F-14A has become my primary ride

[streakeagle]

While the F-14B is absolutely amazing, it was never the aircraft I wanted. I primarily prefer older, less capable aircraft and older, less capable weapons. The aircraft I really want of fly the most in DCS World, the F-4, was first delayed, then put on indefinite hold, and now canceled by ED. My only hope is that a third party that has experience with developing two-seat, all-weather, US Navy fleet air defense fighters steps up to the plate (hint, hint -> Heatblur).

 

The initial production F-14A armed with AIM-7E/AIM-7F is much more to my liking, but the slightly newer, better F-14A we have right now is close enough. It is the only aircraft available in DCS World that can even come close to substituting for the F-4: carrier capable, twin-engines, relatively low thrust-to-weight, backseat RIO, and all-weather radar interceptor with the option to carry 4xAIM-7 + 4xAIM-9. The big bubble canopy, giant radar, and the variable geometry wing's superior lift and drag characteristics make it a bit more capable than the F-4. But if you don't arm it with AIM-54s it largely flies and fights like an F-4. So I am having a ton of fun flying the F-14A for several air-to-air combat missions nearly every day with air-to-air refueling and carrier landings being part of the trip home. I am thoroughly enjoying every minute spend flying this aircraft in DCS World.

 

I can't wait for the final F-14A with the older RWR to become available.

[Victory205]

Good man.

 

I would add that the F4 was a pretty easy fight for the F14A. Even the slatted F4S wasn’t a big deal. Amazing at how may F4’s were built. We had a ton of former F4 drivers in Tomcat Squadrons, and they all loved the F14. The RIO’s were in Electronic Heaven.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Victory205

[Copprhead]

On 3/2/2021 at 5:25 AM, streakeagle said:

the variable geometry wing's superior lift and drag characteristics make it a bit more capable than the F-4.

 

Just put the wing sweep in manual mode 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Copprhead

[sLYFa]

Man, how did you guys IRL manage to fly this thing in the groove? Its difficult enough in the B to fly decent approaches and that thing has instantenous engine response compared to the TF-30s. Guess I'll should fly it more often

[WolfHound009]

10 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Good man.

 

I would add that the F4 was a pretty easy fight for the F14A. Even the slatted F4S wasn’t a big deal. Amazing at how may F4’s were built. We had a ton of former F4 drivers in Tomcat Squadrons, and they all loved the F14. The RIO’s were in Electronic Heaven.

 

Were there certain regimes where an F-4 had an advantage over an F-14A in close range not taking into account the skill of the Pilot/RIO, or was it that the Tomcat had all the advantages in a dogfight?

[Skysurfer]

Same, also due to the fact that the B still lacks the actual B engine instruments thus making the A bit more "authentic".  Also that 80's vibe off the Forrestal will be pretty sweet.

4 minutes ago, WolfHound009 said:

Were there certain regimes where an F-4 had an advantage over an F-14A in close range not taking into account the skill of the Pilot/RIO, or was it that the Tomcat had all the advantages in a dogfight?

 

Well, a 4th gen better outperform a 3rd gen in every area imaginable.

[WolfHound009]

18 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

Same, also due to the fact that the B still lacks the actual B engine instruments thus making the A bit more "authentic".  Also that 80's vibe off the Forrestal will be pretty sweet.

 

Well, a 4th gen better outperform a 3rd gen in every area imaginable.

 Yeah, fair enough

Edited March 2, 2021 by WolfHound009

[AH_Solid_Snake]

1 hour ago, WolfHound009 said:

Were there certain regimes where an F-4 had an advantage over an F-14A in close range not taking into account the skill of the Pilot/RIO, or was it that the Tomcat had all the advantages in a dogfight?

 

Everything I've read suggests that the F-4 was outmatched throughout the envelope, and that since it was the direct replacement that was part of the performance specification. My oldest F-14 reference is Aero Series 25 - Grumman F-14 "Tomcat" by James Perry Stevenson from about 1975, its fairly amazing the amount of detail he was able to put together about such a brand new weapon system. Quoting from there in the F4 comparisons.

