summoning ground crew to attach external ground power and external AIR generator to get it running because the F15 has a battery and a APU.

 

That was not "the" reason, there were several reasons for Iran choosing the F-14, and one of them included that Iranian test pilots found the F-14A superior to the F-15A in mock fights that were later not allowed.

 

 

 

Earlier match ups had already alluded to this:

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Hummingbird

[Cytarabine]

That was not "the" reason, there were several reasons for Iran choosing the F-14, and one of them included that Iranian test pilots found the F-14A superior to the F-15A in mock fights that were later not allowed.

 

It must have made some USAF planners uncomfortable to know the Eagle would be at a disadvantage against the Tomcat should things get hot and heavy with Iran. BVR would lead to a face off against the AIM-54 when they are flinging SARH AIM-7’s (up until the early 90’s) and then facing off against an arguably superior airframe if they closed to BFM range.

[TLTeo]

To be fair, there's quite a gap in BFM between an early F-15A (which also had some engine trouble) and an updated F-15C.

 

 

But yes, I'm sure nobody was pleased by the Iranian revolution.

[eatthis]

To be fair, there's quite a gap in BFM between an early F-15A (which also had some engine trouble) and an updated F-15C.

 

 

But yes, I'm sure nobody was pleased by the Iranian revolution.

 

same can be said for the f14 a vs b!

[Chuck_Henry]

The guys on The Fighter Pilot Podcast had me wondering if they actually had flown the aircraft a couple of times.

 

Very curious to know what they said that doesn't line up with your experience. Having no IRL F-14 experience myself, I more or less took everything they said at face value.

[Kev2go]

That was not "the" reason, there were several reasons for Iran choosing the F-14, and one of them included that Iranian test pilots found the F-14A superior to the F-15A in mock fights that were later not allowed.

 

 

 

Earlier match ups had already alluded to this:

 

 

 

Yes it was. How can you have a fair evaluation when you take more mature airplane and a less mature one.? It would be like comparing a F35 ( block 2 ) instead of a block 3i IOC version to other combat ready jets. F14A was already in active duty service in 1974 whilst first F15A squadron didn't reach IOC until 1976. And your texts cites comparisons made in 1972, when the F15A would've only taken its first test flights, and the F14A although not yet in service would have nonetheless been in a more mature state as its first test flights were 2 years prior

 

as for the second source, a public news article? Did they have the full story? Remember a few years back when media outlets painted the F16 as superior to the F35 ( with early block software pre IOC) because they claimed it lost in dogfight? ITwasnt technically a dogfight but AOA testing. Either way this is no longer the case with block 3F implementation.

 

F14 is only more agile at low speeds due to swing wing. F15 still has greater T/W, especially when looking at F14A. F15C that followed a few short years later was even better and that was followed on by MSIP improvements into the 80s. whilst the F14A only had very incremental changes/improvements until the F14B came along, and didnt get a complete overhaul in avionics until the F14D which was produced in small #'s ( mind you which in turn used lots off off the shelf technology some derived from F15E and F/A18 )

Edited May 12, 2019 by Kev2go

[Hummingbird]

No it wasn't THE reason, the people behind the damn decision even say so. The reasons for choosing one over the other were many depending on the country, it didn't come down purely to cost, there were political & company interests at play as well.

 

So you call everything below M 0.74 low speed? Also the ability to pull a higher ITR & tigther turn throughout the envelope is not a small advantage either.

 

Finally the F-14 improvements were late to roll out thanks to the low numbers bought. We're talking about the 70's economy here. Had the F-14 been purchased in the numbers predicted/sought, the aircraft would've seen improvements roll out much faster, which would've incl. better and lighter electronics and AMRAAM capability immediately upon this weapon becoming available. (not to mention more frequent AIM54 upgrades)

[Kev2go]

No it wasn't THE reason, the people behind the damn decision even say so. The reasons for choosing one over the other were many depending on the country, it didn't come down purely to cost, there were political & company interests at play as well.

 

So you call everything below M 0.74 low speed? Also the ability to pull a higher ITR & tigther turn throughout the envelope is not a small advantage either.

 

Finally the F-14 improvements were late to roll out thanks to the low numbers bought. We're talking about the 70's economy here. Had the F-14 been purchased in the numbers predicted/sought, the aircraft would've seen improvements roll out much faster, which would've incl. better and lighter electronics and AMRAAM capability immediately upon this weapon becoming available. (not to mention more frequent AIM54 upgrades)

 

 

F15 was also put into service in 1970s economy.... and so did air force realize it would never get all F15's it ever wanted, hence why the F16 was adopted as a lower cost "low mix" airplane that could be acquired in larger numbers and easier to support maintenance, whilst also sharing engine commonality with its larger cousin.

