Give your own opinion on Tomcat to Super Bug *Very long reading*

[ViperEagle]

As I recall, the Tomcat that blew out it's engine was a TF-30 powered bird, which were prone to catastrophic engine loss. The GE-110 powered Tomcats did not share that trait.

[Gripes]

Slightly OT: Don`t they have barriers midfield, approach and departure end of the runway at Sherman Field? - probably would have helped...

[Guest IguanaKing]

I don't think they would have helped in that situation, that Superbug doesn't appear to be anywhere near either end in those photos. Not much you can do if a tire blows, except try to keep it straight and pray that the gods smile on you. I once saw a Beech 400 that had a blowout of the left main shortly after touchdown. The pilot lost control of it and the thing cart-wheeled, end over end, down the runway and into the grass. Everyone on board was killed. :(

[JonTex]

Dude, you can have a friendly discussion without having to resort to this.

 

I was merely making apoint, no need to pretend you lose and I win to end something your not liking the way its going.

 

Cheers!

 

If I agree with you can we end this?:surrender:

[tflash]

In the discussion, we should not forget that the Tomcat faces inherent limitations through design. It is essentially a stable aircraft. From the point of view of aerodynamics, it can never be made as manoevrable as a current-generation fighter. The hornet was in that respect ahead of its time. This helps the SH to be still competitive with aircraft like Rafale or Typhoon, combining low wingloading and very high AOA.

 

SH shows its heritage burden by not being able to supercruise and being only moderately stealthy. If future technology will involve complex hydraulics it will be for thrust vectoring, not for a swing-wing engineering nightmare.

TV can help unstable aircraft to be as fuel efficient as classic stable designs: by minimal tv corrections you can achieve stable flight without trimming, as is done on the Mi-29OVT demonstrator.

[FanBoy2006.01]

The thread is about the our opinions on the Tomcat and the Super Hornet. So why argue. If we all had the same opinions and had the same knowledge, would there be any point on posting on this forum?

 

 

As for saying that one should not compare the Super Hornet with the Tomcat 21 and the ASF 14 Tomcat is absurd. All these aircraft were proposals (With the navalised F22.) to replace the current Tomcat fleet. It seems that the US government chose the cheapest bidder in this case (Big surprise here!).

 

 

So someone could say to me, technically that is not what the topic is about. But neither is arguing till the cows come home! Give your opinion, don't argue about who is wrong and who is right.

 

 

Here is some info. I got from the net. I don't know how accurate it is (Or if everyone already knows this.). To me it seems that the ASF 14 Tomcat would have been a potent war-machine (Supercruise, 77 degree angle of attack, advanced avionics and the classic Tomcat looks!).

 

 

Link: http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm

 

 

Tomcat 21

 

Tomcat 21 was a more far reaching modification to the F-14D. Using ideas from the Quickstrike proposal Grumman developed the design as a lower cost, multi-role alternative to the NATF. Quickstrike was mainly an avionic and systems upgrade, however to this Tomcat 21 added reshaped wing gloves, which roughly matched the profile of a standard Tomcat glove with the vanes extended. These added around 1,134kg (2,500lb) of fuel. Wing flaps were also to be modified, using a single slotted Fowler type flap. Slats and spoilers were also to be modified. This would have provided 33% extra lift on approach to the carrier, enough to make up for the extra fuel and avionics. The all moving tailplanes would also be enlarged, by extending the trailing edge.

 

 

 

With the increased fuel, structural changes and avionics the empty weight of the Tomcat 21 was expected to be only 454kg (1,100lb) than that of the F-14D. Due to the increased fuel capacity gross weight was expected to increase from 33,070kg (72,900lb) to 34,470kg (76,000lb).

Like the Quickstrike Tomcat 21 would carry nav-attack FLIRS, either the LANTIRN system or Night Owl pods from Ford Aerospace. Again these would be mounted in the front of the aerodynamic Phoenix fairings (which house the cooling oil system for early model AIM-54's on the F-14A and B. The D does not have this system). The laser designator for the Night Owl system would be carried in the undernose twin pod.

 

 

 

In addition to the FLIRS the AN/APG-71 would have been further modified, giving it an ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar) capability, improved look down/shoot down capabilities over land and a 20% increase in target acquisition range.

 

 

 

At a time when high cost designs were being killed at a prodigious rate Grumman was quietly confident that the relatively low cost Tomcat 21 would see production. Its anticipated development costs were $989 million, with the first flight in 1993 (if the go ahead was given in 1990). Production models were expected to begin delivery in 1996. 490 Tomcat 21's were projected, a mix of 233 new build (cost $39 million apiece) and 257 remanufactured aircraft from F-14B/D's (cost $21 million apiece). Which FY these prices were calculated for I do not know.

Attack Super Tomcat 21 (ASF-14)

 

If the Tomcat 21 was a relatively low cost structural modification to the F-14D then the Attack Super Tomcat 21 (hereafter referred to as AST-21) was the most advanced derivative Grumman could make, both in terms of aerodynamics and avionics.