 

40% better turn radius

27% better manueuvering climb

21% better sustained G

21% better acceleration

20% better rate of climb

21% better roll

80% more combat radius in internal fuel

50% more loiter time with 6 phoenix

100% more loiter with sparrow

>200% radar range

 

He also states testimony from contemporary F-14 crews claiming 2 F-14s can outfight 8 F-4s. 

 

All of this when the B model and F110s were not even a gleam in the milkman's eye.

[LanceCriminal86]

12 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Good man.

 

I would add that the F4 was a pretty easy fight for the F14A. Even the slatted F4S wasn’t a big deal. Amazing at how may F4’s were built. We had a ton of former F4 drivers in Tomcat Squadrons, and they all loved the F14. The RIO’s were in Electronic Heaven.

 

 

@Victory205 I'd heard that the F-4s were more forgiving in the carrier landing pattern due to the whole boundary layer thing, did you have time in both F-4s and F-14s?

 

Also, I talked to "P2" from 201 last night on the phone for a while and am expecting a call from "Rug", not sure if they were there when you were. "P2" mentioned he was dual qual'd as RIO on the Phantom and the Tomcat, and apparently "Rug" let him taxi their last VF-201 Tomcat at Davis-Monthan from I guess the transient parking are over to its spot by "the museum" as he called it. He and "Goose" have been filling me in on lots of details about their last year of Tomcats there in 1998.

[Victory205]

There really wasn't anywhere in the envelope where the F4 was superior, even though the static installed thrust was similar on the two aircraft and the Tomcat was heavier. The F14's aerodynamics were superior across the spectrum, including intake design, lift generation and less drag. I thought that the F4 would likely have an acceleration and perhaps a max speed advantage in parts of the altitude regime, but the guys who flew them said that it wasn't even close.

 

The Phantom looked better in the groove, and if anything, it responded a little quicker to power inputs because of turbojet vs turbofan, and it didn't tend to float power off. That said, there were far more ramp strikes in the F4 than the Tomcat (the latter having one or maybe two that I remember).

 

Tomcat also had far more endurance at lower speeds. One of the issues we had with the F4 guys was getting them to change their mindset about speed. They'd haul around a 400 KIAS wasting gas all of the time, bitching that their wingman was taking too long to join up. I had a helluvatime getting one of my CO's to slow down while holding overhead IKE when we were out doing a couple of weeks of active duty. He was "holding" at 350KIAS, lapping everyone else in overhead holding. We normally did 225-235 waiting for a ready deck.

 

The F4 guys only got a handful of sims, and four or five hops in the aircraft during their transition, which wasn't enough. We found that the F4 gents were uncomfortable going vertical with less than 450 KIAS at first. I'd recommend that the transitions go out and do a series of burner loops at decreasing entry speeds to build confidence in the aircraft's capabilities. The common question was "what speed do you think I should I start?" I'd recommend 280, which was quite conservative, and their faces would turn pale. The F14A could do a comfortable loop entering at 225 KIAS, the B 180KIAS. Mind boggling coming from the F4. Those entry speeds sort of put the whole "Wings give away your energy state" argument that you hear so often. If you look at the wing schedule, the F14 is at it's corner velocity with the wings pretty straight at typical fighting attitudes. If you think a Tomcat can't get his nose on you if you go vertical, think again. Hopefully you gents have figured that out by now.

 

The Phantom guys certainly loved their aircraft, but it just didn't have the performance anymore. Kind of like the rest of us when the F22 showed up. We had a Marine F4 unit literally across the ramp, and would call over on an ad hoc basis if the situation presented itself, especially during a mundane, mid week lull. It was usually over quickly 1v1. I remember bringing back a HUD tape sitting in the saddle, pipper tracking on an F4 as he rolled helplessly, commenting, turning up the volume so the Phantom Phanatics could hear us saying, "look at that, what a great airplane..." 

 

Pissed off my CO, and ex- F4 RIO, who was sitting there and often replaced "F's" in his correspondence with "Ph's", and constantly gushed over how manly the old Phantom was.

