not an F-14 but carrier airplane anyway. How low on fuel did you get, Astro?
F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
I have seen videos indicating the F-14 was retired either because of a heavy maintenance requirement or the air frame " ageing out " or both . Any of that correct ?
I thought it was basically killed by a politician at the time, including the tooling.
It was killed by a confluence of factors.
“Peace dividend” budget cuts (1990 onward) put pressure on the Navy. The Navy needed airframes to fill carrier decks. The “fighter gap” was a real challenge, as 1970s and 80s airframes aged out. A-6. A-7. Early F/A-18. Navy procurement, in a declining budget, had to come up with 30+ airplanes/year in the late 1990s to keep 50 warplanes per flight deck.
Political maneuvering by McDonnell-Douglas convinced Congress that the F/A-18 was the “low cost, low risk” option with an upgraded F/A-18. A “growth model” of an existing airplane. In reality, it was an entirely new airplane. New fuselage, new wings, new landing gear, new engines, new weapon system. Bigger in every respect, though the platform is similar. The new “Super Hornet” ended up costing more per airplane than the F-14 option that Grumman had offered.
The F-14 airframe hadn’t aged out. It was conventional, metal, and could be inspected. One F-14 achieved over 13,000 Flight hours. F/A-18 center barrel sections, the structural heart of the jet, were composite, and had to be thrown away at 6,000 hours.
But the Peace Dividend was expensive. The Navy lost tens of thousands of sailors, and the money buying enough new airplanes put pressure on Navy maintenance support. Parts budgets were cut, sailors were cut, so maintenance expertise was lost as the force size shrank. The F-14 maintenance man hours per flight hour started to climb, the result of poor parts support, loss of expertise, and amortization of rework capability over fewer airframes.
Eventually, the Navy decided that having just one fighter would be cheaper. When the decision was made, in 1990, to terminate F-14 production, the conclusion, reached in the late 1990s, was inevitable: having only one fighter woiled keep costs down.
The plane was retired in 2006, with hundreds of airframes that were nowhere near the end of their fatigue life.
“Peace dividend” budget cuts (1990 onward) put pressure on the Navy. The Navy needed airframes to fill carrier decks. The “fighter gap” was a real challenge, as 1970s and 80s airframes aged out. A-6. A-7. Early F/A-18. Navy procurement, in a declining budget, had to come up with 30+ airplanes/year in the late 1990s to keep 50 warplanes per flight deck.
Political maneuvering by McDonnell-Douglas convinced Congress that the F/A-18 was the “low cost, low risk” option with an upgraded F/A-18. A “growth model” of an existing airplane. In reality, it was an entirely new airplane. New fuselage, new wings, new landing gear, new engines, new weapon system. Bigger in every respect, though the platform is similar. The new “Super Hornet” ended up costing more per airplane than the F-14 option that Grumman had offered.
The F-14 airframe hadn’t aged out. It was conventional, metal, and could be inspected. One F-14 achieved over 13,000 Flight hours. F/A-18 center barrel sections, the structural heart of the jet, were composite, and had to be thrown away at 6,000 hours.
But the Peace Dividend was expensive. The Navy lost tens of thousands of sailors, and the money buying enough new airplanes put pressure on Navy maintenance support. Parts budgets were cut, sailors were cut, so maintenance expertise was lost as the force size shrank. The F-14 maintenance man hours per flight hour started to climb, the result of poor parts support, loss of expertise, and amortization of rework capability over fewer airframes.
Eventually, the Navy decided that having just one fighter would be cheaper. When the decision was made, in 1990, to terminate F-14 production, the conclusion, reached in the late 1990s, was inevitable: having only one fighter woiled keep costs down.
The plane was retired in 2006, with hundreds of airframes that were nowhere near the end of their fatigue life.
Absolutely. But, in regimes like current one in Turkey, for leader to survive, you do not buy S400, you equip police force as best as you can, and install in leadership position in military your people. He did both long time ago.
Can you elaborate on the Jalopnik article about maneuvers prohibited in the Tomcat?
Jalopnik F-14 prohibited maneuver
Jalopnik F-14 prohibited maneuver
Hi
That is an interesting read, thanks for posting.
