F-14 low speed prowess vs Other Aircraft

[Hummingbird]

Me too, just can't go totally one-sided on this, as the F-15 has a record and performance all it's own, but I'll take a Tomcat any day of the week in ACM.

 

Oh I aint, but in a WVR fight with pilots equally skilled in their aircraft I would, like you, pick the F-14 over the F-15 any day.

[AG-51_Razor]

Turkeydriver, I'd have to disagree with your comment about the design philosophy behind the F-14. It was designed to defeat incoming threats to the fleet at extremely long range with the Phoenix missile system, which was very heavy, hence the requirement for an aircraft that could operate off the boat at relatively low speeds and high gross weights and yet get out to the threats at very high speeds. This resulted in a design with very good handling qualities at low speeds with a very high margin of power available. I doubt very much that low speed dogfighting ability was a driving factor in the design requirements and would argue that it was just a very fortunate side benefit to the design. I would say that the only takeaway from the Korea and Viet Nam experience for BOTH services was that any fighter procured since Viet Nam would definitely be equipped with a gun! This idea was further reinforced by watching the IDF's experience over the years.

 

Having said all that, I would definitely agree with your estimate of the F-14's superiority in a close-in knife fight over just about any other fighter of it's generation. :pilotfly:

[Hummingbird]

According to Grumman themselves they were indeed very concerned with the ACM part after the experiences gained in Korea and esp. Vietnam, and thus from the onset had a very high capability in mind for the design in this aspect. For example the lifting body design was born out of this very requirement, it was only later that they realized how useful the space would be for storing weapons also, but its main design function was infact that of providing a huge amount of lift for ACM.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Hummingbird
Corrected a small typo = lifting body design, not body lift design

[captain_dalan]

Turkeydriver, I'd have to disagree with your comment about the design philosophy behind the F-14. It was designed to defeat incoming threats to the fleet at extremely long range with the Phoenix missile system, which was very heavy, hence the requirement for an aircraft that could operate off the boat at relatively low speeds and high gross weights and yet get out to the threats at very high speeds. ..... :pilotfly:

Can't say too much about the driving force behind the designers (i'll let the designers speak for themselves), but the original requirements do seam to put as much emphasis on air superiority as they do on fleet defense. :book:

[dekiplav]

It was designed to defeat incoming threats to the fleet at extremely long range with the Phoenix missile system, which was very heavy, hence the requirement for an aircraft that could operate off the boat at relatively low speeds and high gross weights and yet get out to the threats at very high speeds. This resulted in a design with very good handling qualities at low speeds with a very high margin of power available. I doubt very much that low speed dogfighting ability was a driving factor in the design requirements and would argue that it was just a very fortunate side benefit to the design.:pilotfly:

 

From what I know the F-111B was more suited for the "Fleet Air Defense" mission than the F-14A. It could pack more fuel, loiter longer at CAP station, greater range, land with heavier payload ...

This raise the question: If the NAVY wanted a fighter that could only do the FAD mission, then why chose the inferior one? I kinda doubt that they where to much concerned of pilot safety because they could not have a good look at the carrier strip during landing. From what I know F-8's where a nightmare for landing on a carrier, but that didn't stop the NAVY from using them.

It would be very stupid, especially after lessons learned the hard way in Vietnam, to put a fighter even more incapable in the WVR or AS role than the F-4. So by my opinion I have to say that the F-14 was designed from the start to be a fighter plane. Maybe because it was a NAVY fighter and it also had to do the FAD mission which required caring a huge radar/missile system that sacrificed some of its WVR performance, but it was more than capable off handling the lighter Soviet fighters.

Edited April 7, 2015 by dekiplav

[AG-51_Razor]

Please don't misunderstand my original post. I was not saying that Grumman was ignoring the agility aspect of the Tomcat's design. I have no doubt whatsoever that they intended to put out the very best fighter they could for the Navy, and I would say that they did an awesome job, given the requirements of the Navy.

 

As for the F-111B, don't forget that, for all of the things Dekiplav lists that it could do better than the F-14, the one thing it couldn't do was operate off the carrier!! It was just too heavy. The elevators couldn't even lift it to the flight deck if it were fully loaded with fuel and weapons for the mission.

 

Every aircraft design is a compromise. If you need to go fast, you build a plane like the F-8 Crusader. If you need to carry a lot of stuff, you make one like the A-6 Intruder. Bigger engines mean more fuel, more fuel means a bigger plane, and so on and so on. Grumman came up with the best compromise possible for what the Navy wanted at the time. And what they wanted was a platform that could carry aloft the Phoenix missile system to defeat multiple fast moving targets approaching the fleet from a very long way off. Grumman supplied that in spades and produced a very agile plane to boot!

