F-14 Today if Stealth Wasn't a Thing?

[Bad Idea Hat]

Looking again at F-35 concept and how much problems it has, cramming even more diverse roles into a single airframe sounds like a recipe for failure. Could be cheaper to actually make three different airplanes like in the old times.

 

Of course stuff like that has been done in the past, but not in the modular fashion, more like reusing the design to fulfil various roles, or sharing common aerodynamics design, which is the hardest to get right. Planes like Su-27 and Su-34, MiG-23 and MiG-27 (also Su-24 has similar layout), Tornado ADV and IDS, or recently, MiG-31 and MiG-31K converted from interceptor to the role of hypersonic missile carrier.

 

 

My point isn't that it's the same exact airframe with every mission, it's that the same basic frame is used for three different jets. They could be different variants, or three different actual models. No matter what, the goal would be to share similar parts, equipment, and interface so that there's only a need to train maintenance for the three aircraft in general (and hopefully need fewer avionics techs as well).

 

 

Someone mentioned the F-15C and F-15E, and that's part what I was thinking about. More exactly would be throwing the F-16 in with the other two, so that everything had as much in common as possible to make maintenance easier.

[mahuja]

The problem with specialization of airframes is that you have to decide on the airframe mix a decade before a conflict occurs. Whereas if you were to have an all multi-role fleet, you can mix and match every day during the conflict.

 

The LCS is often criticized as a bad or pointless program - some saying they should instead have bought the danish ship of its type instead. These all overlook one thing the lcs program brings: experience designing and operating modular ships, which can later be applied to bigger ships. The LCS, even with its problems, is cheap compared to doing the same mistakes to a Burke replacement. Again, a fleet of modular ships can be reconfigured in months, rather than three decades for a traditional fleet.

 

What wars are we going to be fighting in 2030? You have to select the mix of combat craft for those wars right now. You have until the end of the year. Multi-role/modular is a way to hedge that bet.

 

--

 

How these issues affect and are affected by the training of personnel - pilots and ground crew alike - is a topic of its own.

 

--

 

AFAICT swing-wings have always been more maintenance intensive.

 

As are new planes where we haven't you found the right way to fix/maintain them.

As are old planes where the structure needs thorough inspections often. Naval aircraft, with their "controlled crashes", age much faster in this regard.

 

Consider the stresses on the hinges the wings are mounted on, and raise that to the power of a controlled crash every few days. If the hinge were to fail, the wing becomes its own aircraft. If it never happened, they were on top of it, but that takes time in the hangar.

 

--

 

Consider the idea that auto-flaps is a lesser form of swing wing - you're changing the wing shape to match your maneuvers. Who knows how far they may take that idea in future aircraft.

[1stBEAST]

this is a pretty cool concept of the ASF-14. unfortunatly only this view is available. would have liked to see her from other angels

[CarbonFox]

Nice picture. Alot of interesting what-ifs surrounding the Cat. It would have been interesting to see if the ASF or something near to it would have become a reality regardless of cost. I also wonder how the F-14s long-range missile capability would have been enhanced if the AIM-152 AAAM had entered operations replacing the Phoenix.

[Banzaiib]

I'd put $1000 on a bet that a modern F-14 would be far cheaper to maintain than an F-22.

 

That artist concept is gorgeous. I love the single piece, F-16 / F-22 style canopy.

[Kev2go]

I'd put $1000 on a bet that a modern F-14 would be far cheaper to maintain than an F-22.

 

That artist concept is gorgeous. I love the single piece, F-16 / F-22 style canopy.

 

Cheaper maybe, but would it be more stealthy? doubt it. Analogous how the Boeing tried to further reduce RCS with BLock 3 SH , along with pod to not carry weapons on wings, but will never be an actual level of stealth like the F35.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

I'm probably getting carried away in the release hype, but I hope someone can give me good reasons why a new Tomcat variant wouldn't work in RL combat today under the following conditions:

1. Low Observable has been defeated. F-22, F-35, Silent Eagle, J-20 and Su-57 are all as are all as observable and targetable as any 4th gen a/c currently

 

 

This isn’t true at all. have you been listening what Pierre Sprey Spouts?

 

 

To get more in depth with regards to A/G base Radars, it true that very low frequency radars (with wavelengths in yards, rather than inches) have better potential to able to detect “stealth” aircraft and can manage to give an indication that they’re present compared to higher frequency radars.