#2 reminds me a little of Spitfires during Battle of Britain. Spit' had to roll to maintain fuel flow in a dive. BF109 had fuel injection so could pull negative G without power loss.
"Smokin" Joe does a good job explaining them. Yeah, they were prohibited for good reason - the airplane wouldn't work (negative G fuel starvation), it would get damaged (AIM-9 launch with landing flaps, dumping in AB) or you would lose control (spins, rolls greater than 360 degrees).
The "rolls greater than 360 degrees" was a problem with all fighters. We didn't have the prohibition on any of the airplanes that I flew (F-14, F/A-18, A-4) until about 1995, when we lost a few airplanes to inertial coupled departures. Turns out that, yeah, the plane can depart controlled flight in an ugly, violent coupling of inertial forces during high roll rate great than 360 degrees. A bit of AOA or Yaw, high Mach, and a few other factors made it worse. There wasn't a good tactical reason to roll beyond 360 at a time. Sure, it looked cool and was fun, but it wasn't needed, so NAVAIR put that prohibition in place for all tactical aircraft.
Hi Astro
As someone who has been a fighter pilot i am interested in your opinion of the air war of the Falklands campaign. Mainly why the Sea Harrier was so succesful against superior (at least on paper) opposition. Namely Mirage 111 and IAI Dagger (Mirage 5). I understand that the Royal Navy had the latest sidewinder but the pilot still has to get into a position to fire it. I think the numbers were 20 air to air kills for no loss of the Sea Harrier.
Sea Harrier losses were to ground fire.
I noticed you flew A4. Those Argentinian A4 pilots were brave and skilled guys. Literally dropping the weapons at smoke stack height.
Thank you.
Tikka.
As someone who has been a fighter pilot i am interested in your opinion of the air war of the Falklands campaign. Mainly why the Sea Harrier was so succesful against superior (at least on paper) opposition. Namely Mirage 111 and IAI Dagger (Mirage 5). I understand that the Royal Navy had the latest sidewinder but the pilot still has to get into a position to fire it. I think the numbers were 20 air to air kills for no loss of the Sea Harrier.
Sea Harrier losses were to ground fire.
I noticed you flew A4. Those Argentinian A4 pilots were brave and skilled guys. Literally dropping the weapons at smoke stack height.
Thank you.
Tikka.
Good morning Tikka - We studied the Falklands conflict when I was in War College with the Royal Navy (Joint Services Command and Staff College, Shrivenham). Naturally, I heard the Brit side of things...
Simply - As a fighter, the Sea Harrier was inferior in every respect to the Mirage. The Mirage had better speed, range, radar, and weapons. The Sea Harrier had slightly better instantaneous turn.
The reason that the Sea Harrier was so successful was the Intercept control provided by the Royal Navy destroyers and carriers. They allowed the Sea Harrier to arrive at the engagement with a positional advantage, often arriving unobserved, at the Mirage six o'clock, and get the kill.
The Argentine pilots were brave. I admired their willingness to fly hundreds of miles to engage their adversary. But that far from home, they were alone, without support, and paid the price in many cases...
Hi Astro14
Thank you for the reply.
You say the Mirage had better weapons. You don't think that the Royal Navy AIM9L was as significant as we were led to believe?
Can i take it you are not impressed by claims that the Sea Harrier could take on and beat F15s?
Did you ever fly against them?
hushkit.net
On a more serious note there is a documentary about the Falklands conflict. It follows a young Welsh Guardsman who was horrifically burned when the landing ship Sir Galahad was hit by Argentine Skyhawk. The lad was terribly disfigured and endured years of skin grafts. Many years later he met the Argentine pilot who bombed the ship. They have become firm friends and their respective families spend time together. Very moving.
Many thanks.
Tikka.
Thank you for the reply.
You say the Mirage had better weapons. You don't think that the Royal Navy AIM9L was as significant as we were led to believe?
Can i take it you are not impressed by claims that the Sea Harrier could take on and beat F15s?
Did you ever fly against them?
