The F14 vs what we are doing now

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:56:43 GMT, Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
wrote:

The History Channel recently had a piece on the F14. I did not realize that
plane came out of the F111 program. Nor that it could track 24 enemy targets,
engaging up to 6 at a time (and at long range).

The question is whether we still need an platform that can do long range combat.
We have dropped the AAAM (AIM-155) which was to be a replacement for the Phoenix
(AIM-54) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tions/aaam.htm)
Nor do we have a radar equal to what was on the F14.

Also they commented on how the F14 was a better platform than the F15 (which had
some real survivability)

Any insights?

The F-14 was probably the first operational system with reliable
track-while-scan capability. (I'm sure the Luftwaffe had something
similar during 1943, but it didn't reach full production....nahhhh.)
The ability to track targets while still searching for others was a
significant advantage. IIRC, they demonstrated the six-target
engagement capability and successfully splashed all six independently
flown drones.

The real threat that the F-14 was designed for was the ASM's of the
Soviet bombers--systems like Kitchen and Kelt. That threat is no
longer very high on the priority list.

Today we've got more force integration with AWACs (or similar) doing
the long range detection and target allocation for the interceptors.
That offloads a requirement for some sensors capability from the
fighter to the larger platform.

One could also make the argument that a follow-on to AIM-54 isn't
required--threat is gone and the fact that the system was never used
in combat during its life cycle would indicate that other weapons
would have a higher priority for budget $$.

As for the F-14 as "a better platform than the F-15"--you would have
to caveat that with some mission parameters. Both aircraft have been
very good and each has some corners of the operational envelope in
which it is superior.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

The F14 had great legs (fuel/range), and a very powerful radar (good for
very long range detection and burning through ECM). The track/lock while
scan was a major improvement, as were the AIM-54 missiles. However, the 6
missile engagement was more of a publicity student than a reality. It was
only tried once, and only four missile hit. One malfunctioned, and another
targeted a drone that malfunctioned and so it never hit (BTW, the 38 second
test cost $154,000 per second!!). The Tomcat couldn't carry 6 missiles and
still normally land back on a carrier. With even 4 Pheonixes reducing fuel
levels at landing to critical when doing carrier ops. So typically they
only carried two. And even then, pilots lamented the drag/weight
restrictions that the massive missiles imposed when they were carried.
Granted though, the Pheonix gave a fire-and-forget capability that was
unrivaled for 20 years, and no other AAM can come close to matching its
range (other than the Mig-31 copy of it).

I would say that the Russians took the threat of the F14 very seriously (as
witnessed by their naval bomber/missile developments). So it ultimately did
what it was designed to do by putting fear into the hearts of potential
enemies and protecting US (and allied) forces by sheer intimidation. It
does have a perfect, if limited, combat record (not including questionable
Iranian records).

However, as Ed mentions, comparing it to the F15 is comparing apples to
oranges. For much of its career the F14 had engines with inadequate thrust
and a nasty tendancy to stall, so it was inferior in the dogfight. The
Eagle benefited from better funding, and had some really nifty avionics. As
witnessed by its superior NCTR performance in the Gulf War (i.e., it could
better identify hostile vs. friendly planes at BVR distances). Also, the
Eagle has a kill record of around 100 - 0. So any hypothetical comparison
you make (to the 14, or Su27, or even F22) has to bear in mind that very
impressive, real-life, perfect combat record. The Eagle has certainly done
everything it has been asked to do, and proven that it can beat every A-A
opponent it has faced in war.

As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some F15Cs,
and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as Ed
said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an ultra-long
range fighter radar is not necessary.

That's my two cents with the caveat that this is arm-chair speculation from
an arm-chair flyer.

"TV" wrote:

:As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some F15Cs,
:and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
:superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as Ed
:said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an ultra-long
:range fighter radar is not necessary.

Actually, the F-15 is lagging in radar (there is a plan to upgrade
some of them to cover the slide right in JSF delivery, I gather). The
radar on the Super Hornet is probably slightly better (in some
regards) than that on the F-22, not being constrained by the 'stealth'
design.