[Hummingbird]

The words of the designers: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=141455

[turkeydriver]

Turkeydriver, I'd have to disagree with your comment about the design philosophy behind the F-14. It was designed to defeat incoming threats to the fleet at extremely long range with the Phoenix missile system, which was very heavy, hence the requirement for an aircraft that could operate off the boat at relatively low speeds and high gross weights and yet get out to the threats at very high speeds. This resulted in a design with very good handling qualities at low speeds with a very high margin of power available. I doubt very much that low speed dogfighting ability was a driving factor in the design requirements and would argue that it was just a very fortunate side benefit to the design. I would say that the only takeaway from the Korea and Viet Nam experience for BOTH services was that any fighter procured since Viet Nam would definitely be equipped with a gun! This idea was further reinforced by watching the IDF's experience over the years.

 

Having said all that, I would definitely agree with your estimate of the F-14's superiority in a close-in knife fight over just about any other fighter of it's generation. :pilotfly:

 

That's a lot of people's thoughts but its just not historically accurate, otherwise we would have an F-111B. The part that is accurate is that the F-14 was designed to incorporate and exploit the AWG-9 and AIM-54 to its maximum potential, so big nose, big area for weapons in low-drag config, and a lot of gas. ACM was a priority from DAY ONE period, end of story. Any Grummanites that remain will confirm this.

[captain_dalan]

 

Every aircraft design is a compromise.

Quoted for truth....

 

As to why and how things got muddled up back in the 60's, we might never now the entire answer. What we do know is that the NAVY wanted a fleet defense platform for a while back, and they heeded (and wanted) a Phantom replacement for escort/AS as well. Someone "bright" came up with the idea to do the whole "commonality" thing and we got the F-111B fiasco. As the Grumman brain child started as a much lighter "fighter" concept, armed with Sparrows and Winders (+internal gun), i personally believe that at one point at least some people in the Navy intended to have a "missileer" platform and an AS platform working together, but the new realities of the late-post Vietnam cold war era, must have changed that.

[AG-51_Razor]

I bow to the gentleman who gave the lecture at the museum. Y'all are absolutely right. Regardless, Grumman did a beautiful job and I'm glad they did. Can't wait to see this project released. :pilotfly:

[BlackLion213]

 

Every aircraft design is a compromise. If you need to go fast, you build a plane like the F-8 Crusader. If you need to carry a lot of stuff, you make one like the A-6 Intruder. Bigger engines mean more fuel, more fuel means a bigger plane, and so on and so on. Grumman came up with the best compromise possible for what the Navy wanted at the time. And what they wanted was a platform that could carry aloft the Phoenix missile system to defeat multiple fast moving targets approaching the fleet from a very long way off. Grumman supplied that in spades and produced a very agile plane to boot!

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you, the answer as to what was the "priority" of the design would also depend upon who you talk to. Everyone believes (or wants to believe) that their part is most important. If you ask the Weapon systems/AWG-9 integration staff they would say - "it's designed for everything, but FAD/BVR is priority", if you ask airframe guys - "ACM and BFM is the priority, biggest lesson from Vietnam", if you ask the powerplant guys - "I'm just trying to make chickensalad..." :)

 

In any case, the Navy would have similarly disparate answers depending on what they felt was the biggest threat. Many high-ranking Navy officials felt the F-14s most important role was the protect thousands of sailors trapped in metal cans. The ACM part only involved protecting the aircrew...lot fewer men. They also prioritized the protection of their "investment" in the F-14. It was a hard sell for some when the F-14 started flying TARPS missions over Lebanon in 1983 or flying over the beach for CAP. They felt that such an important asset should be reserved for "it's most important task". I think a lot of this nonsense hurt the Tomcat's long term future, too many focused on that one, remarkable role. That said, it really was the Tomcat's cost of acquisition and operation that prevented it from having a 40+ year career - IMHO. Especially after the Soviet mass-attack threat disappeared in the 1990s.

 

All that said, turkeydriver and Hummingbird are right, both the project director and lead designer for the F-14 project both said succinctly - "We were building a sparrowx4 & sidewinderx4 air superiority fighter/dogfighter from day one. We figured out how to stuff in the AWG-9 and 6 phoenix missiles after the fact" - paraphrased.

 

Grumman also wanted a fighter that could do everything, including A-G/Strike. Mostly because it meant selling more aircraft. They hoped that the F-14 would replace the A-6 (it did, but not by selling more aircraft). Actually, the F-14 has the A-6's wing! Minus wing-tip airbrakes, etc. The variable geometry allowed that basic airfoil to do a lot of things.

