F-14 systems and capabilities

[Sleksa]

With the news about the leatherneck simulations developing the tomcat, I've started to do some research on the capabilities and functionality of the plane. With that in mind I have some questions that I'm hoping other people could answer:

 

1) The tomcat is said to have a navigation system, a gyro based one in the older models and a gps-using one in the later ones, however when I'm looking at the cockpit photos of the A-model, I don't see a screen for the system anywhere, so the question is: How accurate is the gyro-based system, are both the pilot and the radar operator able to access it, and where on the plane is it located?

 

2) Is there any way for the pilot to see what the radar operator is seeing on his radar? This question comes to mind when considering for example a situation where a f-14 wants to put a enemy aircraft that he's locked onto at the edge of his radar cone but not turn too much to break the lock. I imagine such a functionality should be crucial lest the pilot's and radar operator's interaction be turned into a game of 'warmer/colder/ohcrapwelosther'.

 

3) Is it true that the radar operator has no way of controlling the aircraft? If I remember correctly, the phantom had backup controls for the radar operator and it seems weird to not have such a safety system on a multi-million dollar plane

[smnwrx]

I am no tomcat expert so I will defer, but one thing I read that i found interesting is the lack of any flight controls in the RIO cockpit. Even instructor pilot/rios in the RAG where just along for the ride, basically the only control they had over their own fate was thier voice and the ejection handles.

[BlackLion213]

With the news about the leatherneck simulations developing the tomcat, I've started to do some research on the capabilities and functionality of the plane. With that in mind I have some questions that I'm hoping other people could answer:

 

1) The tomcat is said to have a navigation system, a gyro based one in the older models and a gps-using one in the later ones, however when I'm looking at the cockpit photos of the A-model, I don't see a screen for the system anywhere, so the question is: How accurate is the gyro-based system, are both the pilot and the radar operator able to access it, and where on the plane is it located?

 

2) Is there any way for the pilot to see what the radar operator is seeing on his radar? This question comes to mind when considering for example a situation where a f-14 wants to put a enemy aircraft that he's locked onto at the edge of his radar cone but not turn too much to break the lock. I imagine such a functionality should be crucial lest the pilot's and radar operator's interaction be turned into a game of 'warmer/colder/ohcrapwelosther'.

 

3) Is it true that the radar operator has no way of controlling the aircraft? If I remember correctly, the phantom had backup controls for the radar operator and it seems weird to not have such a safety system on a multi-million dollar plane

 

No dual control Tomcats were ever made and no USN Phantoms had dual controls either. The rationale is that no pilot could realistically land either aircraft on a carrier given the visibility. As such, all Tomcat pilots were trained by instructor RIOs who talked to the pilots only. This was also the case with the Phantom and a big upgrade from earlier USN fighters where all new pilots flew solo from the get go. The first USN aircraft that routinely used a 2-seat training variant was the F/A-18. There were a few one-off/two-off trainers (2-seat F-8 and 2-seat A-7), but there were only one or two built. It was not the standard.

 

Also, the Tomcat has INS and TACAN/VOR navigation. The early GPS upgrade involved off-the-shelf Garmin GPS units installed for Operation Allied Force. Later, a formal GPS system was installed (in the 2000s), though I'm not familiar with the user interface. It probably fed into the existing HSI (lower pilot screen) and upgraded MFD in the RIO cockpit.

 

The pilot can see the RIO tactical display/fishbowl (which shows Radar data - though not raw radar data) on his HSI display, just in front of the control stick (lower display of the 2--screen stack). Usually the RIO gives detailed directions during the intercept to avoid errors like banking past the limit of the radar antennae - they practiced A LOT ;).

 

Hope this helps,

 

-Nick

[sLYFa]

I don't see a screen for the system anywhere, so the question is: How accurate is the gyro-based system, are both the pilot and the radar operator able to access it, and where on the plane is it located?

AFAIK interaction with the INS was done using the so called Computer Adress Panel on the RIO´s left console, probably somewhat similar to the Ka-50 PVI Keyboard

[Sleksa]

No dual control Tomcats were ever made and no USN Phantoms had dual controls either. The rationale is that no pilot could realistically land either aircraft on a carrier given the visibility. As such, all Tomcat pilots were trained by instructor RIOs who talked to the pilots only. This was also the case with the Phantom and a big upgrade from earlier USN fighters where all new pilots flew solo from the get go. The first USN aircraft that routinely used a 2-seat training variant was the F/A-18. There were a few one-off/two-off trainers (2-seat F-8 and 2-seat A-7), but there were only one or two built. It was not the standard.

