Jump to content

F-14 - Was it really that good ?


Recommended Posts

ENO said:
Sounds like you and Okie must be buddies... Love his interviews. He has me very curious to give the A a good run when it comes out since, as he mentions several times, there are certain pockets where the A outperforms the B... Not sure if he felt the same way about the D with it's additional system advantages (but heavier I've read) but from a pure performance standpoint anyway he is adamant that if the A was flown in its niche market it could benefit from mechanical fuel control.

 

He mentions he and or his son were involved in this project at some level (I can't recall specifically though I've watched all his interviews about half a dozen times) - do you guys actually know each other?

 

Okie was a RAG instructor for two tours as a MTC Officer (massive job) and also ran the tactics phase on one tour IIRC. I don’t recall if I ever flew an event with him or not, but he was around and available for answering questions. Good guy, direct and knowledgeable, he was about the mission, not himself.


Edited by Victory205
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It will be interesting to see if the Hornet's survivability improves once systems like TWS, AutoIFF and MIDS get implemented.

 

Phoneix spam is the only thing that really makes life hard for Hornets ( or other pilots in general). AS others have pointed out in part is due to lack of ECM modeling.

 

Without phoenix, the Tomcat really isn't that scary at least not more than Sparrow equipped F15's. Without that standoff range, i can otherwise consistently kill in them in BVR with Aim120's and wax them in close combat. Even more so when armed with aim9x's.

 

Ultimately the AIm54 for BVR is the Tomcats strongest advantage IMO


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoneix spam is the only thing that really makes life hard for Hornets ( or other pilots in general). AS others have pointed out in part is due to lack of ECM modeling.

 

Without phoenix, the Tomcat really isn't that scary at least not more than Sparrow equipped F15's. Without that standoff range, i can otherwise consistently kill in them in BVR with Aim120's and wax them in close combat. Even more so when armed with aim9x's.

 

Ultimately the AIm54 for BVR is the Tomcats strongest advantage IMO

 

Of course, but using same Fox1 and Fox2 missiles, the fight is pretty fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is flat out wrong. Go watch that video from one of the Grumman designers.

 

Well....the assertion that it was designed "purely as an interceptor" is incorrect, but that ability was part of its design philosophy along with range, loiter time, acceleration, top speed, etc. If it was purely designed for fighter escort and armed "4x4" it probably would have been smaller and looked a bit different.

 

In hind sight, its pretty remarkable that the designers built an airplane that was faster than the Phantom, had a 125 KIAS approach speed at max trap (without DLC), could carry the AWG-9 and 6 AIM-54s with their entirely unique/remarkable capability for the time, loiter on station for twice as long as the Phantom it replaced, and could outmaneuver any aircraft in the US or Soviet inventory at the time of its introduction (when the A-4 Super Foxes and F-5Es were regarded as a real threat against a properly flown F-4J in DACT).

 

A might impressive group of traits for one airplane! And the idea that it was "average" for a 4th gen fighter in ACM is reasonable imho - considering that it was roughly equivalent to the F-15 while the later F-16 and F/A-18 had some advantages by virtue of aero advances, FBW, and improved engine technology.

 

The F-14 was really a huge leap in capability when it entered the fleet in 1972, but life and technology have moved on. Now you can pack all that stuff (minus the fuel and loiter of course) into a F-16CJ with little AMRAAMs instead of 1000 lb AIM-54s. But the F-14 allowed those fighters to get there by pioneering the technology. How quickly we forget the contributions of those who came before us.....

 

-Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it was actually designed to do everything - air superiority, fleet air defense, and close-in engagements as needed. If it were purely an interceptor (like the F-4) it wouldn't have a large bubble canopy and enormous control surfaces to allow for an impressive pitch rate.

The F-4 was not a interceptor at all. It was pretty much the first true multirole aircraft. A pure interceptor is something like the F-102 and F-106.