 

-Nick

Edited April 9, 2015 by BlackLion213

[Hummingbird]

Sustained G performance of the F-14A & D, F-16C & F-15C in comparison at 10,000 ft

 

F-14D @ 55,620 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.2

0.3 = 1.95

0.4 = 2.95

0.5 = 4.0

0.6 = 5.0

0.7 = 5.3

0.75 = 5.6

 

F-14A @ 53,873 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.1

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.8

0.5 = 3.9

0.6 = 4.9

0.7 = 5.2

0.75 = 5.5

 

F-16C @ 26,000 lbs w/ 2x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-120's + 2x FT pylons @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = CAT limited

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.7

0.5 = 3.55

0.6 = 4.5

0.7 = 5.5

0.75 = 6.0

 

F-15C @ 41,000 lbs (50% fuel), w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9s @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.0

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.6

0.5 = 3.4

0.6 = 4.3

0.7 = 5.25

0.75 = 5.7

 

All figures are from the aircraft's respective manuals.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Hummingbird
Corrected F-16 loadout description

[captain_dalan]

The F-16 can actually strap 8 AAMs?

[Basher54321]

The F-16 can actually strap 8 AAMs?

 

 

No - copy & paste error I expect

[Hummingbird]

Yeah that was a mistake, it's 4x AIM-9's, 2x AIM-120's (or reversed), and two fuel tank pylons. So eight pylons with missiles on six of them. (Drag index 50)

Edited April 9, 2015 by Hummingbird

[captain_dalan]

Ahh, that makes more sense :)

[Hummingbird]

Would be interesting if anyone could acquire the F/A-18C's sustained G performance for comparison? :) I haven't been able to locate it myself.

[captain_dalan]

Would be interesting if anyone could acquire the F/A-18C's sustained G performance for comparison? :) I haven't been able to locate it myself.

I have one, but for only one loadout type (2 Sparrows + 2 Sidewinders and 60% internal fuel).

[SDsc0rch]

"Beware the lessons of a fighter pilot who would rather fly a slide rule than kick your ass"

[Hummingbird]

I have one, but for only one loadout type (2 Sparrows + 2 Sidewinders and 60% internal fuel).

 

Well that's almost there, just four missiles short (+ their pylons), so let's have it :)

[Hummingbird]

"Beware the lessons of a fighter pilot who would rather fly a slide rule than kick your ass"

 

True, all this tells us is the max sustained performance that the pilot can get out of the aircraft in a certain aspect of flight, which in this case is the max sustained turn rate without altitude loss, it does not give us the final verdict on how good the aircraft is at ACM overall where the max ITR, pitch rate(or nose pointing ability, a strong point of the F-18 for example), roll rate and climb performance etc. can all be utilized to get into a favorable position or get that crucial shot in at a fleeting moment.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Hummingbird

[captain_dalan]

Well that's almost there, just four missiles short (+ their pylons), so let's have it :)

 

Almost all my charts posted here include it :)

The base chart i used is taken from an extracted F-18C FM :thumbup:

[Hummingbird]

Almost all my charts posted here include it :)

The base chart i used is taken from an extracted F-18C FM :thumbup:

 

Ah ok, but your F-14 & F-15 overlays are based on rates and not the measured accelerations, which leads to an an incorrect comparison at the lower speeds :)

 

Anyway according to that chart the F-18C is able to maintain 2 G's at 190 kts CAS @ 15,000 ft, which is approx. Mach 0.4.

 

At the same speed and altitude the F-14B/D is capable of sustaining 2.5 G's, the F-16C is capable of sustaining 2.2 G's and the F-15 is capable of sustaining 2.1 G's.

[captain_dalan]

Ah ok, but your F-14 & F-15 overlays are based on rates and not the measured accelerations, which leads to an an incorrect comparison at the lower speeds :)

 

Anyway according to that chart the F-18C is able to maintain 2 G's at 190 kts CAS @ 15,000 ft, which is approx. Mach 0.4.

 

At the same speed and altitude the F-14B/D is capable of sustaining 2.5 G's, the F-16C is capable of sustaining 2.2 G's and the F-15 is capable of sustaining 2.1 G's.

 

That's the one :)

 

For some reason (maybe it's just an error in the charts), 15000ft seams to be the worse altitude for the F-18 when compared to the other AC of its generation. :huh:

[Hummingbird]

That's the one :)

 

For some reason (maybe it's just an error in the charts), 15000ft seams to be the worse altitude for the F-18 when compared to the other AC of its generation. :huh:

 

Probably a lack of engine thrust at that altitude. Do you have it's sustained G performance for 10,000 ft?