 

Also, the Tomcat has INS and TACAN/VOR navigation. The early GPS upgrade involved off-the-shelf Garmin GPS units installed for Operation Allied Force. Later, a formal GPS system was installed (in the 2000s), though I'm not familiar with the user interface. It probably fed into the existing HSI (lower pilot screen) and upgraded MFD in the RIO cockpit.

 

The pilot can see the RIO tactical display/fishbowl (which shows Radar data - though not raw radar data) on his HSI display, just in front of the control stick (lower display of the 2--screen stack). Usually the RIO gives detailed directions during the intercept to avoid errors like banking past the limit of the radar antennae - they practiced A LOT ;).

 

Hope this helps,

 

-Nick

 

So if I'm reading you right, the US navy's phantoms didn't have rear cockpit controls, but other users migh've had? Though, I distinctively remember reading a story on this forum about a radar officer who made a backseat landing on a carrier with the phantom but I can't find the article anywhere now. However this virtual cockpit also seems to have throttle controls and a possible control stick on the back seat, but maybe it's from another phantom version than the one used by the US navy?

 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/070/F-4G%20Rear%20Cockpit.html

 

No matter though, it just struck me as a oddity since I imagined the risk reduction from a redundant set of controls quite worth it if it might save a multi-million dollar fighter, but on further thinking, considering the extra wirings/maintenance and training involved it might have a bigger pricetag than what my educated mind can think of :).

 

In respect to the INS mapping system, I really have no reference to the quality of the system, but would love to hear more about it and it's capabilities. Did it have the capacity to show other aircraft's positions through a datalink such as the a-10 we have in dcs (I remember reading that the f-14's had a capability to link with eachother to increase the range of the radar, but I'm unsure if that's related at all), or did it have preprogrammed routes/targets and such akin to the abris system of the ka50, or was it 'just' a navigational map?

 

I'm also unsure what the term fishbowl means, but if I had to guess it means the round radar screen? with a quick googling of a 'rio tactical display', this picture came up: http://media.nara.gov/stillpix/330-cfd/1992/DN-SC-92-04276.jpeg

 

So the pilot would also have the ability to see similiar output on his display screen?

 

Thanks for your answers.

[turkeydriver]

So if I'm reading you right, the US navy's phantoms didn't have rear cockpit controls, but other users migh've had? Though, I distinctively remember reading a story on this forum about a radar officer who made a backseat landing on a carrier with the phantom but I can't find the article anywhere now. However this virtual cockpit also seems to have throttle controls and a possible control stick on the back seat, but maybe it's from another phantom version than the one used by the US navy?

 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/070/F-4G%20Rear%20Cockpit.html

 

No matter though, it just struck me as a oddity since I imagined the risk reduction from a redundant set of controls quite worth it if it might save a multi-million dollar fighter, but on further thinking, considering the extra wirings/maintenance and training involved it might have a bigger pricetag than what my educated mind can think of :).

 

In respect to the INS mapping system, I really have no reference to the quality of the system, but would love to hear more about it and it's capabilities. Did it have the capacity to show other aircraft's positions through a datalink such as the a-10 we have in dcs (I remember reading that the f-14's had a capability to link with eachother to increase the range of the radar, but I'm unsure if that's related at all), or did it have preprogrammed routes/targets and such akin to the abris system of the ka50, or was it 'just' a navigational map?

 

I'm also unsure what the term fishbowl means, but if I had to guess it means the round radar screen? with a quick googling of a 'rio tactical display', this picture came up: http://media.nara.gov/stillpix/330-cfd/1992/DN-SC-92-04276.jpeg

 

So the pilot would also have the ability to see similiar output on his display screen?

 

Thanks for your answers.

 

F-14A and F-14B had "link4" that allowed a flight of F-14s a very limited datalink- severely limited in bandwidth and data. I have no specifics on it.

[BlackLion213]

So if I'm reading you right, the US navy's phantoms didn't have rear cockpit controls, but other users migh've had? Though, I distinctively remember reading a story on this forum about a radar officer who made a backseat landing on a carrier with the phantom but I can't find the article anywhere now. However this virtual cockpit also seems to have throttle controls and a possible control stick on the back seat, but maybe it's from another phantom version than the one used by the US navy?

 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/070/F-4G%20Rear%20Cockpit.html

 

No matter though, it just struck me as a oddity since I imagined the risk reduction from a redundant set of controls quite worth it if it might save a multi-million dollar fighter, but on further thinking, considering the extra wirings/maintenance and training involved it might have a bigger pricetag than what my educated mind can think of :).