 

Combat is more than just the aircraft. For example in DCS, there isn't really a reason not to take 6 AIM-54's for any flight. In reality this wasn't done because of stress on the airframe. We can limit munitions in missions in DCS, but not on a per plane basis, so even with limited AIM-54's, it's still easy to end up with F-14's flying around with nothing but them loaded.

The BlueFlag PG server does actually limit the Phoenix to 4 missiles per aircraft.

 

You are talking like spamming Aim54 was OK IRL. It was used only twice IIRC and usually kept for defend the fleet only.

 

Try approach F18s or Mig23s with Sparrows...

Total different game.

I recommend to read up on the Iran-Iraq war ;)


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
The F-4 was not a interceptor at all. It was pretty much the first true multirole aircraft. A pure interceptor is something like the F-102 and F-106.

 

It wound up a multirole fighter but it's first role was as an all-weather fleet-defence interceptor (at least in Navy colours, it entered USAF service as a fighter-bomber as they had a different dedicated interceptor (though in fly offs the F-4 was a superior interceptor to the F-106)).

 

 

I recommend to read up on the Iran-Iraq war ;)

 

Yep, it certainly has a tally of kills on small manoeuvrable aircraft. It is quite funny how people say "see how things go with just sparrows", you could say the same thing about some of the AMRAAM load outs people carry on the Hornet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well....the assertion that it was designed "purely as an interceptor" is incorrect, but that ability was part of its design philosophy along with range, loiter time, acceleration, top speed, etc. If it was purely designed for fighter escort and armed "4x4" it probably would have been smaller and looked a bit different.

 

In hind sight, its pretty remarkable that the designers built an airplane that was faster than the Phantom, had a 125 KIAS approach speed at max trap (without DLC), could carry the AWG-9 and 6 AIM-54s with their entirely unique/remarkable capability for the time, loiter on station for twice as long as the Phantom it replaced, and could outmaneuver any aircraft in the US or Soviet inventory at the time of its introduction (when the A-4 Super Foxes and F-5Es were regarded as a real threat against a properly flown F-4J in DACT).

 

A might impressive group of traits for one airplane! And the idea that it was "average" for a 4th gen fighter in ACM is reasonable imho - considering that it was roughly equivalent to the F-15 while the later F-16 and F/A-18 had some advantages by virtue of aero advances, FBW, and improved engine technology.

 

The F-14 was really a huge leap in capability when it entered the fleet in 1972, but life and technology have moved on. Now you can pack all that stuff (minus the fuel and loiter of course) into a F-16CJ with little AMRAAMs instead of 1000 lb AIM-54s. But the F-14 allowed those fighters to get there by pioneering the technology. How quickly we forget the contributions of those who came before us.....

 

-Nick

 

What's more impressive is that all of those capabilities could have made it to the F-14 had the Super Tomcat program been allowed to flourish and the navy given even a FRACTION of the funding the F-15 and F-16 received to maintain their service lives. But alas, politics robbed us of the planned Super Cat that would have added some absolutely ridiculous capabilities if even half of it was properly implemented.

 

Imagine, if you will, the F-14 survived till today, what advances an F-14E model could have had... AIM-120D and AIM-9X w/ JHMCS access, a true glass cockpit (think F/A-18 style), a MASSIVE AESA radar (thank you AWG-9 size making a larger aircraft!), Fly By Wire, non finicky INS gyro's, stronger, lighter weight materials, access to the newer racks to hold missiles more effectively, thrust vectoring (if Grumman got what they wanted)... etc. The F-14 was designed in an era of slide rules and fairly primitive computers. She was tested to the extreme by a company dedicated to building the best aircraft they could. The fact that it is competitive with more modern aircraft variants with a fraction of the funding those aircraft received is downright impressive and to say nothing of the fact it had to land on a carrier, repeatedly, it's entire life.