 

The F15 weren't produced much than the F14. like only 154 more F15A/B/C/D in total than the number of F14's produced.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Kev2go

[Hummingbird]

Eh, more F-15A/C's alone (866) were produced than F-14A/B/D's (712)... add to that 139 for Japan and 400 Strike Eagles. That's a big number difference for such big and expensive military aircraft, not to mention the lucrative support contracts that come with any increase in sales. And from the military's standpoint the more examples of the aircraft you got in your inventory, the more money you are also gonna allocate to make sure it stays as up to date as possible, whilst in the meantime the manufacturer is now using the extra money earned through the first sale to develop said updates and make them available for purchase faster. Hence there was a very real battle going on between both companies to get their aircraft adopted over the other.

[Steve Davies]

From https://www.amazon.com/F-15-Eagle-Engaged-successful-Aviation/dp/1846031699

 

"Grumman F-14A Tomcat: Sometimes referred to as the ‘Tomkitty’ due to its relatively docile nature compared with the Eagle, it was more commonly known to us Eagle Drivers as the ‘Turkey’. This is because from above and behind the broad back and tailfeathers, the skinny wings sticking out and the long neck (housing its two-member [sts] crew) made it resemble the near-flightless bird which usually shows up on the dinner table for Thanksgiving. The reason this vantage point is most often used for comparison is because, in a DACT engagement with F-14As, this was almost invariably where the F-15 would wind up, in a killing position.

 

The F-14A was a transitional aircraft, a third generation airframe with second generation avionics and engines. The radar was the AWG-9, standing for ‘Air Weapons Group’, a kluge of off-the-shelf electrical components combined to make a long range, pulse/Doppler radar capable of detecting large targets (bombers) approaching on stable predictable flight paths to attack the fleet. Because it used existing technologies and the Navy did not wait for the development of high speed integrated circuit computers to run the radar, it was necessary to include a second crewmember to work the radar. The AIM-54 Phoenix was specifically developed to be a ‘bomber destroyer’ and Hughes made the AWG-9 and AIM-54 capable of multiple target engagements. It did this by using the ‘spot lighting’ technique. That is, the radar would shift its beam from one target to another, highlight and track the new target for a short time, then move on to another, finally (after up to 4) it would return to where its small analogue computer calculated the original target would be. If it wasn’t there the AWG-9, and the AIM-54 assigned to that target, went stupid. So in a BVR engagement a mere 30 degree ‘check turn’ and ramp down to a lower altitude was usually enough to break lock and negate the otherwise ‘dreaded Phoenix’.

 

By accepting TF-30s from the F-111 program the ‘Turkey’ was terminally underpowered as a dogfighter. This was mitigated somewhat, especially for acceleration and top speeds, with the Variable Geometry (VD) wings. At .9Mach and above these would be fully swept and in order to maximize lift they were programmed to swing out progressively as airspeed decayed. For the Eagle Driver turning at the merge on an F-14, this became a huge airspeed indicator, the wing swinging like the needle on a dial indicating ‘I’m doing Warp 9’, ‘I’m slowing down now’, ‘I’m getting slower…’, ‘…slower…’, [wings now fully extended almost straight out] ‘I’m out of knots, come on in and shoot me’!

 

At that point it was no problem for the more powerful and more agile F-15 to swoop in and put the [gunsight] pipper on the RIO (radar intercept officer) in the back seat and [simulated of course] fire burst through his helmet, eliminating any further inter-cockpit communications, then drill the pilot himself.

 

DACT with F-14s was invariably a viscerally gratifying experience. The fact that the Iranians had a bunch of them made us take them seriously in case we ever needed to eliminate the top fighter in the Ayatollah’s air force."

 

The BTDT guys on the forum will note the to-be-expected fighter pilot irreverence towards someone else's jet, but my co-author of this book, "Disco", is a very objective commentator, so despite the slapstick delivery, I take him at his word.

 

At any rate, he also told me that in the 1990s, the Eagle community referred to the F-14A as 'the grape', on account of it being so easy to pick. I'll ask him to provide some words on his personal experiences against the F-14B and D.

 

Well, with that hand grenade rolling down the aisle, I am off to fly some more of this wonderful simulation. :pilotfly:

[Nodak]

Two words,

 

 

"Jimme Caata"

 

 

Would have never happened without him, he convinced the world swamping it in lethal weapons would stabilize it and bring peace, and actually got away with it.

 

 

https://nacla.org/article/carters-arms-policy

[Kev2go]

Eh, more F-15A/C's alone (866) were produced than F-14A/B/D's (712)... add to that 139 for Japan and 400 Strike Eagles. That's a big number difference for such big and expensive military aircraft, not to mention the lucrative support contracts that come with any increase in sales. And from the military's standpoint the more examples of the aircraft you got in your inventory, the more money you are also gonna allocate to make sure it stays as up to date as possible, whilst in the meantime the manufacturer is now using the extra money earned through the first sale to develop said updates and make them available for purchase faster. Hence there was a very real battle going on between both companies to get their aircraft adopted over the other.

 

Yes .... as stated earlier that's a difference of only 154 aircraft. ( and that includes aircraft that were sent off to export sales)

 

 

https://i.imgur.com/GEU1HI5.png

 

Strike eagles shouldn't count as they might as well be different aircraft ( even if a derivative) and meant for different purposes. a replacement for the F111 interdiction aircraft, not as a replacement or followup to the F15A/C

Edited May 12, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

Two words,

 

 

"Jimme Caata"

 

 

Would have never happened without him, he convinced the world swamping it in lethal weapons would stabilize it and bring peace, and actually got away with it.