 

In respect to the INS mapping system, I really have no reference to the quality of the system, but would love to hear more about it and it's capabilities. Did it have the capacity to show other aircraft's positions through a datalink such as the a-10 we have in dcs (I remember reading that the f-14's had a capability to link with eachother to increase the range of the radar, but I'm unsure if that's related at all), or did it have preprogrammed routes/targets and such akin to the abris system of the ka50, or was it 'just' a navigational map?

 

I'm also unsure what the term fishbowl means, but if I had to guess it means the round radar screen? with a quick googling of a 'rio tactical display', this picture came up: http://media.nara.gov/stillpix/330-cfd/1992/DN-SC-92-04276.jpeg

 

So the pilot would also have the ability to see similiar output on his display screen?

 

Thanks for your answers.

 

You are right, there were dual control Phantoms, but they were the USAF Phantoms (F-4C, D, E, F, and G). Not the US Navy Phantoms (F-4B, J, N, and S). Most export Phantoms were also dual control since they were mostly USAF versions (exceptions include the RAF/RN Phantoms that were F-4Js and F-4K/M, K/M variants were USN derived but turbofan powered).

 

The USAF has been using dual control versions of their fighters for training for longer (F-104 for example) and the MUCH less demanding nature of their landings makes the idea of a rear-seat landing feasible.

 

I don't think the Tomcat had a moving map for it's Nav (at least not orignially). The Nav system, to my understanding, works by directing the pilot via the HSI (like TACAN) that adjusts a heading bug to show the direction and range to the waypoint. I don't know much about the INS interface.

 

The "Fishbowl" was the large, round display in the RIO cockpit and the pilot could see the same output as the JPEG that you linked. It would display on the pilot's HSI.

 

-Nick

[Vampyre]

So if I'm reading you right, the US navy's phantoms didn't have rear cockpit controls, but other users migh've had? Though, I distinctively remember reading a story on this forum about a radar officer who made a backseat landing on a carrier with the phantom but I can't find the article anywhere now. However this virtual cockpit also seems to have throttle controls and a possible control stick on the back seat, but maybe it's from another phantom version than the one used by the US navy?

 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/070/F-4G%20Rear%20Cockpit.html

 

No matter though, it just struck me as a oddity since I imagined the risk reduction from a redundant set of controls quite worth it if it might save a multi-million dollar fighter, but on further thinking, considering the extra wirings/maintenance and training involved it might have a bigger pricetag than what my educated mind can think of :).

 

The USAF specified that all of their Phantoms were to be equipped with full controls both front and back and originally both seats were occupied by qualified pilots. For the Air Force, who has 6-10k foot runways the risk reduction was worth it. For the Navy, whose runway is about 700ft long and to successfully land the aircraft has to be flown to a spot of only about 100ft long within that 700ft, not being able to see the carrier well makes for a very dangerous situation to both the aircrew and the ship itself. This is what you would get if you were lucky:

 

The cockpit photo you referenced is to a USAF F-4G Wild Weasel V. It being a USAF bird (originally built as an F-4E) means that the dual controls were standard.

 

Here's a pic of an F-4J RIO cockpit, notice the poor visibility lack of throttles and no flight control stick:

 

 

 

The first USN aircraft that routinely used a 2-seat training variant was the F/A-18. There were a few one-off/two-off trainers (2-seat F-8 and 2-seat A-7), but there were only one or two built. It was not the standard.

 

The Navy actually remanufactured about 60 A-7B/C's to TA-7C dual seat trainer standard for use with VA-174 and VA-125 the east and west coast A-7 Corsair II RAG's respectively.

[BlackLion213]

The Navy actually remanufactured about 60 A-7B/C's to TA-7C dual seat trainer standard for use with VA-174 and VA-125 the east and west coast A-7 Corsair II RAG's respectively.

 

Thank you for info, didn't realize that it was so many.

 

-Nick

[streakeagle]

Navy F-4 Phantoms were not built with dual controls, but had provisions to be equipped with a Dual Flight Control kit for training. Photos of VX-30 QF-4N '145' BuNo 153030 fitted with this kit are in "Uncovering the US Navy Q/F-4B/J/N/S Phantom" by Danny Coremans.

[captain_dalan]

Basically what Nick said.

Aside from that, the HSD (lower most driver display) could "call" on RIO's TID, NAV/TACAN/INS and RWR systems. Navigational data could also be used with the HSI. If i'm not mistaken, all NAV data were fed into the computer preflight, and while it included nav ponts, no maps were available.

 

As for the inertial navigation, the only thing i know about its efficiency is that it had to be reset before every flight, but i think that's the case with every system out there.