My YT Channel (DCS World, War Thunder and World of Warships)

 

Too Many Modules to List

--Unapologetically In Love With the F-14-- Anytime Baby! --

Link to post
Share on other sites
It wound up a multirole fighter but it's first role was as an all-weather fleet-defence interceptor

 

 

Yep. At the time of the Phantom's introduction the air superiority mission was flown by the Crusader, not the Phantom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After almost two months in this Tomcat, I don't think I can be killed unless I do something criminally stupid, like fight four Su-33s while not having my full attention on the situation. It's just a beast in the air, and despite me coming to ignore Jester most of the time, it's in those merges where he becomes the most helpful.

 

As for A2G, if this thing had an A2G radar, we'd be able to do absolutely everything. I now wish they had full explored expanding the D capabilities from the start, because it really can do almost everything, being limited only in low cloud and by not being able to carry HARMs or Harpoons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well....the assertion that it was designed "purely as an interceptor" is incorrect, but that ability was part of its design philosophy along with range, loiter time, acceleration, top speed, etc. If it was purely designed for fighter escort and armed "4x4" it probably would have been smaller and looked a bit different.

 

In hind sight, its pretty remarkable that the designers built an airplane that was faster than the Phantom, had a 125 KIAS approach speed at max trap (without DLC), could carry the AWG-9 and 6 AIM-54s with their entirely unique/remarkable capability for the time, loiter on station for twice as long as the Phantom it replaced, and could outmaneuver any aircraft in the US or Soviet inventory at the time of its introduction (when the A-4 Super Foxes and F-5Es were regarded as a real threat against a properly flown F-4J in DACT).

 

A might impressive group of traits for one airplane! And the idea that it was "average" for a 4th gen fighter in ACM is reasonable imho - considering that it was roughly equivalent to the F-15 while the later F-16 and F/A-18 had some advantages by virtue of aero advances, FBW, and improved engine technology.

 

The F-14 was really a huge leap in capability when it entered the fleet in 1972, but life and technology have moved on. Now you can pack all that stuff (minus the fuel and loiter of course) into a F-16CJ with little AMRAAMs instead of 1000 lb AIM-54s. But the F-14 allowed those fighters to get there by pioneering the technology. How quickly we forget the contributions of those who came before us.....

 

-Nick

 

Great post.

HANGAR

JETS : FlamingCliffs 3 | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C

HELIS : Mi-8MTV2

 

... yep still on Windows 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's more impressive is that all of those capabilities could have made it to the F-14 had the Super Tomcat program been allowed to flourish and the navy given even a FRACTION of the funding the F-15 and F-16 received to maintain their service lives. But alas, politics robbed us of the planned Super Cat that would have added some absolutely ridiculous capabilities if even half of it was properly implemented.

 

Imagine, if you will, the F-14 survived till today, what advances an F-14E model could have had... AIM-120D and AIM-9X w/ JHMCS access, a true glass cockpit (think F/A-18 style), a MASSIVE AESA radar (thank you AWG-9 size making a larger aircraft!), Fly By Wire, non finicky INS gyro's, stronger, lighter weight materials, access to the newer racks to hold missiles more effectively, thrust vectoring (if Grumman got what they wanted)... etc. The F-14 was designed in an era of slide rules and fairly primitive computers. She was tested to the extreme by a company dedicated to building the best aircraft they could. The fact that it is competitive with more modern aircraft variants with a fraction of the funding those aircraft received is downright impressive and to say nothing of the fact it had to land on a carrier, repeatedly, it's entire life.

 

So much truth here. It's a testament to it's designers how much of a quantum leap the F14 airframe was compared to anything that came before it.

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wouldn't go with "fraction" of a cost demagogy.

 

Tomcat was always expensive aircraft. It was expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, and the Super would be expensive too. Impressive, but never cheap.

Hardware: Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Hotas Cougar, Slaw Rudder, Wheel Stand Pro, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Reverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
The F-4 was not a interceptor at all. It was pretty much the first true multirole aircraft. A pure interceptor is something like the F-102 and F-106.