 

We combined with them out at Nellis working with USAF F15's who were doing AMRAAM development in the early days. A couple divisions of F4's out there doing pincers and post holes with AIM7's and terrain masking with Tomcats hurling AIM54's is a different kettle of fish. All of a sudden, an AIM7 is tracking at you and you had no idea where it came from.

 

The sky is a deadly place, it isn't a sterile environment where you know where all the threats are, no matter how sophisticated the jet you happen to be sitting in might be.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Victory205

[streakeagle]

The F-14A is about halfway between F-4 and F-14B performance in terms of specific excess power: acceleration, climb, sustained turn rates. Most of the charts showing F-14 superiority over the F-4 use the unslatted F-4J. It has been a while since I looked at the numbers, but if I recall correctly, the actual margins are closer to 10% than 20%, which is still significant in a 1 vs 1. The slatted F-4S didn't even exist when the Aero book was published. The slatted F-4S would have had slightly better turn performance, both instantaneous and sustained, but slightly lower top speed, lower acceleration, and lower climb rates. The F-4 paid a steep price in drag for the fixed slats on the outer wing panels, which is the only slats the F-4S got. The F-4E at least got the retractable ones on the inner wing. The final version of the AWG-10 radar on the F-4S wasn't an AWG-9, but it wasn't bad either. It was digital and it had doppler. Just not the power or extra features like TWS and of course, couldn't use the AIM-54.

 

But look at the aircraft already in DCS World or coming in the next few years. None of them are as close to the F-4 in overall capabilities as the original F-14A. RAZBAM's MiG-23MLA is a very close match in flight performance, but again, better aerodynamics and a swing wing provides some advantages in acceleration and climb with comparable turn performance. It also has a decent radar more or less equivalent to the F-4S AWG-10. But it is single engine, single pilot, land based. In the absence of the F-4, the F-14A is the next best thing.

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, streakeagle said:

The F-4 paid a steep price in drag for the fixed slats on the outer wing panels, which is the only slats the F-4S got. The F-4E at least got the retractable ones on the inner wing.

 

The inner panels were also movable, like on the F-4E - despite the slats being a slightliy different design:

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/f-4s-wing.html

 

 

I also prefer the A over the B - it's more of a challenge and learning to operate the "harder" model can't be bad, either.

Plus I like the sound.

[streakeagle]

The inner wings didn't have slats, they were the original leading edge flaps, which were for landing/take-off, not for maneuvering at combat speeds and loads. The caption for the linked photo even mentions the fact that the only the outer wing panels got slats. Your link showed something I didn't know: the F-4S slats still moved a little: they didn't retract back into the edge of the wing per the USAF slats. They merely pivoted to be more inline with the wing, but were still extended: i.e. there was a slot between the slat and the wing even in the "retracted" position.

 

Slats are a very specific device compared to a flap. Slats are usually retractable and often operate automatically based on the air pressure on the wing. At higher AoA, they get "sucked out", and then as the AoA gets lower, they get pushed back in. The USAF's Agile Eagle program experimented with many different setups trying to find the best compromise and then retrofitted it to nearly all F-4Es that had been build with the original "hard" wings on all other F-4 variants. All hard wing F-4s had leading edge flaps, though the inner flaps were locked in place in later variants/upgrades. The F-4S upgrade originally did not have slats, but for some reason the Navy suddenly decided it was a good idea, but went with the simpler, more cost effective solution of only fitting the fixed slats on the outer wing panels.

 

Slats fixed in the up position are only useful at higher AoA. In level flight and lower AoA, they merely cause drag. But it was an easy choice: sacrifice Mach 2 speeds that were never used for being able to safely push much higher AoA with less induced drag and no chance of snap rolling into a non-recoverable flat spin from adverse yaw effects.

