F-14: The 1970's Perspective

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

And what happens when the modernized F-14 grows in MTOW? The Rhino didn't exactly grow 10,000 pounds in mtow on its goodwill. You presume a static F-14D program. I am comparing money spent on growing the F-14 program rather than the F-18 program. In the end the F-14 program grows to a better platform on the investment. KA-6D retires, just as it did. AIM-54 retires just as it did. EA-6 retires just as it did. But long haul of payload to range capability for the fleet does not lower like it did. And the bigger airframe gives you more flexibility for the follow on programs like Growler.

Member for

19 years 8 months

Posts: 483

I wonder if Grumman ever proposed a fixed wing F-14 variant so a direct comparison could be made showing the weight penalty of the VG wing?

The fixed wing Grumman VFX design 303F was one of eight final design configurations. I have no figures related to it, sorry.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g53/kaonednil/Aircraft/303F-1.jpg

Member for

19 years 8 months

Posts: 483

F-15N

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g53/kaonednil/Aircraft/F-15N.jpg

Notice the early small speed brake and the unclipped wingtips.

Member for

19 years 8 months

Posts: 483

The question if the proposed Super Tomcat could be a better aircraft is an academic one for dreamers. It never was at a stage that came even close to a proposal, it was a simple attempt by Grumman to prolong an outlived design. Although the F-18E/F is heavy, it is still lighter than anything based on the F-14, consumes less carrier space, less fuel, is more flexible. It probably lacks the top speed and sexiness, but that's about it.
Perhaps we should resurect the F-8. It is still lighter than anything based on the F-14, or F-18A, consumes less carrier space, less fuel, and is more flexible. Its faster too. But really, to get the range capability of the F-14D with the F-18E/F, you would have to fill up the deck with tankers, and there goes the small size and fuel advantages.

The F-18E/F brings more capability by having more sorties available per day. If the F-18 needs 20 man hours maintenance and the F-14 needs 40 man hours, you have 100% more sorties per day assuming that maintenance limits your sortie rate (which in a high sortie environment can happen easily).
The F-14 had a very good mission availability rate in the Gulf War. I am sure it took more man hours to do that, which costs more, but it did fine.

Overall, the replacement of the F-14 was overdue.
Overdue for replacement by the NATF. The F-18E was overdue for replacement before its first flight.

It is remarkable that the defense of the US carriers was based on an aircraft that was considered an interim solution by its makers.
The F-14A was far better than an F-4. The F-14A was only an interim solution until the F-14B was to be built.

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 8,505

However, it should be remembered that the F-14 had provisions for a RIO and a larger avionics suite. This would account for some of the added weight along with special naval features such as strengthened landing gear and associated structure.

Clearly not all the added weight is due to the VG wing.
I wonder if Grumman ever proposed a fixed wing F-14 variant so a direct comparison could be made showing the weight penalty of the VG wing?

Can't remember where I read it but apparently the pivot box and associated structure accounts for 10000 pounds of the F14 empty weight, that's 5 tons as near as makes no difference (actually 4.5)

Member for

19 years 8 months

Posts: 483


The F-15 has a TWR as high as the Su-27`s TWR
This would had allowed to the F-15 a good carring capacity, it is true it would had added weight as it would had been navalized, but it would had also take off with the aid of a catapult, the F-14A has a very low TWR and a very slow rate of climb, the F-15N would had been more like a Su-33 in that sense since the land F-15 has a TWR of 1.2 at normal take off, contrary to the F-14A that has really a very low TWR even worst than the MiG-23MF in fact it only has a 1:0.9 TWR empty, fully loaded, it gets as bad as 1:0.5, so the F-14 is a really overweight and obese aircraft even compare to the F-15.
The F-14 is bigger than the F-15. The F-15's T/W advantage is not going to keep it in the air with the same big load after it clears the end of the deck on launch. You could put all six Phoenix on it, but it wouldn't have the same range.