 

 

https://nacla.org/article/carters-arms-policy

 

in all fairness spending was relatively cut down in the 1970s even with the introduction of more lethal technology

 

If anyone it was Ronald Reagan that gave US military a near blank cheque to develop and produce what they wanted.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Kev2go

[Donut]

From https://www.amazon.com/F-15-Eagle-Engaged-successful-Aviation/dp/1846031699

 

 

 

The BTDT guys on the forum will note the to-be-expected fighter pilot irreverence towards someone else's jet, but my co-author of this book, "Disco", is a very objective commentator, so despite the slapstick delivery, I take him at his word.

 

At any rate, he also told me that in the 1990s, the Eagle community referred to the F-14A as 'the grape', on account of it being so easy to pick. I'll ask him to provide some words on his personal experiences against the F-14B and D.

 

Well, with that hand grenade rolling down the aisle, I am off to fly some more of this wonderful simulation. :pilotfly:

 

Wow, great read. That indeed may be the holy hand grenade...looking forward to hearing about the B/D though. The D may be a different story, but I view the A/B as definetly 3rd gen fighters when compared to the 4th gen fighters F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18C. The B/D may be somewhat competitive in performance, but I believe that FBW and advanced avionics are what define 4th gen.

 

However, after flying both the Tomcat and Hornet in DCS, I personally think that the F-14B "was really that good."

Edited May 13, 2019 by =BJM=

[Nodak]

in all fairness spending was relatively cut down in the 1970s even with the introduction of more lethal technology

 

If anything it was Reagan that gave US military a near blank cheque to develop and produce what they wanted.

 

 

That may be so, but there's a huge difference in military expenditures on the home team, and profiteering in billions privately via export.

[Kev2go]

Wow, great read. That indeed may be the holy hand grenade...looking forward to hearing about the B/D though. The D may be a different story, but I view the A/B as definetly 3rd gen fighters when compared to the 4th gen fighters F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18C. The B/D may be somewhat competitive in performance, but I believe that FBW and advanced avionics are what define 4th gen.

 

I can see your point but even so , be it F15A or F14A, its still hard to look at them as 3rd generation ( whilst there is 4.5 gen is there something like 3.5 gen?) , because generally when one thinks of 3rd generation historians use examples of Mig23 series from the soviet side and on the west F4 phantom's and Mirage F1's as the defining fighter aircraft of the 3rd generation.

 

Both F14A and F15A are more advanced than preceding Phantoms in both being totally new aerodynamic designs and sporting more sophisticated avionics sets. Certainly way more advanced at introduction to any supposed contemporary Europeans or Soviets had at the time of their introduction. Even if not quite as advanced as later versions of 4th generation aircraft from the 1980s with more , digital avionics, networked capabilities, and FBW ( or Digital flight augmented) control.

 

Ultimately aircraft "generation" is something of marketing buzzword even if there are charts that are similar across US and Russians of certain characteristics they regard for specific aircraft generations.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Kev2go

[BlackLion213]

At any rate, he also told me that in the 1990s, the Eagle community referred to the F-14A as 'the grape', on account of it being so easy to pick.

 

It is easy to pick a fight with something that intends to eat you. :D

 

 

-Nick

[captain_dalan]

And if my uncle was here, he would beat them all with his pinky finger!

[SgtPappy]

That was not "the" reason, there were several reasons for Iran choosing the F-14, and one of them included that Iranian test pilots found the F-14A superior to the F-15A in mock fights that were later not allowed.

 

 

 

Earlier match ups had already alluded to this:

 

 

Wow awesome info! I have never seen that newspaper clipping before.

[Hummingbird]

From https://www.amazon.com/F-15-Eagle-Engaged-successful-Aviation/dp/1846031699

 

 

 

The BTDT guys on the forum will note the to-be-expected fighter pilot irreverence towards someone else's jet, but my co-author of this book, "Disco", is a very objective commentator, so despite the slapstick delivery, I take him at his word.

 

At any rate, he also told me that in the 1990s, the Eagle community referred to the F-14A as 'the grape', on account of it being so easy to pick. I'll ask him to provide some words on his personal experiences against the F-14B and D.

 

Well, with that hand grenade rolling down the aisle, I am off to fly some more of this wonderful simulation. :pilotfly:

 

Debunked several times by pilots, and finally by the now declassied performance charts :)

 

But to be fair he's likely just saying what he himself experienced the few times he faced the cat, and if you're flying a clean Eagle vs a 6.5 G limited bag carrying F-14 with a student behind the controls, then it probably won't be a particularly hard fight. When things were even however, i.e. experienced pilots in both planes and no shits given about peace time limits, then the Tomcat more often than not seemed to give the Eagle a licking, just as was the case in the beginning before orders were cut short and each F-14 had to last much longer than originally intended.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Hummingbird