 

I recommend to read up on the Iran-Iraq war ;)

 

The Phantom was absolutely designed as an interceptor, but let me have the chief designer speak to that:

 

 

How a service uses an airframe may have little to do with the original design intention. In the case of the Phantom, it was fast and powerful which made it adaptable. It was also big enough to allow for new equipment and large payloads.

 

Hence the whole argument concerning “designed for” carries little merit since it doesn’t necessarily predict the strength or weaknesses of a given aircraft. The Phantom proved adaptable despite a design that was actually quite focused.

 

Pilots are asked to fly the mission that is needed, not the one that the designers “hoped for”. :)

 

-Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember that the F-14 was designed as an interceptor not a dogfighter... so in a close in fight, it was pretty average.

 

 

Sorry....Pure oversimplified nonsense.

 

Grumman designed the bird to the fleet defense requirements but by no means was dog fighting not first and foremost in its designer's minds and results. I grew up in a Grumman family and town and what you state is patently false.

 

It is not the Tie Fighter Top Gun would have you believe, but it is by no means an average dogfighter, any more than an F15 or Su. It requires a PILOT to FLY it with skills and does not have the FBW aids so many have come to know and love here in our sim world.

 

 

 

Actual stick and rudder understanding and skill is widely lacking in the sim world as evidenced by the questions and often pontificating comments relating to the flight model and performance and dog fight topic all over the net. Therefore people are feeling like the Tomcat has somehow let them down when it is in many ways just the opposite.


 

VF-2 Bounty Hunters

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actual stick and rudder understanding and skill is widely lacking in the sim world as evidenced by the questions and often pontificating comments relating to the flight model and performance and dog fight topic all over the net. Therefore people are feeling like the Tomcat has somehow let them down when it is in many ways just the opposite.

 

The Tomcat has never let me down, only I have let the Tomcat down by not respecting the plane and flying better, but with the time I've spent so far, I've learned alot about my own flying, and how much I needed to improve. Now I can't stop flying the Tomcat, I cannot fly any other plane in DCS because its that good of a plane to fly, very rewarding when you fly correctly.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

With GAZILLIONS of information about the F-14 (and pretty much anything), available in the web today...

I don't know why people do not care to inform themselves the slightest bit, before start posting incorrect info about it - "F-14 only an Interceptor".

HANGAR

JETS : FlamingCliffs 3 | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C

HELIS : Mi-8MTV2

 

... yep still on Windows 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well....the assertion that it was designed "purely as an interceptor" is incorrect, but that ability was part of its design philosophy along with range, loiter time, acceleration, top speed, etc. If it was purely designed for fighter escort and armed "4x4" it probably would have been smaller and looked a bit different.

 

In hind sight, its pretty remarkable that the designers built an airplane that was faster than the Phantom, had a 125 KIAS approach speed at max trap (without DLC), could carry the AWG-9 and 6 AIM-54s with their entirely unique/remarkable capability for the time, loiter on station for twice as long as the Phantom it replaced, and could outmaneuver any aircraft in the US or Soviet inventory at the time of its introduction (when the A-4 Super Foxes and F-5Es were regarded as a real threat against a properly flown F-4J in DACT).

 

A might impressive group of traits for one airplane! And the idea that it was "average" for a 4th gen fighter in ACM is reasonable imho - considering that it was roughly equivalent to the F-15 while the later F-16 and F/A-18 had some advantages by virtue of aero advances, FBW, and improved engine technology.

 

The F-14 was really a huge leap in capability when it entered the fleet in 1972, but life and technology have moved on. Now you can pack all that stuff (minus the fuel and loiter of course) into a F-16CJ with little AMRAAMs instead of 1000 lb AIM-54s. But the F-14 allowed those fighters to get there by pioneering the technology. How quickly we forget the contributions of those who came before us.....

 

-Nick

 

 

I agree the F14 is histrionically significant for its time, the US navy in particular, but i wouldn't say its technology paved way for other planes per say.