How the Sea Harrier clipped the F-15 Eagle’s wings: Interview with Commander ‘Sharkey’ Ward (part 2)
The Sea Harrier was a tiny, slow and lightly-armed curiosity at the time it entered service in 1978. But when pitted against the mighty no-compromise F-15 Eagle, the most respected combat aircraft …
hushkit.net
On a more serious note there is a documentary about the Falklands conflict. It follows a young Welsh Guardsman who was horrifically burned when the landing ship Sir Galahad was hit by Argentine Skyhawk. The lad was terribly disfigured and endured years of skin grafts. Many years later he met the Argentine pilot who bombed the ship. They have become firm friends and their respective families spend time together. Very moving.
Many thanks.
Tikka.
Hey Astro,
I know this is off F14 topic, and maybe sometimes before you addressed this.
I know you flew B767. I am interested in more detailed difference between 767-300 and 400. I know from readings that companies wanted bigger twin engine plane (777). It reminds me of push by Airbus for 330 NEO before companies pushed back saying they want completely new plane.
But, from pilots perspective what is your take?
Me as passenger I always enjoyed 767 but really liked 400 on several occasions, mostly flying EWR-MXP with Continental and MUC-ATL with Delta.
I know this is off F14 topic, and maybe sometimes before you addressed this.
I know you flew B767. I am interested in more detailed difference between 767-300 and 400. I know from readings that companies wanted bigger twin engine plane (777). It reminds me of push by Airbus for 330 NEO before companies pushed back saying they want completely new plane.
But, from pilots perspective what is your take?
Me as passenger I always enjoyed 767 but really liked 400 on several occasions, mostly flying EWR-MXP with Continental and MUC-ATL with Delta.
Let me answer that in this thread, in which I discuss a bit of flying an airliner, and the 757 in particular...
What it's like to fly an airliner.
Some thoughts and questions about current navigation practice on airline equipment... Given that airlines operate on a schedule to a relatively few airports (compared to total airports) the navigation variables would seem to be minimal compared to, say, a business/charter or private operator...
www.bobistheoilguy.com
My old squadron - and I loved the "high visibility" paint scheme! The Navy rules at the time were all "low-vis" paint. When I got to the squadron in 1989, we still had two that had been delivered in gloss from the Grumman factory, so we kept them that way... Those couple of jets in gloss were colloquially referred to as "Batmobiles" by our crews and maintainers... We ALL loved that look.
But, for tactical reasons, we re-painted them to an all grey/low-vis for Desert Storm and never painted them back....we couldn't...no gloss paint allowed.
Ah well...
Hi Astro.
I just watched an interesting piece on the smithsonian channel about the F18 Growler. How does the Pilot selection work? Are those guys flying the Growler thinking 'heck i signed up to be a fighter pilot'? Do they do Pilot rotation? Some time in electronic warfare and then back to fighter and ground attack? I hope you get what i mean regardless of my clumsy attempt.
Many thanks.
I just watched an interesting piece on the smithsonian channel about the F18 Growler. How does the Pilot selection work? Are those guys flying the Growler thinking 'heck i signed up to be a fighter pilot'? Do they do Pilot rotation? Some time in electronic warfare and then back to fighter and ground attack? I hope you get what i mean regardless of my clumsy attempt.
Many thanks.
Tikka - it used to be simple because both the airframe and the mission were separate and distinct from each other.
Fighter guys (F-4, F-14, F/A-18) did both air to air and air to ground. Attack guys, flying A-4, A-6, A-7 did just the air to ground thing. S-3 guys did anti submarine warfare. EA-6B guys did electronic attack.
You stayed in your community and your platform...to learn a new airplane and mission takes about a year for the full course. That’s expensive. And that’s just the basic qualification. It takes years more to get good at it. A refresher course is some small fraction of that. So, once a pilot is trained in an airframe and a mission, they stayed there. Same for back seaters. You learned an airplane and a mission. You became proficient over many years of experience. You don’t wipe that out and start over. It’s horribly inefficient to do so.
Now, all the tactical aircraft are F/A-18 based. But that’s just the airframe. There is still the mission. Once you learn the mission, whether you sit in front or back of the airplane, you stay in that warfare specialty. It takes you years to get proficient at it, so the investment in you is only worthwhile if you stay there.