The F-15 has a better wing loading than the F-14A while the F-14A has a pancake fuselage generated lift, it also has a smaller wing, and it is heavier, also the Wing Pivots limit the G overload permitted and the F-14 was even limited to 6.5Gs due to the complexity and fragility associated with swing wings
You should say, while the F-14 has a smaller wing, with its pancake fuselage it can generate more lift per pound than the F-15. Its not really true to say that the F-15 has a lower wing loading, except in the most literal sense. The F-14 is not G limited in combat, either. (Lets see, which plane has broken in half in flight... :D )

F-14 Phoenix realities The F-14 can not land on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a load of six AIM-54 and it is restricted to a Max G load factor of 6Gs while carrying the AIM-54, so the F-14 armed with AIM-54 is not agile in fact is so limited that in agility it would be comparable to the MiG-31.
Not quite that bad, but true, the Phoenix is not for dogfighting. But it would have a tough time pulling 6Gs anyway with all of that Phoenix weight, so a 6G limit is no problem at all. Besides, why would a pilot want to pull more than 6G with a load of AIM-54? The only manuver you would need to make is a 45 degree pull up to lob the Phoenix at a Backfire.
If an F-14 can't bring back six AIM-54, an F-15N never would have.

So i do not think the Naval F-15 would had been worst than the F-14, in fact i think it would had been better why? The F-14 empty weight is 18 tonns, the weight of the F-15N would had been less than 14tonns, the reality the VG wing imposes a weight penalty that is even noticeable just looking at the empty weight of the F-15A and the F-14A, the F-15A is 5 tonns lighter than the F-14A;)
The Navy chose a heavy VG aircraft because it will have the range and payload capability that a fixed wing Mach 2 fighter (or some slower Boeing pig) would not have, as well as other advantages. The F-14 and the F-15 are each beautifully optimized for their roles. Neither could perform the role of the other as well, which is why both were built. (Although the F-14A really deserved a better engine.)

So then why the F-15 never was purchased by the US navy? simply politics and enough money to burn, simply like that, Grumman needed the program, the US Navy could not back down since the future of Grumman was at stake and the US Government would had been resposible for Grumman`s bankarupcy.
Like when it went for the F-18E/F.

The F-14A is inferior to the F-15A simply because as a whole the F-14 has two aspects that makes it more primitive than the F-15, one is older and less advanced engines and the other is weight penalty due to the VG wing
As an airframe, I would say the F-14 is more advanced. It has several innovative tricks, like the pancake, the retractable vanes, and of course the automatic variable sweep wings. The F-15 doesn't even have leading edge flaps. As a fighter, the F-15 is superior for the reasons that you stated. But the F-14 is superior in the fleet defense role.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 4,674

Aerodynamically the F-14 has to be one of the best. With a typical fuel/TOW ratio of under 0.25 it still had pretty good range and even more so endurance. The TF30 were primadonnas when it came to airflow quality, but they were quite efficient in the typical slow cruise of the F-14.

When thinking about how much actually the F-14A was overweight compared to a navalized F-15, one shouldn't forget that the F-15 would have needed a new wing with flaps and folding mechanism (and probably with another wing hardpoint). On the one hand that would probably have reduced drag, but it would have added weight. Up to one tonnes I'd say.

And regarding AIM-54 on F-15N: I think a good move would have been to relocated the landing gear from the belly into the wing roots, Su-27 or JAS-39NG style. Reducing the chance for a tail strike, plus it would have freed the belly for a 1-2-1 AIM-54 arrangement. Better than a 2-2 arrangement from an area-ruling standpoint. The inner wing pylons then for external tanks and four missile launch rails, and a possible two more wing pylons for two additional loads (AIM-54 if you want).

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 3,010

The F-14 is bigger than the F-15. The F-15's T/W advantage is not going to keep it in the air with the same big load after it clears the end of the deck on launch. You could put all six Phoenix on it, but it wouldn't have the same range.

You should say, while the F-14 has a smaller wing, with its pancake fuselage it can generate more lift per pound than the F-15. Its not really true to say that the F-15 has a lower wing loading, except in the most literal sense. The F-14 is not G limited in combat, either. (Lets see, which plane has broken in half in flight... :D )

Not quite that bad, but true, the Phoenix is not for dogfighting. But it would have a tough time pulling 6Gs anyway with all of that Phoenix weight, so a 6G limit is no problem at all. Besides, why would a pilot want to pull more than 6G with a load of AIM-54? The only manuver you would need to make is a 45 degree pull up to lob the Phoenix at a Backfire.
If an F-14 can't bring back six AIM-54, an F-15N never would have.