 

The F-14, F-16, and F/A-18 all got leading edge and trailing edge high lift devices, critical to high AoA dogfighting. Ironically, the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15 did not. The USAF/engineers decided that the F-15's performance was so great between its low wing loading and high thrust-to-weight, that it didn't need the weight or monetary cost of high lift devices. So, all it got was some rudimentary flaps on the inboard wings for landing and a little bit of curved down wingtips to help at high AoA. With leading edge slats and full span maneuvering flaps, the F-15 could have been a much better low speed dogfighter. The F-14 seems to have been short changed, too. Per DCS World, manually dropping the flaps can make a big difference in a slow fight, but they easily get jammed down when used that way. I really wish engineers and accountants would learn from the past: almost every fighter that ever had maneuver flaps and/or slats that could be used at combat speeds benefited greatly from it. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by streakeagle

[LanceCriminal86]

10 hours ago, Victory205 said:

There really wasn't anywhere in the envelope where the F4 was superior, even though the static installed thrust was similar on the two aircraft and the Tomcat was heavier. The F14's aerodynamics were superior across the spectrum, including intake design, lift generation and less drag. I thought that the F4 would likely have an acceleration and perhaps a max speed advantage in parts of the altitude regime, but the guys who flew them said that it wasn't even close.

 

The Phantom looked better in the groove, and if anything, it responded a little quicker to power inputs because of turbojet vs turbofan, and it didn't tend to float power off. That said, there were far more ramp strikes in the F4 than the Tomcat (the latter having one or maybe two that I remember).

 

Tomcat also had far more endurance at lower speeds. One of the issues we had with the F4 guys was getting them to change their mindset about speed. They'd haul around a 400 KIAS wasting gas all of the time, bitching that their wingman was taking too long to join up. I had a helluvatime getting one of my CO's to slow down while holding overhead IKE when we were out doing a couple of weeks of active duty. He was "holding" at 350KIAS, lapping everyone else in overhead holding. We normally did 225-235 waiting for a ready deck.

 

The F4 guys only got a handful of sims, and four or five hops in the aircraft during their transition, which wasn't enough. We found that the F4 gents were uncomfortable going vertical with less than 450 KIAS at first. I'd recommend that the transitions go out and do a series of burner loops at decreasing entry speeds to build confidence in the aircraft's capabilities. The common question was "what speed do you think I should I start?" I'd recommend 280, which was quite conservative, and their faces would turn pale. The F14A could do a comfortable loop entering at 225 KIAS, the B 180KIAS. Mind boggling coming from the F4. Those entry speeds sort of put the whole "Wings give away your energy state" argument that you hear so often. If you look at the wing schedule, the F14 is at it's corner velocity with the wings pretty straight at typical fighting attitudes. If you think a Tomcat can't get his nose on you if you go vertical, think again. Hopefully you gents have figured that out by now.

 

The Phantom guys certainly loved their aircraft, but it just didn't have the performance anymore. Kind of like the rest of us when the F22 showed up. We had a Marine F4 unit literally across the ramp, and would call over on an ad hoc basis if the situation presented itself, especially during a mundane, mid week lull. It was usually over quickly 1v1. I remember bringing back a HUD tape sitting in the saddle, pipper tracking on an F4 as he rolled helplessly, commenting, turning up the volume so the Phantom Phanatics could hear us saying, "look at that, what a great airplane..." 

 

Pissed off my CO, and ex- F4 RIO, who was sitting there and often replaced "F's" in his correspondence with "Ph's", and constantly gushed over how manly the old Phantom was.

 

We combined with them out at Nellis working with USAF F15's who were doing AMRAAM development in the early days. A couple divisions of F4's out there doing pincers and post holes with AIM7's and terrain masking with Tomcats hurling AIM54's is a different kettle of fish. All of a sudden, an AIM7 is tracking at you and you had no idea where it came from.

 

The sky is a deadly place, it isn't a sterile environment where you know where all the threats are, no matter how sophisticated the jet you happen to be sitting in might be.

 

 

@Victory205 Would that be VMFA-112 Cowboys? They were at Carswell JRB in Hornets when I was in high school but I believe they were at NAS Dallas before?

[Bremspropeller]

6 hours ago, streakeagle said:

The inner wings didn't have slats, they were the original leading edge flaps, which were for landing/take-off, not for maneuvering at combat speeds and loads. The caption for the linked photo even mentions the fact that the only the outer wing panels got slats. Your link showed something I didn't know: the F-4S slats still moved a little: they didn't retract back into the edge of the wing per the USAF slats. They merely pivoted to be more inline with the wing, but were still extended: i.e. there was a slot between the slat and the wing even in the "retracted" position.

