How is f-14 maneuverability?

[GGTharos]

It also needed to have several unique capabilities that the F-15 and F-16 didn't need to worry about: land on a ship (which made it much heavier), have a ~125 knot approach speed, carry a multi-engagement weapon system that could actually shoot down other missiles (F-15 couldn't do anything remotely like that) and engage a much larger number of maneuvering targets, and carry 16000 lbs of internal fuel for en effective maritime combat radius.

 

The F-15 as been capable of shooting down cruise missiles since AIM-7M came into the picture, IIRC. The 7F was a bit dodgier.

 

BTW, the Phoenix was the first missile developed that could hit a target pulling 6+Gs and was much more effective than any version of the sparrow.

 

The Sparrow has an 8G target limit last I checked, but that's based on a very simplistic formula. Within its WEZ, it was a very capable missile, often used in BFM as well until the sidewinders caught up.

[lunaticfringe]

Not ironic at all, that. When you start looking at the CL Max generated by the F-14 at 20 degrees of sweep and add the energetic nature of that wing (solid wing/thrust loading)...

 

Realizing that the F-14 was engineered for *substantially* more G than it was permitted operationally, even just noting where CL Max would cross 7.5G is an object lesson on the insanity of it being an "interceptor".

 

And to think they were beating the snot out of "better" aircraft with both hands tied behind their backs...

[captain_dalan]

 

Realizing that the F-14 was engineered for *substantially* more G than it was permitted operationally, even just noting where CL Max would cross 7.5G is an object lesson on the insanity of it being an "interceptor".

 

Watching that progress report (was it admiral Alvis?) back in the 70's i can see why they imposed somewhat "harsh" operational limits. It seams like originally the NAVY expected the first batch of F-14A's to last them to 1985. By then they would start replacing them with brand new F-14B's. However, recession and budget cuts took their tall and the NAVY had to make do with what they had. Their service times were prolonged first from 6000 to 7500 flight hours and then indefinitely for as long as they would last. I believe it was Hoser himself that said, the NAVY wanted them to last forever :doh:

 

In such a constellation i can understand why they would operate they way they did :(

[BlackLion213]

The F-15 as been capable of shooting down cruise missiles since AIM-7M came into the picture, IIRC. The 7F was a bit dodgier.

 

 

 

The Sparrow has an 8G target limit last I checked, but that's based on a very simplistic formula. Within its WEZ, it was a very capable missile, often used in BFM as well until the sidewinders caught up.

 

Not in 1972...

 

I just edited my post to clarify the era to which I am referring. In any case...

 

They did integrate more capability as time passed and I've heard the AIM-7M was a very effective missile, probably underrated in the shadow of the later AMRAAM.

 

That said, the sparrow available when the phoenix premiered was much less capable than the M.

 

Also, the "end-game" performance of the sparrow was notoriously poor through the 70s and much of the 1980s. You're right that it had an 8G limit, the problem was that USAF and USN doctrine emphasized employing the sparrow beyond the operational range of contemporary Soviet missiles. As such, it was usually launched ~12 miles from target. By the time it reached the motor had burned out and the missile couldn't add enough energy to chase a maneuvering target or pull many Gs. If the missiles motor is still burning, then the chances of a hit go up dramatically - this is the so-called "no escape range" in which the rocket motor is burning all the way to impact. For the sparrow it is around 3-4 miles (depending on the version), for the phoenix it is 20 miles...

 

-Nick

Edited March 15, 2015 by BlackLion213

[GGTharos]

Not in 1972...

 

I just edited my post to clarify the era to which I am referring. In any case...

 

Right. I don't believe the 7F would have been particularly effective, though I've seen HuD footage of F-15's launching sparrows at cruise missile-like targets (my assumption, due to apparent altitude, and displayed target speed). The footage ended before impact though :P

 

They did integrate more capability as time passed and I've heard the AIM-7M was a very effective missile, probably underrated in the shadow of the later AMRAAM.

The NAVY is getting AIM-7P which is even more modern, though I'm a bit surprised that it's still being employed. The USAF ditched it at the 7MH version the moment they got the 120B.