[Paradox]

Could navigation waypoints be introduced to a flight plan inflight?

[captain_dalan]

I don't really know. Maybe someone with any service time in the cat can tell?

[Greekbull]

I just really hope the F-14B model has AG capabilities like many of the Bs did. This game needs more multirole planes rather than al of the specialized variants we have now. I will buy the F-14 either way because it is one of my favorite planes of all time. If it has AG I will likely spend most of my time in it. If it doesn't then the Hornet will be my home(if and when it ever comes out lol)...

[near_blind]

I'm curious, how did the RIO determine when an AIM-54 had gone active, or for that matter estimated TOF of their AIM-54/AIM-7 shots?

 

I have yet to find anything that points to TTA and TTG being indicated on the TID or elsewhere in the A or B.

[mwd2]

Can a F-14 fly supersonic without afterburner?

[captain_dalan]

Can a F-14 fly supersonic without afterburner?

 

A clean F-14B/D (or with 2 Winders on outermost stations) should be able to go supersonic without reheat.

[SilentGun]

F-14 systems and capabilities

 

I'm curious, how did the RIO determine when an AIM-54 had gone active, or for that matter estimated TOF of their AIM-54/AIM-7 shots?

 

I have yet to find anything that points to TTA and TTG being indicated on the TID or elsewhere in the A or B.

 

 

The AIM-54 and AIM-7 were semi active homing missiles, so they need the aircrafts radar to guide it all the way. I think...

[Tirak]

The AIM-54 and AIM-7 were semi active homing missiles, so they need the aircrafts radar to guide it all the way. I think...

 

Um... no.

 

The Phoenix was a fire and forget weapon.

[near_blind]

The AIM-54 and AIM-7 were semi active homing missiles, so they need the aircrafts radar to guide it all the way. I think...

 

The AIM-54 was probably the first operationally deployed active radar air to air missile. Even if it weren't this still isn't the question. Most western Gen 4 aircraft will indicate either on the hud or the radar the estimated time of flight for a missile, and the estimated remaining time of flight for a fired missile, regardless of whether it is SARH or ARH.

 

Given that engaging targets at great range is a core mission of the F-14, Id be surprised if this functionality were not present. However I've cannot find any reference of it existing.

[GGTharos]

No, it wasn't. Although it had its own active radar to guide it, that equipment is very short-ranged compared to the AIM-54's range, and as such the missile requires mid-course updates at least until it can use its own radar.

 

Um... no.

 

The Phoenix was a fire and forget weapon.

[GGTharos]

The indicators are there, but I don't recall where they appear. Probably more for the RIO.

 

I'm curious, how did the RIO determine when an AIM-54 had gone active, or for that matter estimated TOF of their AIM-54/AIM-7 shots?

 

I have yet to find anything that points to TTA and TTG being indicated on the TID or elsewhere in the A or B.

[captain_dalan]

 

Given that engaging targets at great range is a core mission of the F-14, Id be surprised if this functionality were not present. However I've cannot find any reference of it existing.

Me neither. I have never seen any HUD symbology that indicates it. But then again, all the sims i flew were pilot based and not RIO based.

 

No, it wasn't. Although it had its own active radar to guide it, that equipment is very short-ranged compared to the AIM-54's range, and as such the missile requires mid-course updates at least until it can use its own radar.

 

For most of the launch modes yes, but there should be at least one "dog-fight" launch mode, that makes it go active almost immediately after dropping off the pallet.

[near_blind]

Another random question. Most materials I've read indicated that the DDD could only be used to display target rate information. However while reading Tomcat by James Perry Stevenson, he seems to indicate that while in RWS mode, the DDD will display target range information instead of rate (Page 81) , in effect becoming a B-scope.

 

Does anyone know if this is the case? Am I reading too much into ambiguous wording?

[captain_dalan]

Another random question. Most materials I've read indicated that the DDD could only be used to display target rate information. However while reading Tomcat by James Perry Stevenson, he seems to indicate that while in RWS mode, the DDD will display target range information instead of rate (Page 81) , in effect becoming a B-scope.

 

Does anyone know if this is the case? Am I reading too much into ambiguous wording?

 

Personally, i have never quite figured the DDD out and when the contacts represent range or rate. Or if they are in a horizontal or vertical plane for that matter. I only use it to actually find contacts at extreme ranges (using pulse doppler search or whatever it is called) and then once located using the TID and RWS/TWS radar modes to get exact location and bearing on the contacts. Most literature though, seams to allude to closure rates and not actual distance being displayed on the DDD.