Still trying to replace the F14....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
1,551
Location
Georgia
Interesting article on how to further enhance the (weak) combat radius and lethality of the Super Hornet. In this case with a conformal fuel tank (do away with "drop" tanks) and the carriage of SM-6 variants. Might increase radius to around 600 miles with perhaps a 200+ mile AAM. For mental example assume a carrier launch in Tampa, SM-6 launch at bingo over Chattanooga against a target over Louisville. Not exact and with nine miracles in a row but an example.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/article...m-6_113137.html

Cheers.
 
Moot point.

Missile technology and advanced UAV's will make manned fighters/interceptors obsolete in another decade.
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Moot point.

Missile technology and advanced UAV's will make manned fighters/interceptors obsolete in another decade.


Let's refer back to this thread in 2028 and see if that's true or not. I'll take the bet it's not.

As Astro14 has said, the F-14 was a rock star. Range, speed and capability. Hard to replace.
 
Last edited:
The F-14 was the Alpha male. I was in the Navy at the end of the F-14's usage, when the F/A-18 and Super Hornet were in the mix together. You could tell the difference between F-14 and F-18 pilots in the passageways- '14 flyboys had a swagger that the '18 pilots just didn't have. Sure, the '14s got to the point that they "weren't financially feasible to maintain in service" but this was more political jockeying than actual obsolescence. They had still been performing weapons and electronics system upgrades in the late 90s, so there was still plenty of "real" life left in those jets.

Kind of like the battleships- they had a punch nothing else in the current arsenal can match.
 
I somehow got the impression that they got rid of it partly because of the cost of maintaining it, but also because they hated Iran. Sorta like this country is so rich, they can get rid of an airplane that's still good just so that Iran can't get it hands on any parts anymore.
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Moot point.

Missile technology and advanced UAV's will make manned fighters/interceptors obsolete in another decade.


I heard that 40 years ago...still waiting...many missions still require a pilot in the loop and eyeballs on target, not eyeballs in a remote location, and a pilot at a console with a cup of coffee.

I think the tipping point in Naval Aviation was the demise of the A-6. One of the F-14 design requirements was the ability to escort the A-6 on long range strikes.

The decision to give up the Carrier's long range strike capability by replacing the A-6 with Super Hornet signaled a change in the strategic direction of the US Navy. With long range strike removed, the F-14's long range wasn't as important.

The Navy saddled the F/A-18 E/F with ENORMOUS drop tanks of 500 gallons (instead of 330 gallons, like the A/B/C/D Hornet) that caused huge drag, and resulted in terrible top speed, just to demonstrate having "long range" but...it's really not...

Range and mission profile aren't simple numbers that are easily compared. Conformal Tanks (CFTs) have a drag penalty that is lower than external drop tanks, but they do add drag, and degrade high Alpha handling. They're a good solution, but not zero cost. The airplane will still be slow. All you're really doing is freeing up the weapons stations and taking some of the drag off, but only some. The Achilles Heel of the Super Hornet is the angle of the weapon pylons. To reduce flutter at transonic speeds, they were angled out by 4 degrees. They're NEVER directly in the airflow and ALWAYS create high drag. If you see a Hornet without pylons, you're at an airshow and when cleaned off like that, the Hornet is a phenomenal performer...

But the real world is radically different. In the real world, the Super Hornet is a high-subsonic, medium range strike airplane with exceptional versatility and a nice phased-array (AESA) radar. A huge step backwards from the F-14's airframe - which landed slower, at higher weight, and had great speed and long range.

Ironically, Grumman offered a set of Tomcat upgrades that would've outperformed the Super Hornet in every respect. Quick Strike and Tomcat21 had radar and cockpit improvements (including future AESA), propulsion improvements (GE F110-429), increased internal fuel (in the wing glove area), conformal multi-sensor/designators (like the TCS and IRST, which the Hornet still doesn't have), which keep the weapon stations free of sensors for greater ordnance capacity. I've supercruised a slick F-14B (supersonic without AB), so adding 30% more thrust with the -429 engine would easily get a QS or T21 to supercruise (while the Hornet struggles to get through Mach 1 even in full AB when it's carrying weapons).

Long range. High speed. High speed cruise. More sensors. Integrated digital weapon system. It would've been a great airplane, better than the Super Hornet in every respect. But it was killed by **** Cheney as SECDEF and we chose the "low risk option" of the Super Hornet because it was "common" with the legacy Hornet...

Sure, it had the NACES Ejection Seat, ARC-182 radio and name in common. The parts that were different? Fuselage/airframe, engines, landing gear, wings, rudders, stabilizers, ECS, fuel and other systems... A masterful bit of PowerPoint salesmanship on the part of McDonnell Douglas...