 

Also, the "end-game" performance of the sparrow was notoriously poor through the 70s and much of the 1980s. You're right that it had an 8G limit, the problem was that USAF and USN doctrine emphasized employing the sparrow beyond the operational range of contemporary Soviet missiles. As such, it was usually launched ~12 miles from target. By the time it reached the motor had burned out and the missile couldn't add enough energy to chase a maneuvering target or pull many Gs. If the missiles motor is still burning, then the chances of a hit go up dramatically - this is the so-called "no escape range" in which the rocket motor is burning all the way to impact. For the sparrow it is around 3-4 miles (depending on the version), for the phoenix it is 20 miles...-Nick

That's true for an AIM-7E/E2 (and there are even specific graphs to prove it! :) ), but no so much for the F/M(H)/P which have a much, much more powerful motor (14-15 second burn time vs 2-3), and in the case of MH/P, functionality to help conserve their energy.

[captain_dalan]

 

The NAVY is getting AIM-7P which is even more modern, though I'm a bit surprised that it's still being employed. The USAF ditched it at the 7MH version the moment they got the 120B.

 

I though the USN went all AMRAAM as well.... Any idea why they decided to stick with the Sparrow?

[GGTharos]

I think a lot of ships still operate Sea Sparrow.

[captain_dalan]

:thumbup:

[turkeydriver]

I though the USN went all AMRAAM as well.... Any idea why they decided to stick with the Sparrow?

 

Warhead, and complete control? AMRAAM makes its own decisions once its radar lights off correct? More likely, is the AIM-7P is a conversion kit(cheap upgrade of existing stocks) that produces a reliable and known weapon. The AIM-120C-7 and D have had motor reliability problems that was only recently solved. They might have been purchased as an insurance policy against low known good AIM-120 rounds.

[GGTharos]

Warhead, and complete control? AMRAAM makes its own decisions once its radar lights off correct?

 

There's nothing stopping an AIM-7 from switching targets. It makes its own decisions too, it's just dumber than a 120.

 

More likely, is the AIM-7P is a conversion kit(cheap upgrade of existing stocks) that produces a reliable and known weapon. The AIM-120C-7 and D have had motor reliability problems that was only recently solved. They might have been purchased as an insurance policy against low known good AIM-120 rounds.

 

It's a conversion kit AND newly manufactured missile. IIRC the kit doesn't get quite all the advantages, but I could be remembering incorrectly.

 

As for the rocket motor, a 120 already has twice the Pk of a 7, and at longer ranges ... and the rocket motor issue is old, done and over with news.

 

The one thing that AIM-7P does have going is that it can be loaded as a SAM, though I doubt they package up the rounds in such a way that you can launch them from either platform.

[lunaticfringe]

There are a couple of circumstances that the AIM-7 gives performance and employment options which aren't available to AMRAAM that are not widely discussed. I'm not certain how many of those modes remain in use, or if they are if they are limited to the Hornet or are available to the Super Hornet, or even if either aircraft can use them anymore, but said options had been there since the 70's, and I've never seen similar notation for the AIM-120.

 

In a pinch, they'd be handy.

[captain_dalan]

Advantages in the warhead? Is it larger?

What about the missile maneuverability? Are they similar (before burnout) ?

[lunaticfringe]

The Sparrow's is larger, however AMRAAM has multiple generations worth of optimizations to put its 50/40lb explosive (depending on generation) to better use. Maneuverability is going to likely go to the -7 close-in relative to the later versions of the -120, based purely on the size of its control services versus the weight of the weapon. AMRAAM has overhead for some solutions to this based on what you can program it to do, the above is just the "raw".

 

However, neither of these things are what I'm referring to.

[GGTharos]

I'm almost certain maneuverability goes to the 120 for the following reasons:

 

It's a lighter missile, so it might have a better structural ability to withstand Gs (and we see this in SRMs vs MRMs, as well as the 120 just being newer)

 

It uses tail-control, which increases the available AoA compared to a wing-control missile (from literature on missile design)

 

Slammer claims a 9g target, Sparrow claims 7-8, IIRC (citation needed for slammer, for sparrow IIRC it's in some USN documents)

 

There's a bunch of data on Sparrow that isn't available for the 120 though, so it's all an edumacated guess.

[lunaticfringe]

A/B? Sure. C/D? No way.

[GGTharos]

If this was a real issue, installing a different fin for external carriage would be easy. The aircraft could provide the necessary programming switch through its weapons system.

 

People in the know have mentioned that that decrease in fin-span doesn't make a significant difference in maneuvering :)

[captain_dalan]

Just to distract you guys from the missile discussion a bit. I found this in an old junk folder. It claims to be a clean F-14A maneuvering chart:

 

 

I have no idea what the source is. I am willing to bet i found it on some old thread, but i can't recall where or when. IF authentic, this appears to be a clean F-14A (the high value for level flight at SL leads me to this conclusion), however, as it's low-mid mach sustained G capability is lower then what we have, as well as the earliest g onsets, i think it is without the maneuvering devices operating, and possibly at high fuel states (maybe even full internal fuel tank).