 

Typically, such low frequency radars rotate about four times a minute, so lets say a F-22 or F-35 flying at 450 knots would be moving to what would amount to two miles between ‘paints’. It’s also because of its low frequency its got poor resolution in azimuth, so it is only able to say “there’s something up there, in these Kilometers wide area of sky”.

 

Against “normal” aircraft, that’s sufficient: shorter-ranged, higher-resolution radars then search that area of sky and guide fighters, or missiles, to engage whatever they find there.

 

The huge advantage of Stealth is that while the defenders may indeed figure out that, somewhere in a cube of sky many KM on each side, are one or more F-35s ( or F22 )… the higher-frequency target tracking radars can’t see them (because they’re much less visible in those frequencies) and therefore they can’t be effectively engaged.

 

With A2A radars ask yourself Why do F22's and F35s totally dominate 4th gen in RED flag (basically F16's F15's never knew what hit them or from where) , why would China or Russia even bother with stealth project if it it wasn't viable? Its because whilst stealth isn't all magical cloak, it does work.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Kev2go

[Chuck_Henry]

Anyone that says the Hornet/Super Hornet would have outperformed the planned future Tomcat needs to pull their head out of their ass.

 

The future for the F-14 looked more like an F-22 with swing wings that the F-14 we know. It simply would have been better in every single regard. Range, weapons, speed, maneuverability, and yes stealth. The Super Hornet is a dog.

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142

 

 

That article completely ignores how maintenance-intensive swing-wings are. It also fails to acknowledge that it was a 1960s solution to aerodynamic problems that have since been solved with fly-by-wire.

 

It's fun to imagine what a true 21st century F-14 could have been, but the reality is that most of those improvements discussed would have required an entirely new airframe anyway, not just a Tomcat gutted and replaced with lightweight electronics and substructure. It's up in the air whether or not you would even need a RIO if the cockpit resembled what we see today in the F-22 and F-35. Also, such an airframe would have almost certainly been designed to not require swing-wings. Suffice it to say the ASF-14 was an aircraft for the military for whom money and logistics are of no object.

 

On the note of "the Super Hornet is a dog" - I advise you to hang around the /r/aviation subreddit sometime. Virtually every real-life Super Hornet pilot would disagree with you. No, the F/A-18E/F cannot match the F-14D in terms of sheer speed and range, but it is the 80% solution that has delivered mission success and readiness on-time and on-budget to the US Navy for going on 2 decades for far better maintainability and reliability than the F-14 was ever capable of. When you look into the Block III upgrades in the works, it even shows that the Rhino has yet to even reach its full potential. CFTs, an EWP, and EPEs will do a lot for its range and negating the drag caused by those outwardly-canted pylons.

 

I love the F-14 as much as anyone, and the D variant will always be my favorite aircraft of all time, but at some point I feel like we all need a wake-up call that it was mostly 1960s technology, barely a 4th-gen fighter, that over time simply became more trouble to keep them in the air than it was worth. Now, a navalized F-22, on the other hand, I would have been all for, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Chuck_Henry

[captain_dalan]

I'm probably getting carried away in the release hype, but I hope someone can give me good reasons why a new Tomcat variant wouldn't work in RL combat today under the following conditions:

1. Low Observable has been defeated. F-22, F-35, Silent Eagle, J-20 and Su-57 are all as observable and targetable as any 4th gen a/c currently

2. New sensors and avionics suite in line with F-35C (with current sensor fusion issues rectified)

3. Full FBW (I don't think DFCS counts as FBW, right?)

4. Compatibility with AIM-9 and AIM-120 series

 

So basically, an F-14 airframe around F-35C kit with stealth not being a consideration - how would it go?

 

As this got resurrected , might as well chirp in...

1. There is nothing wrong with the air frame itself. If made brand new and put into service it would probably still be adequate in many mission profiles.

 

2. This is actually the heart of the issue. Main reason why the F-14 was so big and heavy, was to accommodate the AWG-9 and the AIM-54's. A newly built sensor/weapon system based on current technology would be much smaller and lighter, thus allowing for a smaller platform. You won't need a plane as big and heavy as the F-14 for the same capabilities today.

 

3 and 4, those would hardly play a role IMO. A newly built plane is probably going to be by default designed around the capability to use the current ordnance :thumbup:

[Emmy]

That's exactly the premise behind F-35 project , F-35A, B, C are very different aircraft, they are just called the same so it's easier to sell to Congress and public. ;)

 

Got a lot of hours in the F-35 do you?