Long range missiles? In the early 90's - we had prototypes for AIM-54 follow on weapons that could go out past 150 miles with ramjet propulsion. An air to air weapon that could be employed at that range required a very powerful radar (like the F-14s) to even see the target. Good for a horde of incoming bombers, not much use against a fighter. Long range strike missiles have existed in various forms for decades. So, stick a new one on a Hornet? Sure, why not?
 
Nice post, Astro. You obviously have more in-depth experience. But, I completely agree the Tomcat is without equal even today. I just got to watch them fly
smile.gif
 
I guess I subscribe to the theory that the manned platforms will be managing the semiautonomous platforms. Swarms of MQ-25 like vehicles forward being controlled by managing fighters who would also be responsible for prosecuting leakers that may have gotten by. I don't know, that just seems like the least manpower intensive, best force multiplier to me. It'll probably end up being particle beam weapons or some such by the time we get there...
grin.gif
It's anybody's guess. I did like the wrinkle in the article of repurposing the SM-6, let the bad guys try to get away from that mach 4+ item. And it would also be about a mach 9 closure rate with those Russian/Chicom hypervelocity missiles they keep bragging about. The phsics would be epic!
 
The military is a tool box and needs many different size wrenches to do a job.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
The military is a tool box and needs many different size wrenches to do a job.


Lol true, the Tomcat was Mr. Bigwrench! Glad i got to see them fly at oceana.
 
Last edited:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/comeback-for-the-f14-tomcat.html?

Quote:
Now with more recent threats arising from China and Russia, and with both countries developing greater offensive capabilities, the Navy is considering bringing back the F-14. A senior Navy official stated that the Navy is “looking towards the future of fighter aviation in the Navy, and the future is in the past. That’s why we want to bring back the Tomcat.


I didnt know that F14 is "better" then F18???
21.gif


Quote:
Although the F-14 was still a superior offensive attack aircraft, the The Boeing F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet were more versatile, more economical, and had the more modern technology.
 
The trust level of drones will only go so far as jamming, detection, and hacking gets better.

A man in a seat who doesn't need to send or receive a single solitary signal, and is impervious to electronic manipulation is going to start looking better and better.
 
Originally Posted By: Kamele0N


I didnt know that F14 is "better" then F18???
21.gif



Most people don't. They assume that the higher number (18 vs. 14) denotes a higher-performance aircraft.

As Astro has said, the 18 was always a cost-saving compromise.
 
I’ve flown both.

The F/A-18 A/B/C/D is newer. It has some advantages over the F-14, including procurement cost, cockpit design, high alpha handling, and ease of landing.

But in speed, range, and payload, it’s inferior. Even the Super Hornet, the F/A-18 E/F, while much improved, and much more expensive, still didn’t match many of the F-14s capabilities.

The USN, like the USAF, went with a “high/low” fighter mix. The newer one was much cheaper.

Sometimes, you get what you pay for...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I’ve flown both.

The F/A-18 A/B/C/D is newer. It has some advantages over the F-14, including procurement cost, cockpit design, high alpha handling, and ease of landing.

But in speed, range, and payload, it’s inferior. Even the Super Hornet, the F/A-18 E/F, while much improved, and much more expensive, still didn’t match many of the F-14s capabilities.

The USN, like the USAF, went with a “high/low” fighter mix. The newer one was much cheaper.

Sometimes, you get what you pay for...

Astro: do you remember the first female fighter pilot Kara Hultgreen?
 
Quite clearly. All too clearly.

I was involved, tangentially, in the mishap investigation. I was, at the time, the head of the carrier landing phase of instruction at VF-101, the F-14 training squadron on the East Coast. Her carrier landing performance in training was a focus area of the investigation. My records and experience in that job were part of the input.

Simply: she shouldn't have passed F-14 training.

The Tomcat wasn't easy to bring aboard, in fact, it was the most demanding of airplanes at the time. But political pressure, in particular, from Representative Pat Schroeder, over-rode the good judgement of the instructors, and allowed her to pass training on the 3rd try, and go on to the fleet.

She crashed the airplane because of poor flying skills.

She was too close abeam the carrier when she began the approach turn. To compensate, she skidded the airplane, using left rudder, a horrible technique that caused an engine stall. She failed to recognize the engine stall, she failed to keep the airplane at the proper speed, she failed to identify the stall to her RIO (good guy named Matt Klemish, one of my students in VF-101), and she continued the approach without reconfiguring the airplane for a single engine approach (speed brakes in, DLC off, 14 units AOA).