 

 

 

As well as the structural changes mentioned above the AST-21 would have thicker outer wing panels, allowing even more fuel to be carried. Larger external fuel tanks would also be developed. Flaps and slats would be further refined, reducing approach speeds by 18mph.

A new version of the F110, the GE F110-GE-129 would power the aircraft, giving the potential for the AST-21 to supercruise (achieve and sustain supersonic flight without need for fuel hungry afterburners) at up to Mach 1.3. Vectoring nozzles were also considered, but felt unnecessary when the design displayed a 77 degree angle of attack without the vectoring nozzles.

 

 

 

To aid servicing and repairs all maintenance controls would be grouped onto a single panel.

In the cockpit each crew member would receive colour MFD's and helmet mounted displays. A single piece forward canopy would replace the present windscreen, enabling full all round vision for the first time.

 

 

 

Carrying the nav-attack FLIRS of the other variants the AST-21 would replace the AN/APG-71 with an electronically scanned unit, incorporating a host of air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. This would have twice the power of the AN/APG-71 and be among the biggest leaps in capability. Some reports suggest this radar would have been that developed for the A-12. Defensive electronics would also have been upgraded, with the AST-21 carrying 135 packets of chaff/flares in launchers on the LAU-7 missile rails.

 

 

 

At present it is unclear whether the ASF-14 differed in any notable way from the AST-21, but the former was the designation used when the Navy carried out a serious study of the Grumman proposals in 1994. Unfortunately for Grumman the study decided the ASF-14 to be unaffordable. As a result the Navy moved ahead with its present plans to develop the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet variants. :cry:

---

 

 

 

Here is my last point. Instead of comparing the retired Tomcat with the current Super Hornet would it not be more appropriate to compare the aircraft with the threats it had faced (Tomcat), currently faces and will face (Super Hornet)?

 

During the Cold War Tomcat had to deal with the MiG 23 variants, MiG 29A, Mirage F1, etc. As well as Strategic Bombers and their cruise missiles.

 

The main air threat the Super Hornet will have to be able to counter in the future will come from the latest generation of fighters (JAS 39, Advanced Su 30's and MiG 29's, Typhoon and Rafale) with stand off weapons. Also, it is my understanding that Russia (Home of Eagle Dynamics, Crazy House, Maddox Games and everything nice!) are busy developing even more capable fighters for this current generation.

 

So my question to everyone is: Did the retired Tomcat do its job better that the Super Hornet will do its job?

[Pilotasso]

Im sorry but if your going with what the "Tomcat-21-would-be-this-and-that" is talking about a plane thats not the one the navy used and retired.

 

It also creates the dangerous precedent to talk about other vapourware and then we will get stuck with superplanes that never came to fruition and we know very litle about.

 

This disccussions sometime resembles kids talk about how wich marvel superhero would win in a fight. Its fantasy and doesnt make much sense and doesnt contribute in anything usefull for our knowelege nor to debate if the Tomcat should have stayed, because it wasnt the 21 that was in service anyway. I get the sense that you do not want a debate but just an agreeing party Im afraid.

[FanBoy2006.01]

Pilotasso, my reason for that (As stated.): In my opinion, it would be better to compare apples with apples (Proposed Tomcat replacements of which one was chosen.).

 

At the bottom of my post I asked the question: Which aircraft do you think better fills its its role (Tomcat or Super Hornet.)? I thought maybee this would be a better question than just trying to compare an aircraft with the one it replaces.

 

I understand that you say that it is pointless to harp on about something that will never happen. But I disagree. Then we could just as well say that it is pointless to talk about military aviation if you are not somehow involved in it.

 

And if you specifically revered to my post to say that it is like talking about comic-books, then I am very offended.

 

Engineering proposals (Accepted or not.), are about creating something in this world not about total fantacy.

 

I am sad to see the end of the Tomcat but I personally like the Super Hornet.

 

I personally would have liked to see an improved version of the Tomcat in the air today.

 

I guess I am sitting on the fence, but I like both Hornet and Tomcat.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well, the old 'Cat certainly has a pretty good air-to-air combat record with the IRIAF, even though it really didn't do much in the USN in that role. The Navy demonstrated, however, that it made one hell of a precision strike aircraft. The Hornet, OTOH, has also been successful in both areas, coming out slightly ahead in the a2a department IIRC. Priorities have changed, along with a certain amount of politics in the funding department. :music_whistling: It should also be noted that the USMC elected to forego the Superbug in favor of the up-coming JSF, but again its due to the Marine Corps' needs and their budget. I guess they decided that the Superbug didn't offer them enough bang for their buck.

[Corsair7662]

Great find FanBoy, finally somebody actually looked something up unlike the rest of you. Thanks, I will refer to that for more info on the 21 in the future ;D.

[tflash]

Corsair, it is just the first link appearing when you type Tomcat 21. Most of us have read quite a bit more on the Tomcat; no need for some Googling around.

 

I didn't read an answer from you yet on my remark that swing-wing design just seems to have been abandoned alltogether? From an engineering point of view, it didn't seem the way to go? I guess you are still doing some study work on that are you? Keep us informed!