 

 

F15 and F16s were developed totally separate from the Northrup Grumman's F14 ( which was descended as a fix up from ill fated F111B project) It was designed by different defense contractors for different purpose for a different branch of the US armed forces. Ultimately they both replaced Phantoms, and both were superior to what they replaced, however What the F14 did lag behind was in the T/W department until the F14. as the Navy had in fact desired 1-1 or greater T/W ratio like the Air force required for their F15 and F16 projects from conception.

 

Also F14 was the first and only teen fighter to not be designed around Boyd's EM theory , whereas F15, F16 and even F/A18 had Boyd's influences in their design (to varying degrees), and unlike the rest of the teen fighters there were no serious considerations around cost/performance/reliability and sortie generation ratio. Granted these characteristics would take serious precedence until the Low mix lightweight fighters like the F16 and F/A18, but still s even the F15 was better in these areas to the F14. Export users of the F15 that serious evaluations to direct competitors like the F14 had cited similar things as on the reasons the eagle was chosen for service over the tomcat.

 

 

The F15 The most particular owes a great deal to Boyd. If not for Boyd direct design input, what would become the F15 ( the FX) would have ended being 20,000lbs more heavy , meaning much lesser T/W, and incorporating a variable geometry wings being visibly more similar to the likes of F14 or preceding F111 , which would have resulted in much more costly aircraft acquisition as well as larger maintenance costs in the long run due to more complexity.

 

Even though less of a hangar queen and more affordable $$ per individual aircraft cost to the F14, Even then the F15 was still deemed too expensive to equip the entire USAF fighter squadrons Hence also adopting the F16 for a High low mix, which can be in a way reflected in the Navies decision for adopting the F/A18 alongside the F14 a number of years later. They needed a lightweight multi role fighter workhorse because they couldn't afford to acquire as many F14's as they wanted.

 

Also F15's ended up enjoying a vastly greater export success to the F14, despite entering service only 2 years later.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also F15's ended up enjoying a vastly greater export success to the F14, despite entering service only 2 years later. Interpret that as you will.

 

Two words: Bureaucracy & Lobbyism

 

There's a very good reason the Tomcat's results vs the Eagle were kept secret from the Japanese & Isreal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's more impressive is that all of those capabilities could have made it to the F-14 had the Super Tomcat program been allowed to flourish and the navy given even a FRACTION of the funding the F-15 and F-16 received to maintain their service lives. But alas, politics robbed us of the planned Super Cat that would have added some absolutely ridiculous capabilities if even half of it was properly implemented.

 

Imagine, if you will, the F-14 survived till today, what advances an F-14E model could have had... AIM-120D and AIM-9X w/ JHMCS access, a true glass cockpit (think F/A-18 style), a MASSIVE AESA radar (thank you AWG-9 size making a larger aircraft!), Fly By Wire, non finicky INS gyro's, stronger, lighter weight materials, access to the newer racks to hold missiles more effectively, thrust vectoring (if Grumman got what they wanted)... etc. The F-14 was designed in an era of slide rules and fairly primitive computers. She was tested to the extreme by a company dedicated to building the best aircraft they could. The fact that it is competitive with more modern aircraft variants with a fraction of the funding those aircraft received is downright impressive and to say nothing of the fact it had to land on a carrier, repeatedly, it's entire life.

 

but thats exactly why a Super tomcat just was never going to be the answer.

 

Even if you used lighter composite materials, and totally newer avionics suite, the Super Cat would have still been an impractical design for the 21st century.

 

Given its large airframe it still would have had large RCS for what would have become a 4.5 gen era aircraft .The Variable Sweep Geometry wings would have added unnecessary complexity and cost. Sure Swing wings were at one point deemeda viable answer to overcoming to prior Aerodynamic limitations of the 1950s and 1960s designs, but in the 21st century they would be impractical as since the 1970's going up to the 2000's knowledge of aerodynamics has further improved, and especially inclusion of FBW into aircraft means they swing wings are no longer a necessity in designs to creates well handling aircraft or to overcome prior generations handling limitations.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Two words: Bureaucracy & Lobbyism

 

There's a very good reason the Tomcat's results vs the Eagle were kept secret from the Japanese & Isreal.