 

Streak, thought you meant the inner-wing outboard sections, which would be the inner slats.

 

However, speaking of the innermost secions that were locked up as a consequence the introduction of aileron-droop:

There actually were a few slatted F-4S that had those re-activated and there used to be a couple of pictures of that configuration on the net.

There probabaly still are, but finding them isn't that easy.

 

Tommy Thomason does confirm this (see nore under the VMFA-122 bird):

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/you-cant-tell-phantoms-without-score.html

 

Edit - taken the hint from Thomason's F-4S entry - this is a VMFA-251 bird with the inner droops re-activated:

 

And another one:

 

Might have been a temporary mod.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[Lurker]

Never understood the fascination with the F4. Apart from being a very capable weapons platform (AIM7, RIO, and probably the best fighter radar in service at the time) and being carrier capable, it's not like it was some kind of aeronautical engineering marvel of it's time. Maybe it's a historical thing. I guess different strokes for different folks. 

[Fleur79]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Lurker:

Never understood the fascination with the F4. Apart from being a very capable weapons platform (AIM7, RIO, and probably the best fighter radar in service at the time) and being carrier capable, it's not like it was some kind of aeronautical engineering marvel of it's time. Maybe it's a historical thing. I guess different strokes for different folks. 

50 years of sevice :). speed and climbing records, many air forces around the globe, damned sexy beast... so i ask "apart from the aqueduct, what have the romans ever done for us?" answer enough?

Edited March 3, 2021 by Fleur79

[AH_Solid_Snake]

51 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Never understood the fascination with the F4. Apart from being a very capable weapons platform (AIM7, RIO, and probably the best fighter radar in service at the time) and being carrier capable, it's not like it was some kind of aeronautical engineering marvel of it's time. Maybe it's a historical thing. I guess different strokes for different folks. 

Errr, it was an engineering marvel for its day? It claimed a great many world records for performance in one big clean sweep.

 

the fact that it’s not as good as an F22 only matters if you take everything outside it’s context. Ignoring dates the F22 is better, in 1958 it wasn’t.

[Skysurfer]

The F4 was a tremendous plane for its time. I think the best case for everyone here would be if Heatblur did an F-4J or even S after the A-6E. They have the technology, know-how and experience to do such multicrew jets. Would fit fairly well with the Forrestal and potential more ships of the same clsss if HB decided to include them with the A-6.

 

And speaking bout anything but sterile, pre-determined 1v1's, a F-4 or Mig-23 is very much capable of jumping and shooting down a Tomcat or Hornet in a complex, high SA, combat environment. Some of the claimed engagements and shootdown in the Iran - Iraq war show exactly that, as well as the instances in Desert Storm. 

[Lurker]

I know it's an unpopular opinion, and I'm not dissing it's capabilities as some incorrectly assumed. I know the later models became very capable, which is probably the main reason they served as long as they did with so many countries as they did. It's a subjective opinion, simply a matter of "like" and "dislike". Oh and you can't argue that the early models had serious teething problems. 

[Bremspropeller]

39 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I know it's an unpopular opinion, and I'm not dissing it's capabilities as some incorrectly assumed. I know the later models became very capable, which is probably the main reason they served as long as they did with so many countries as they did. It's a subjective opinion, simply a matter of "like" and "dislike". Oh and you can't argue that the early models had serious teething problems. 

 

At the end of the day, it comes all back down to what you're into. If you're one of those "gib F-22 plz" folks, then the F-4 won't rock your boat. Granted.

If you're a little more into steam-gauge-punk, your love of the F-4 should manifest istself rather quickly. Just think about it:

 

It's 1961 and you've just gotten those brand new f'ugly aircraft that can fly anywhere in between 120 kias in the groove to M 2.0+ at 60,000ft (higher if you're into zoom-stuff), shoot somebody in the face at 20 miles and still have 4 tail-aspect heaters to play with. No guns, granted, but we've just kicked down the door into the rocket-age, after all...