[Pilotasso]

I highly recommend a book instead. Internet is full of bogus stuff.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I don't recall anyone here denying that Tomcat 21 was a proposed aircraft, and I, for one, think its fine to discuss hypotheticals. But, your argument is a bit strange. In one post you are berating someone for not doing their research regarding a hydraulics failure on an F-14, yet in another, you are showing photos of a tire blowout (which happens to EVERY aircraft, BTW) and using that as "proof" that the F-14 is better than the Superbug? :megalol: While you are "looking things up", Grumman is still in business, and NATOPS (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization) are inanimate objects (manuals)...NOT PEOPLE. :music_whistling: So, at least one of your sources you regard as "knows what he's talking about regarding the F-14" is...suspicious, to say the least. :book:

[GGTharos]

Pilotasso, my reason for that (As stated.): In my opinion, it would be better to compare apples with apples (Proposed Tomcat replacements of which one was chosen.).

 

 

 

I don't agree ... you're comparing two apples which are as follows:

 

Apple A is shiny and new.

 

Apple B is old and not really rotten, but bruised.

 

You're saying 'well whatif Apple B was shiny and new?'

 

Comparing apples to apples is comparing aircraft in service, IMHO. There's no point in comparing non-existant capability with existing capability unless you're trying to bring something new in, and you're trying to make case for it.

 

The case HAS BEEN MADE and the NAVY rejected it.

[hitman]

I "highly" recommend that Corsair find another hobby. Ive seen more Tomcats go down in flames than any other aircraft combined...and if I had my way them MiG-28's would have pwnd Maverick, Goose, Iceballs, and Conan with a single gunshot.

 

We all know the F-16 is the single greatest aircraft to have ever flown bar-none. Well...everything except the F-14. The F-14 is garbage.

 

 

I wonder what this one is?

 

 

Hmm.

[Pilotasso]

LOL dont be harsh. :D

[hitman]

Im not being harsh...but is it just me or is that F-14 in a burning wreckage IN THE WOODS?!

[FrankTheSpank]

Ive seen more Tomcats go down in flames than any other aircraft combined...

 

Watch this video:

 

F-14 blew up just by flying in a straight line... who needs high tech Russian missiles when your target will blow up on it's own :megalol:

[hitman]

I must edit that post to reflect only peacetime accidents...cuz alot more F-4 Phantoms have been shot down in Vietnam. But that doesnt count.

[FanBoy2006.01]

Corsair, it is just the first link appearing when you type Tomcat 21. Most of us have read quite a bit more on the Tomcat; no need for some Googling around.

 

I didn't read an answer from you yet on my remark that swing-wing design just seems to have been abandoned alltogether? From an engineering point of view, it didn't seem the way to go? I guess you are still doing some study work on that are you? Keep us informed!

 

tflash, actually it was the first link that appeared when I tiped F 14 Tomcat 21!:D

 

I am not an expert on any aircraft nor do I claim to be.

[FanBoy2006.01]

I don't agree ... you're comparing two apples which are as follows:

 

Apple A is shiny and new.

 

Apple B is old and not really rotten, but bruised.

 

You're saying 'well whatif Apple B was shiny and new?'

 

Comparing apples to apples is comparing aircraft in service, IMHO. There's no point in comparing non-existant capability with existing capability unless you're trying to bring something new in, and you're trying to make case for it.

 

The case HAS BEEN MADE and the NAVY rejected it.

 

 

Well then we agree to disagree (I will stop beating the dead horse now.).

 

 

But you are absolutely right. The Super Hornet is the winner.

 

 

OK, now regarding the topic of our opinion about the Tomcat and the Super Hornet:

 

 

I think that they are both great designs. The Tomcat has proven itself in combat.

 

 

And I am 100% sure that the Super Hornet will prove itself as a great aircraft in the future, if it has not already.

[GGTharos]

Well then. All I can say is

 

 

:beer:

[Corsair7662]

hitman, about those pictures. The one being pulled outta the water is from the wreckage of when the first Female F-14 pilot crashed it. It was pilot error, NOT the jets problem, and the one in the woods I have no clue what the cause of it was. But if you want to get into the number of crashes of the F-14 to the F/A-18 series, oh I will REALLY get into!

[FrankTheSpank]

hitman, about those pictures. The one being pulled outta the water is from the wreckage of when the first Female F-14 pilot crashed it. It was pilot error, NOT the jets problem, and the one in the woods I have no clue what the cause of it was. But if you want to get into the number of crashes of the F-14 to the F/A-18 series, oh I will REALLY get into!

 

How did this one happen?

 

 

Also, any more info on that first female F14 pilot that wrecked that F14? That's some bad luck right there... lol

[Corsair7662]

I would say that would be an explosion since the canopy is gone from impact to water and the engine blew up. If I gotta get into that certain crash I can.

About Kara Hultgreen, ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Spears_Hultgreen '. The only problem with Kara's tomcat was her left engine failed but she was able to restart it, but under investigation they say it was mechanical problem AND pilot error. Ok, its not mechanical problem when the pilot apply's rudder in a wind gust on a carrier final and eventually does a hard break left into the water...I call that the driving of a female :P.