 

Um no , Israel had extensive evaluation of both aircraft. They made a very well informed decision when choosing to formally adopt the F15 over the F14.

 

was quoted mostly had to do with deeming it better suited for their needs and being more practical to operate.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Um no , Israel had extensive evaluation of both aircraft. They made a very well informed decision when choosing to formally adopt the F15 over the F14.

 

Correct. Though they were not allowed to perform duels between the two, but neither were US pilots (at least officially).

 

The main reason is simple economics. According to the book I have, when Israelis wanted to buy new aircraft in '74, calculated costs were as follows:

 

F-15A/B

628 mln $ for 50 aircraft

1073 USD per hour of flight

 

F-14A

870 mln $ for 50 aircraft

1689 USD per hour of flight


Edited by some1

Hardware: Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Hotas Cougar, Slaw Rudder, Wheel Stand Pro, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Reverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree the F14 is histrionically significant for its time, the US navy in particular, but i wouldn't say its technology paved way for other planes per say.

 

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.

 

F15 and F16s were developed totally separate from the Northrup grumman's F14 ( which was descended as a fix up from ill fated F111B project) It was designed by different defense contractors for different purpose for a different branch of the US armed forces. Ultimately they both replaced Phantoms, and both were superior to what they replaced, however What the F14 did lag behind was in the T/W department until the F14. as the Navy had in fact desired 1-1 or greater T/W ratio like the Air force required for their F15 and F16 projects from conception.

 

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.

 

Also F14 was the first and only teen fighter to not be designed around Boyd's EM theory, whereas F15, F16 and even F/A18 had Boyd's influences in their design (to varying degrees), and unlike the rest of the teen fighters there were no serious considerations around cost/performance/reliability and sortie generation ratio. Granted these characteristics would take serious precedence until the Low mix lightweight fighters like the F16 and F/A18, but still s even the F15 was better in these areas to the F14. Export users of the F15 that serious evulations to direct competitors like the F14 had cited similar things as on the reasons the eagle was chosen for service over the tomcat.

 

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 F15 The most particular owes a great deal to Boyd. If not for Boyd direct design input, what would become the F15 ( the FX) would have ended being 20,000lbs more heavy , meaning much lesser T/W, and incorporating a variable geometry wings being visibly more similar to the likes of F14 or preceding F111 , which would have resulted in much more costly aircraft acquisition as well as larger maintenance costs in the long run due to more complexity.

 

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

 

Also F15's ended up enjoying a vastly greater export success to the F14, despite entering service only 2 years later.

 

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

 

-Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct. Though they were not allowed to perform duels between the two, but neither were US pilots (at least officially).

 

The main reason is simple economics. According to the book I have, when Israelis wanted to buy new aircraft in '74, calculated costs were as follows:

 

F-15A/B

628 mln $ for 50 aircraft

1073 USD per hour of flight

 

F-14A

870 mln $ for 50 aircraft

1689 USD per hour of flight

 

 

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


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little concerned as when we get the F-14A and the Mig-23MLA we will finally have a period specific match up. Of course the F-14 has always been considered a superior aircraft however with the current performance of the F-14 eating F/A-18's for breakfast and the lack of IADS modelling for Russian aircraft along with the lack of ECM modelling in DCS the F-14 and Mig-23 match up will be a joke.

 

 

Don't get your hopes up for the 23. It's an inferior doghighter compared to the 21 in their contemporary incarnations. On top of that, even the earliest F-14A models (like the troublesome 75-76 vintages) will chew both 21 and 23 alive, both BVR and WVR.

Current modules:

FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map......ah yes, forgot the Super Carrier! Shows you how often i fly these days....

 

Modules in waiting: F-14A, MiG-23, F-4U, F-8, Falklands Map

 

 

Wish list: South East Asia map, F-4J/N, A-6, F-15A/C, Su-27, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Mirage III, MiG-17.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...