The decision is made before they ever see an F/A-18.
When a pilot finishes flight training and gets their wings, they are “selected” for a training track. Back in “the day”, it was S-3, F/A-18, A-6, EA-6B (different than A-6), F-14 (for the best, of course...).
The pilot then went to the “RAG” (Replacement Air Group) for that jet, sometimes, there were two RAGs: the West Coast RAG, or East Coast. So, for F-14s, as an example, “Back in the day”, if the pilot was going to be an East Coast F-14 driver, they went to the VF-101 “Grim Reapers”, and for West Coast, the VF-124 “Gunfighters”.
The selection process was based on the pilot’s desires (dream sheet, it was called), the pilot’s grades in flight training, especially Landing grades, and the needs of the Navy for pilots in each community.
Pilots with poor landing grades, for example, would never get EA-6Bs. Too risky, to the airplane and crew. It was hard airplane to bring aboard. The F-14 got some average pilots, and none of them ever made it through the RAG. The Navy tried to spread the quality of pilots across communities, so that not one community would get stuck with a weak pilot population. That said, there was a floor for landing grades in F-14 and EA-6B.
Some selection events would have a high number of one airplane type or another as needs shifted.
It still works the same: pilots finish up and are assigned to a RAG based on desires, grades and needs of the Navy at the time. Needs of the Navy come first, grades second, and Pilot desires generally don’t matter much, unless two pilots have the same class rank, in which case, the Navy can accommodate an East/West preference, for example.
If you want to be certain to get the selection assignment you desire, finish first in your class. First in the class get what they want.
In my case, the “dream sheet” listed:
1. F-14 East
2. F/A-18 East
3. F-14 West
4. F/A-18 West
5. A-7
Still works the same today. Just fewer choices and all the same airframe. Growler pilots go to the RAG in Whidbey, F/A pilots in Lemoore or Oceana.
It’s a whole lot easier to be a fighter pilot these days. Most of the airplanes are fighters now, but back in my day, about 1/4 of jet flight training graduates got fighters.
When a pilot finishes flight training and gets their wings, they are “selected” for a training track. Back in “the day”, it was S-3, F/A-18, A-6, EA-6B (different than A-6), F-14 (for the best, of course...).
The pilot then went to the “RAG” (Replacement Air Group) for that jet, sometimes, there were two RAGs: the West Coast RAG, or East Coast. So, for F-14s, as an example, “Back in the day”, if the pilot was going to be an East Coast F-14 driver, they went to the VF-101 “Grim Reapers”, and for West Coast, the VF-124 “Gunfighters”.
The selection process was based on the pilot’s desires (dream sheet, it was called), the pilot’s grades in flight training, especially Landing grades, and the needs of the Navy for pilots in each community.
Pilots with poor landing grades, for example, would never get EA-6Bs. Too risky, to the airplane and crew. It was hard airplane to bring aboard. The F-14 got some average pilots, and none of them ever made it through the RAG. The Navy tried to spread the quality of pilots across communities, so that not one community would get stuck with a weak pilot population. That said, there was a floor for landing grades in F-14 and EA-6B.
Some selection events would have a high number of one airplane type or another as needs shifted.
It still works the same: pilots finish up and are assigned to a RAG based on desires, grades and needs of the Navy at the time. Needs of the Navy come first, grades second, and Pilot desires generally don’t matter much, unless two pilots have the same class rank, in which case, the Navy can accommodate an East/West preference, for example.
If you want to be certain to get the selection assignment you desire, finish first in your class. First in the class get what they want.
In my case, the “dream sheet” listed:
1. F-14 East
2. F/A-18 East
3. F-14 West
4. F/A-18 West
5. A-7
Still works the same today. Just fewer choices and all the same airframe. Growler pilots go to the RAG in Whidbey, F/A pilots in Lemoore or Oceana.
It’s a whole lot easier to be a fighter pilot these days. Most of the airplanes are fighters now, but back in my day, about 1/4 of jet flight training graduates got fighters.