On top of that, an F-4 on an alpha-strike might not just fly TARCAP or BARCAP, but it actually may put some warheads on foreheads - and while soing so, bringing more fireworks to the party than your run-of-the-mill Scooter.

 

The F-4s got their rear ends beaten by F-8s during the first couple of years. Once some people had figured out how to fly the F-4 properly (that includes hard-wings), the F-8s found themselves in more and more of trouble.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

I know it's an unpopular opinion, and I'm not dissing it's capabilities as some incorrectly assumed. I know the later models became very capable, which is probably the main reason they served as long as they did with so many countries as they did. It's a subjective opinion, simply a matter of "like" and "dislike". Oh and you can't argue that the early models had serious teething problems. 

Gotta be honest. Never understood what you see in your wife....

everyone has there idea of whats cool. . Kind of a generational thing. 

[WolfHound009]

My favourite Phantom variant is the Royal Navy F-4K that we Brits had during the 70s!

 

 

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

The F4 was a tremendous plane for its time. I think the best case for everyone here would be if Heatblur did an F-4J or even S after the A-6E. They have the technology, know-how and experience to do such multicrew jets. Would fit fairly well with the Forrestal and potential more ships of the same clsss if HB decided to include them with the A-6.

 

And speaking bout anything but sterile, pre-determined 1v1's, a F-4 or Mig-23 is very much capable of jumping and shooting down a Tomcat or Hornet in a complex, high SA, combat environment. Some of the claimed engagements and shootdown in the Iran - Iraq war show exactly that, as well as the instances in Desert Storm. 

December 1990, 2x F-14 (Diamondbacks I seem to remember), USS America transiting the med heading for Red Sea via Suez Canal, US Navy asked for “interaction” from Cyprus based RAF aircraft, one early morning singleton FGR2, following direction from ground radar heads out to “interact” (wingman went U/S, no spare). Radar off, winders selected, F-14s seen in semi loose form crossing nose left to right at around 18000 from circa 9 miles. So a good viz pickup.
Stay radar silent, come in on the beam, then convert to a low rear quarter simulated winder shot.

F-14s didn’t see it coming. No reaction to the F-4 towing a cloud and hell bent on their heat sig.

We’re it real, at least one would be sans crew and falling.

Blow through before the other can react, and escape stage left grinning. Recommendation sent to ship - keep head on a swivel.

 

1v2 is achievable, if you think about how to do it - even something supposedly archaic can give a nasty wake up call to something assumed to be better.

Silhouette applied to Phantom couple days later, a rough sketch of the Tomcat ‘cat’ flying forward with a British boot kicking its ar5e.

Head shed didn’t like it though, and artwork only lasted about a week.

 But I remember the sight picture . . . .

Edited March 3, 2021 by garyscott
Spelling

[WolfHound009]

1 minute ago, garyscott said:

December 1990, 2x F-14 (Diamondbacks I seem to remember), USS America transiting the med heading for Red Sea via Suez Canal, US Navy asked for “interaction” from Cyprus based RAF aircraft, one early morning singleton FGR2, following direction from ground radar heads out to “interact” (wingman went U/S, no spare). Radar off, winders selected, F-14s seen in semi loose form crossing nose left to right at around 18000 from circa 9 miles. So a good viz pickup.
Stay radar silent, come in on the beam, then convert to a low rear quarter simulated winder shot.

F-14s didn’t see it coming. No reaction to the F-4 towing a cloud and he’ll bent on their heat sig.

We’re it real, at least one would be sans crew and falling.

Blow through before the other can react, and escape stage left grinning. Recommendation sent to ship - keep head on a swivel.

 

1v2 is achievable, if you think about how to do it - even something supposedly archaic can give a nasty wake up call to something assumed to be better.

Silhouette applied to Phantom couple days later, a rough sketch of the Tomcat ‘cat’ flying forward with a British boot kicking its ar5e.

Head shed didn’t like it though, and artwork only lasted about a week.

 But I remember the sight picture . . . .

Thats Brilliant!!