As the airplane rolled out on final, it was nearly 20 knots slow (one or two knots slow is noticeable to a good LSO) and was waved off.

Because the airplane was so slow, full power on the right engine didn't stop the airplane from descending (she was, in aerodynamic terms, well behind the power curve), so, she selected afterburner.

Except that the airplane was below the minimum controllable airspeed (140 KIAS) for one engine in afterburner.

It snap-rolled left - as any airplane below VMCA would, and crashed.

Matt initiated ejection as it began the roll. His seat left the airplane 0.3 seconds before hers. He made it. She didn't.

The Navy, trying desperately to maintain its image in the aftermath of the 1991 Tailhook convention, released the JAG investigation, that was charged with determining misconduct and line of duty (inept flying is NOT misconduct- willfully disregarding order is misconduct) and she was killed in the line of duty.

But that wasn't the real story. The real story was in the mishap investigation- which is never released to the public, ever, which found the cause to be pilot error.

The real error, though, was allowing someone to pass training when they didn't have the skills to handle that airplane. She was fine in simpler, easier airplanes, but allowing her to fly the Tomcat was a mistake that ultimately took her life.

I always kept that in mind when I was training, and judging the performance of, my students in the carrier landing phase. Not every one of my students passed. But every one that did pass, and flew Tomcats in the fleet, is still alive.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Quite clearly. All too clearly.

I was involved, tangentially, in the mishap investigation. I was, at the time, the head of the carrier landing phase of instruction at VF-101, the F-14 training squadron on the East Coast. Her carrier landing performance in training was a focus area of the investigation. My records and experience in that job were part of the input.

Simply: she shouldn't have passed F-14 training.

The Tomcat wasn't easy to bring aboard, in fact, it was the most demanding of airplanes at the time. But political pressure, in particular, from Representative Pat Schroeder, over-rode the good judgement of the instructors, and allowed her to pass training on the 3rd try, and go on to the fleet.

She crashed the airplane because of poor flying skills.

She was too close abeam the carrier when she began the approach turn. To compensate, she skidded the airplane, using left rudder, a horrible technique that caused an engine stall. She failed to recognize the engine stall, she failed to keep the airplane at the proper speed, she failed to identify the stall to her RIO (good guy named Matt Klemish, one of my students in VF-101), and she continued the approach without reconfiguring the airplane for a single engine approach (speed brakes in, DLC off, 14 units AOA).

As the airplane rolled out on final, it was nearly 20 knots slow (one or two knots slow is noticeable to a good LSO) and was waved off.

Because the airplane was so slow, full power on the right engine didn't stop the airplane from descending (she was, in aerodynamic terms, well behind the power curve), so, she selected afterburner.

Except that the airplane was below the minimum controllable airspeed (140 KIAS) for one engine in afterburner.

It snap-rolled left - as any airplane below VMCA would, and crashed.

Matt initiated ejection as it began the roll. His seat left the airplane 0.3 seconds before hers. He made it. She didn't.

The Navy, trying desperately to maintain its image in the aftermath of the 1991 Tailhook convention, released the JAG investigation, that was charged with determining misconduct and line of duty (inept flying is NOT misconduct- willfully disregarding order is misconduct) and she was killed in the line of duty.

But that wasn't the real story. The real story was in the mishap investigation- which is never released to the public, ever, which found the cause to be pilot error.

The real error, though, was allowing someone to pass training when they didn't have the skills to handle that airplane. She was fine in simpler, easier airplanes, but allowing her to fly the Tomcat was a mistake that ultimately took her life.

I always kept that in mind when I was training, and judging the performance of, my students in the carrier landing phase. Not every one of my students passed. But every one that did pass, and flew Tomcats in the fleet, is still alive.


Astro: thank you kindly for the real reason the crash/incident happened. As my stepfather Charles says "a split second misjudgment can be very deadly in a fighter jet and things happen very, very fast!"

He flew the P-3 ORION
 
I couldn't imagine flying a plane of any type to be honest with all. Had a friend that taught flying lessons and I steered a Cessna152 many times and was able to sit in the cockpits of 747 and DC 10 because of work and knowing the people. Quite a skill that only a few can master !
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
.... She crashed the airplane because of poor flying skills.

She was too close abeam the carrier when she began the approach turn. To compensate, she skidded the airplane .... As the airplane rolled out on final, it was nearly 20 knots slow ....


Once the decision was made to push a bad position, only to wind up in an even worse one, was it still possible to avert the crash? Or do you get out then and there while you still have some control?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top