The Navy chose a heavy VG aircraft because it will have the range and payload capability that a fixed wing Mach 2 fighter (or some slower Boeing pig) would not have, as well as other advantages. The F-14 and the F-15 are each beautifully optimized for their roles. Neither could perform the role of the other as well, which is why both were built. (Although the F-14A really deserved a better engine.)

Like when it went for the F-18E/F.

As an airframe, I would say the F-14 is more advanced. It has several innovative tricks, like the pancake, the retractable vanes, and of course the automatic variable sweep wings. The F-15 doesn't even have leading edge flaps. As a fighter, the F-15 is superior for the reasons that you stated. But the F-14 is superior in the fleet defense role.

The recent problems with F-15s are more related to worn out fuselages than the design in general, the F-15 has had one of the safest records up to now.

The real facts show the US took both designs and the US navy the F-14 and the USAF the F-15, has the F-14 merits as a fleet defence fighter? probably yes it has, in reality we can say the F-15N was a looser, since it never reached real operational status or even the manufacturing stage , so the F-14 is the winner, but the question is if but in history ifs do not exist.

Certainly the F-14 was a fine aircraft, proved to be a good aircraft, an excellent carrier fighter but i think personally the F-15N was perhaps more practical if the US would not been as wealthy as it was in the 1970s.

The F-14 was good just because the US could afford to pay the price of it, however the russians and french have chosen land fighters to navalize and operate them aboard the deck

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,450

The french have chosen a land fighter that they navalised ??? Which one ?
The Rafale was designed as a naval plane from the outset.
The SuE: same thing
...

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Its a tricky situation , the rafale on the designers board was meant to exist in 2 forms ie , carrier borne and land based . The F-35 was similar (3 forms instead of 2) . Both these aircrafts cannot be called purely Land based fighters designed for Naval fighters . A pure land based F-35 strike fighter would have looked a lot different had their been no STOVL and CV . The rafale wouldnt even have existed (EF typhoon for the french) .

Cant comment about the History of the SU or if it was meant to exist in the Navalized form from the outset but if the designers had the idea then obviously it influenced their design .

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 3,718

Aerodynamically the F-14 has to be one of the best. With a typical fuel/TOW ratio of under 0.25 it still had pretty good range and even more so endurance. The TF30 were primadonnas when it came to airflow quality, but they were quite efficient in the typical slow cruise of the F-14.

I agree that given the quite miserable fuel fraction with typical piece time load-out (assume 4x AIM-7 and 2xAIM-9) and the fact that it rarely used external tanks.
Still, I am a bit cautious in all these range claims for the F-14. With wings swept forward and M0.7 at 35000ft the F-14 surely had a very good endurance, but with payload (incl. AIM-54) flying at M0.85 I would be very interested in the particular numbers.

Typical mission profiles often say "flight at 30000ft at optimum Mach number", which in case of swing wingers often means slower Mach but much better aerodynamics. The increased thrust of the F110 actually can be negative in this instance: SFC is lowest for 90% thrust output, so lower speeds sometimes result in higher SFC (which has a negative range impact).

Perhaps we should resurect the F-8. It is still lighter than anything based on the F-14, or F-18A, consumes less carrier space, less fuel, and is more flexible. Its faster too. But really, to get the range capability of the F-14D with the F-18E/F, you would have to fill up the deck with tankers, and there goes the small size and fuel advantages.

The F-18A basically was the attempt to get a new F-8. It failed partly. On the other hand the Navy got hands on a much better multi role aircraft than was existent at that time (F-14, A-7 both sucked as A/A and A/G multi role).

The range thing again: who has dependable statements concerning the F-14's range? I never saw anyone making real statements with reference to a typical mission profile.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 3,010

The french have chosen a land fighter that they navalised ??? Which one ?
The Rafale was designed as a naval plane from the outset.
The SuE: same thing
...

It is niether tricky niether wrong originally a dedicated naval fighter is not a land based aircraft however originally the Su-27 was designed as a land based fighter, however later it was navalized why? simply because the first model that flew was a land based fighter and the Soviets wanted first to navalize the MiG-23 or operate the Yak-141 as the naval main fighter for the soviet aircraft carrier projects nevertheless both designs never became a reality.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/rusian_carriers_files/sov_mig_23a.jpg
The Rafale was based upon the Mirage 4000 experience and tailored for the Eurofighter program, however later it was used as the base of a naval fighter.

the F-14 was totally different it was a dedicated naval fighter from the start.

Design a naval fighter is either a dedicated naval fighter as the F-14 or a derivative of a land based fighter.

The hellcat was for example a dedicated naval fighter, the A-5 Vigilante a naval bomber and in history there are many examples of dedicated naval fighters, the reverse was the F-4 or the A-4 which from dedicated naval aircraft became land based aircraft.

these are two dedicated naval fighters
http://www.vmf235.com/f4uwu.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/F6F/hellcat-.jpg

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 3,010

Its a tricky situation , the rafale on the designers board was meant to exist in 2 forms ie , carrier borne and land based . The F-35 was similar (3 forms instead of 2) . Both these aircrafts cannot be called purely Land based fighters designed for Naval fighters . A pure land based F-35 strike fighter would have looked a lot different had their been no STOVL and CV . The rafale wouldnt even have existed (EF typhoon for the french) .

Cant comment about the History of the SU or if it was meant to exist in the Navalized form from the outset but if the designers had the idea then obviously it influenced their design .

The F-35 is similar to the F-111 or a bit like the Rafale, however usually the main variant is always the air force variant therefore the naval variants always are purchased in smaller numbers if that is the case, exception to the case is the F-14 that only a few dozen flew in the iranian colors as land based fighters

Fighters like the F-4-U Corsari of the A-4 were designed as naval aircraft however later they showed that using them as land based aircraft was okay, for example the F-15 has an arresting hook sign of a possible navalization but the Su-27B has no arresting hook niether the Su-30, most of the Su-27 Flankers are land based and just a few dozens have been of the naval variant, the A-4 is the opposite it was first and for most a a naval aircraft, same the F-4-U Corsair.

you can easily transform a naval fighter into one land based but the opposite is not true for a land based aircraft

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 661

The F-35 is similar to the F-111 or a bit like the Rafale, however usually the main variant is always the air froce variant therefore the naval variants always are purchased in smaller numbers.

Fighters like the F-4-U Corsari of the A-4 wered esigned as naval aircraft however later the showed that using land based was okay, for example the F-15 has an arresting hook sign of a possible navalization but the Su-27B has no arresting hook niether the Su-30, most of the Su-27 flankers are land based and just a few dozens have been of the naval variant, the A-4 is the opposite it was first and for most a a naval aircraft, same the F-4-U Corsair.

Many purely land based military aircraft have arrester hooks. Its for emergency landings. The hook and the associated structures are nowhere near as strong as on arrested recovery naval aircraft. The hooks presence has no bearing on suitability for naval conversion.

Dan

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 3,010

Many purely land based military aircraft have arrester hooks. Its for emergency landings. The hook and the associated structures are nowhere near as strong as on arrested recovery naval aircraft. The hooks presence has no bearing on suitability for naval conversion.

Dan

Your position is true up to a point, the land based aircraft always needs to be tailored to operate as a naval aircraft however it is easier to make a dedicated naval aircraft a land based example are the F-14, F-18, A-4 and F-4

Land based F-14

http://img135.echo.cx/img135/8686/11te.jpg

Land based F-18

http://www.c3f.navy.mil/rimpac_2006/Aerials/F_18_1high.jpg

land based A-4

http://www.militarypictures.info/d/1148-3/lavi-refuel.jpg

land based F-4

http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/PostWW2/Fighters/US-VietnamEra/F4-PhantomII/PHANTOM.JPG

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,450

You make, once more, no sense.

The Su was indeed navalised afterwards, and could do the job, because of its huge thrust.

The Rafale however, was designed from the start as a naval fighter.

The F4U was pressy lousy on a carrier, because of its handling characteristics. It fared much better from landbases (And that's where it was mainly used)

As for arrestor gear on US built fighters, you can check, they ALL have an arresting hook. Would you by that suffest that a F-104 could have been navalised ? Or a F-106 ? That is an emergency arrestor gear, that subjects the plane to much less strain than a carrier landing. So, no, a hook is no proof that you could navalise a plane, or that the designers even had the option remotely in mind.

Now to the F-111: there was no main version. The USAF needed th F-105 replacement, the Navy, a fighter ( or rather, they wanted a Missileer).
But they didn't want the -111B, hence the Tomcat development.

Oh, and you can obviously base any navalised plane on land ... without ANY modification.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 3,010

You make, once more, no sense.

The Su was indeed navalised afterwards, and could do the job, because of its huge thrust.

The Rafale however, was designed from the start as a naval fighter.

The F4U was pressy lousy on a carrier, because of its handling characteristics. It fared much better from landbases (And that's where it was mainly used)

As for arrestor gear on US built fighters, you can check, they ALL have an arresting hook. Would you by that suffest that a F-104 could have been navalised ? Or a F-106 ? That is an emergency arrestor gear, that subjects the plane to much less strain than a carrier landing. So, no, a hook is no proof that you could navalise a plane, or that the designers even had the option remotely in mind.

Now to the F-111: there was no main version. The USAF needed th F-105 replacement, the Navy, a fighter ( or rather, they wanted a Missileer).
But they didn't want the -111B, hence the Tomcat development.

Oh, and you can obviously base any navalised plane on land ... without ANY modification.


My point was very simple, an arrestor hook does indeed help in emergency landings and many fighters use it as a safety measure, no ones denies that.

Naval fighers always use arrestor hooks (except the Harrier and Forger which can land vertically) however land fighters can lack arrestor hooks they can use thrust reversers like the Tornado and Viggen
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/viggen-pict3.jpg
, air brakes like the Su-27 and F-15
http://www.sirviper.com/fighters/su-27/su-27_landing_large.jpg
, canards like the Gripen and J-10
http://incentraleurope.radio.cz/pictures/army/gripen3.jpg
,

other aircraft use parachutes

http://www.lpds.sztaki.hu/~zsnemeth/airshow/mig29.jpg.

An arrestor hook is a must to a conventional fighter with no VTOL, however land based fighters not always use them in fact few have them.

The Rafale is a Mirage 4000 evolution and as such a land based fighter, when it was offered to the Germans or even Italians and british it was not offered as a naval fighter, but as a land based fighter and the proof is the Eurofighter has no arresting hook, which means it was not navalized.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/eurofighter/ef2000/ef2000-005.jpg

The F-16 is a typical pure land fighter and lacks an arrestor hook

http://www.militaryaviation.eu/images/Lockheed/F-16B_J-655.jpg

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,877

MiG-23MLD, stop trolling on this thread. It used to be a wonderfully in-depth thread until you start pulling it off track with your overly illustrated posts of ignorance. Cut it out, or you'll be cut out.

Feel free to start a new thread about carrier-capable F-104s if you must, but leave this thread to it's original topic for once.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

I agree that given the quite miserable fuel fraction with typical piece time load-out (assume 4x AIM-7 and 2xAIM-9) and the fact that it rarely used external tanks.

Actually, the Tomcat used (quite small) external tanks pretty much all the time, probably more often than the F-16 carries its wing tanks. Its almost like they were part of the airframe. Thats perhaps why you didnt notice. :D

On the range issue, you probably know the Afghanistan story where F-14 could fly missions without air refuelling over enemy territory (i.e. Afghanistan). Something the F-18E apparently could not. Thats no absolute answer, but at least we know the Tomcat has more range than the increased range Hornet.

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 68

Arresting hook. (navalised????)

Mig23MLD:


The Rafale is a Mirage 4000 evolution and as such a land based fighter, when it was offered to the Germans or even Italians and british it was not offered as a naval fighter, but as a land based fighter and the proof is the Eurofighter has no arresting hook, which means it was not navalized.

Both a/c/ mentioned in your post do have arresting hook, to catch cables at the end of the runway if the brakes do'n't work, but yes these are not navalised ones so yes the A/c are not navalised. Allthough there are proposals for an navalised version of the Typhoon. I surely don't think that an F-16 could be navalised.