 

The closest i could find in the dash 1 for the F-15, is the 42000pds clean configuration with CFTs. CFTs will add to the drag somewhat, but it can still serve as basis for comparison. If GGT can extract a more closer data bas from the later Eagle's manual (full internal fuel, clean configuration) we can make an overlay of that too. Anyway, this is what i got for the SL vlaues (i am too tired to do a multiple altitude overlay right now):

 

My estimate is that the F-15A/C goes up to 8.8-9g at SL, while the F-14A peaks at around 8.4-8.5g

[GGTharos]

There's no full internal fuel chart in the -1 unfortunately. There's a 38000lbs eagle but it isn't clean - it has pylons and launcher/adapters. Drag makes a huge difference so you can't really compare a clean aircraft to one that isn't. This includes CFTs typically, though it'll certainly give you some idea of the performance.

[captain_dalan]

There's no full internal fuel chart in the -1 unfortunately. There's a 38000lbs eagle but it isn't clean - it has pylons and launcher/adapters. Drag makes a huge difference so you can't really compare a clean aircraft to one that isn't. This includes CFTs typically, though it'll certainly give you some idea of the performance.

Yeah, i definitely agree. Take that into account and they would seam nearly identical in their hard wing configurations :thumbup:

[turkeydriver]

Just to distract you guys from the missile discussion a bit. I found this in an old junk folder. It claims to be a clean F-14A maneuvering chart:

 

 

I have no idea what the source is. I am willing to bet i found it on some old thread, but i can't recall where or when. IF authentic, this appears to be a clean F-14A (the high value for level flight at SL leads me to this conclusion), however, as it's low-mid mach sustained G capability is lower then what we have, as well as the earliest g onsets, i think it is without the maneuvering devices operating, and possibly at high fuel states (maybe even full internal fuel tank).

 

The closest i could find in the dash 1 for the F-15, is the 42000pds clean configuration with CFTs. CFTs will add to the drag somewhat, but it can still serve as basis for comparison. If GGT can extract a more closer data bas from the later Eagle's manual (full internal fuel, clean configuration) we can make an overlay of that too. Anyway, this is what i got for the SL vlaues (i am too tired to do a multiple altitude overlay right now):

 

My estimate is that the F-15A/C goes up to 8.8-9g at SL, while the F-14A peaks at around 8.4-8.5g

 

That top chart looks to be a scan of the charts that had values removed from the Aero series F-14 book. It also included charts for the original PW401 engine F-14B, which had a sustained 8g curve right at both ends of .8 Mach.

[captain_dalan]

That top chart looks to be a scan of the charts that had values removed from the Aero series F-14 book. It also included charts for the original PW401 engine F-14B, which had a sustained 8g curve right at both ends of .8 Mach.

 

Do you have it? Can you check which configuration it depicts?

[lunaticfringe]

It doesn't.

 

He really should have lost his job over releasing that. Instead, he went total Boyd-acolyte and went bonkers writing about "how the Navy got the process of acquisition on the Hornet wrong (among other things)".

 

Nothing like handing the Soviets exactly what they needed for raw data for the heavy price of $7.95.

[captain_dalan]

It doesn't.

 

He really should have lost his job over releasing that. Instead, he went total Boyd-acolyte and went bonkers writing about "how the Navy got the process of acquisition on the Hornet wrong (among other things)".

 

Nothing like handing the Soviets exactly what they needed for raw data for the heavy price of $7.95.

 

You are referring to the book?

[lunaticfringe]

Yep. The book has no statement of configuration for any of the charts provided, and it has a large volume of them. Figure out the indexing, and you've got a massive amount of goodies for the daily wage the average member of the Workers Paradise.

[turkeydriver]

Yep. The book has no statement of configuration for any of the charts provided, and it has a large volume of them. Figure out the indexing, and you've got a massive amount of goodies for the daily wage the average member of the Workers Paradise.

 

Ouch, had not idea as the book "looks" to have support from the Navy, and it never says the graphs are accurate, but you can't show kind of info and not be able to figure out what's missing. It didn't highlight any frequency or tactics-just performance capabilities that should have told the Soviets "Crap! We must develop the SU-27, MiG-29, and MiG-31 or we're totally hosed!" I figure it might have been an intentional Cold War "oops" to let them know we're not faking a claim here, this jet can do what we say it does.