As for the complementing missiles, the Slammer has a shorter range but
a MUCH larger 'no escape' cone than the Phoenix. It's lighter and an
aircraft of a given capacity can carry more of them.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

guys have been talking about the eagle and the tomcat as dogfighters -
either one have been really ever vaunted
as good turning jets. they are bvr platforms. the hornet and viper can
easily defeat both the eagle and tomcat in
practically any turning engagement

aesa radars in elmendorf based eagles are very, very good...

wrote in message
ups.com...
guys have been talking about the eagle and the tomcat as dogfighters -
either one have been really ever vaunted
as good turning jets. they are bvr platforms. the hornet and viper can
easily defeat both the eagle and tomcat in
practically any turning engagement

The numbers I ran across indicate that the sustained turn rate of the F-15C
is just about the same as that of the F/A-18E, and not that far off from
that of the F/A-18C. All apparently reside in the high teens arena in that
regard.

Brooks


aesa radars in elmendorf based eagles are very, very good...

wrote:
guys have been talking about the eagle and the tomcat as dogfighters -
either one have been really ever vaunted
as good turning jets. they are bvr platforms. the hornet and viper can
easily defeat both the eagle and tomcat in
practically any turning engagement

aesa radars in elmendorf based eagles are very, very good...

BS...The F-15 was designed as a air-superiority fighter and AFAIK
dogfighting was very much considered in the design. remember that Boyd
was in on the design specs. If you doubt it, I'll ask Chuck Myers about
it.
Reed

wrote in message
ups.com...
guys have been talking about the eagle and the tomcat as dogfighters -
either one have been really ever vaunted
as good turning jets. they are bvr platforms. the hornet and viper can
easily defeat both the eagle and tomcat in
practically any turning engagement

aesa radars in elmendorf based eagles are very, very good...

Spoken from cockpit experience? I thought not.

I grant that both aircraft are more difficult to fly well in the "knife
fight in a phone booth" environment (particularly so when compared to the
point-and-pull Hornet). Easily defeated? Hardly.

R / John

i have less than 300 hrs in the hornet, and my comments about beating
the eagle
in bfm are from my experience only. on my squadron the eagle is
generally regarded
as a poor turning platform and i tend to agree. you need to remember
sustained turn
performance is but one measure of fighter capability.

Does the F18's radar have the same tracking capability as the F14? I feelwe
are doing a disservice to the Navy by retiring this plane. This is
heartbreaking.
-JC
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
"TV" wrote:

:As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some
F15Cs,
:and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
:superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as
Ed
:said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an
ultra-long
:range fighter radar is not necessary.

Actually, the F-15 is lagging in radar (there is a plan to upgrade
some of them to cover the slide right in JSF delivery, I gather). The
radar on the Super Hornet is probably slightly better (in some
regards) than that on the F-22, not being constrained by the 'stealth'
design.

As for the complementing missiles, the Slammer has a shorter range but
a MUCH larger 'no escape' cone than the Phoenix. It's lighter and an
aircraft of a given capacity can carry more of them.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"John C" wrote in a broken top-posting, which
I have corrected:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
:news : "TV" wrote:
:
: :As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some F15Cs,
: :and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
: :superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as Ed
: :said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an ultra-long
: :range fighter radar is not necessary.
:
: Actually, the F-15 is lagging in radar (there is a plan to upgrade
: some of them to cover the slide right in JSF delivery, I gather). The
: radar on the Super Hornet is probably slightly better (in some
: regards) than that on the F-22, not being constrained by the 'stealth'
: design.
:
: As for the complementing missiles, the Slammer has a shorter range but
: a MUCH larger 'no escape' cone than the Phoenix. It's lighter and an
: aircraft of a given capacity can carry more of them.
:
oes the F18's radar have the same tracking capability as the F14?

Define what you mean.

:I feelwe
:are doing a disservice to the Navy by retiring this plane. This is
:heartbreaking.

The Navy are the ones that accelerated its retirement. It's simply
too expensive to maintain and operate, given its age.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney