F-14 - Was it really that good ?

[stuart666]

I tend to agree.

 

 

 

I killed an F15 online, despite the F14 currently suffering the ball and chain from excessive drag. Im not a great pilot, but the other one was complete pants. :)

 

 

I think the A model was probably underclassed compared to the F15. But you can hear numerous accounts online (Not least from Okie and others) that the USAF was shocked when they started going up against B models. That doesn't necessarily mean that it was suddenly superior to the F15, but it does suggest that any advantage the F15 had was suddenly great reduced. Suddenly they had to really work for a living.

[BlackLion213]

No. I mean someone who has published something into the public domain, put their name beside it, and is prepared to have their credibility judged by it.

 

Sure, here you go: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

 

Scroll down to the part on the F-15.

 

I don't actually disagree with most of what you've written.

 

My point is that Hummingbird is saying that charts debunk someone's personal experiences, and that if an Eagle pilot had won against the F-14, it must have been because: he had a clean jet, he was fighting a nugget, or his sample size (sortie count) was too small.

 

In the face of that reasoning, I am simply asking where the narratives are that we can all go and read, that show the Tomcat would 'nearly always' wax the Eagle when things were evened up. That's perfectly reasonable of me to ask.

 

No one is saying that the Tomcat nearly always waxed the Eagle in DACT. Where did you get that idea from?

 

What I am responded to is the notion that Eagles won the engagement nearly every time they tangled with F-14s. That clearly is incorrect. You made this claim supported by anecdotal reports of what "the community was saying in the 90s" - not even the outcome of a specific group of engagements. Basically second hand hearsay......

 

You made an unsubstantiated claim and your burden of proof is very high. Establishing equivalency is fairly straightforward and what I am trying to do here. Attempting to prove that another platform is clearly superior is going to take a lot of data and data of high quality. So where is it?

 

I've handed you photo evidence, anecdotes, and now an article that support equivalency. So please provide the evidence.

 

And its a shame that photos are classified since a picture is worth a thousand words. You've now seen two new pictures so there is a lot of typing to do.... ;)

 

-Nick

[Steve Davies]

Nope, referenced the entire declassified flight manuals for F-14A, F-14B/D, F-15A & F-15C/D.

 

And I'm not arguing with the eagle pilot at all, infact I said he's most likely just expressing how he saw things based on some incidents he had. However if he makes the blanket claim that the Eagle was a better WVR fighter than the F-14 then he his making a false claim, something the declassified performance manuals clearly illustrate for all those interested.

 

You're not arguing with him, but you're intimating that he is lying because he reckons the F-15 to be better at the merge? The basis for your claims is charts (see below). The basis for his is that he did it for real.

 

 

If you want to argue against this then you're not arguing with me, but instead you're arguing against the established performance of either aircraft through exhaustive trials. Good luck with that :thumbup:

 

The reason I don't place as much store as you in the charts is that operational, front-line aircraft often don't perform to the full extent that the charts depict. In other words, engine wear and airframe condition degrade performance over time.

 

Case in point, I flew an F-15D at Eglin that would not go supersonic, yet the charts showed that it was clearly capable of it. When I queried this, I was told that it was not that unusual for a squadron to have aircraft that didn't do what they should.

 

You call it 'established performance', but the only thing it establishes is the performance of a new airframe with new engines.

 

I don't think that continuing the debate with you will create any further understanding, so I'll bow out now.

[SgtPappy]

The crew on the FFP were both B crew members. Its worth mentioning that all F-14B pilots do their initial FAM flights in the F-14A - so even a pilot who spends his entire career on the B will put 60-80 hours on the F-14A. The only Tomcat crews who have no flight time in the F-14A are F-14D crews.

 

So neither of those guys had experienced a real stall, but remembered the standard NATOPS restrictions and procedures - it left quite an impression, but reality was quite different. The TF30 was very stable at zone 5 and mil-power, even to 50+ deg of AOA. The issue is if you weren't at mil-power/zone 5 or if you decided to change power settings above 17-20 units of AOA. Then you could end up with problems, but it was actually pretty unpredictable. Usually things would work out fine, but every so often they wouldn't......and that would leave quite an impression as well.

 

-Nick

 

Do you mean that if you were just puttering about at lower than MIL power, the engine could randomly stall? Even if you didn't touch the power, the engine could just stall or would you have to pull AoA?

 

What if you level out, change power and then pull AoA before the RPM stabilized at the power setting you requested? Would that cause a stall?

 

Sounds like it took lots of skill and luck to be proficient in an F-14A.

[Harlikwin]

I fall into the Chuck Yeager camp, that whoever is the better pilot in their airframe is going to win the fight.

 

Hell, I've seen great MiG-21 pilots knock down average F-15 pilots online. Strengths and weaknesses and wisdom.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing this. But at least you'd hope you could find some AF/NAVY pilots would be in roughly the same ballpark skill wise. (Yeah I know, thats a whole other can of inter-service worms)

[Steve Davies]

Sure, here you go: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

 

Scroll down to the part on the F-15.

 

Thanks. Will take a look.

 

No one is saying that the Tomcat nearly always waxed the Eagle in DACT. Where did you get that idea from?

 

Hummingbird wrote "when no one gives a shit about the peace time limits, the Tomcat more often than not seemed to give the Eagle a licking".

 

 

What I am responded to is the notion that Eagles won the engagement nearly every time they tangled with F-14s. That clearly is incorrect. You made this claim supported by anecdotal reports of what "the community was saying in the 90s" - not even the outcome of a specific group of engagements. Basically second hand hearsay......

 

 

I haven't made any claim, so there is zero burden of proof on me. And, for goodness sake, this is an internet chat, not a court of law.

 

Let's get some perspective:

 

I posted a link from an F-15 pilot who, when summarising his ten years in the F-15 and commenting on the DACT engagements he and his squadron experienced, recalled that killing the F-14 was not difficult.

 

As you pointed out, there are so many factors that can influence that experience that it just isn't possible to argue whether that experience was typical (note, the presumption is that I believe him, but that doesn't mean his experiences extend to other pilots at other times)

 

And yet somebody responded say 'he's a liar... because charts'. I questioned that.

 

You made an unsubstantiated claim and your burden of proof is very high. Establishing equivalency is fairly straightforward and what I am trying to do here. Attempting to prove that another platform is clearly superior is going to take a lot of data and data of high quality. So where is it?

 

Again. I have made no claim. An Eagle pilot has made the claim based on *his experience*.

 

As you well know, there is no repository of engagement results for us to go to (and you can't trust the AIM/ACEVAL results, because everyone knows that Hoser Strapa cheated!). So, I am not sure how pragmatic the insistence is on high quality data, and lots of it, in order to determine how typical his experience was.

 

Instead, I take the view that as reasonable and rational people, we can ask BTDT guys for their first-hand experiences (not, 'there I was' stories, but general observations), and look for published accounts that are likely to have been peer reviewed and published by reputable organisations. This might function well as an alternative 'burden of proof' for an internet conversation!

 

On that note, I've asked some F-14 and F-15 guys to share their experiences and general observations. Will post them here when I get them.

[Steve Davies]

Sure, here you go: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

 

Scroll down to the part on the F-15.

 

 

 

Great article.

 

On the F-15, I read him say that it took near-perfect execution, and that he came out roughly even at the end of his career. Awesome.

 

And guess what? I am not going to call him a liar or ask him to provide some data because his experience doesn't match with someone else's! Yay.

 

This is how easy these discussions should be! :joystick:

[Donut]

Unfortunately I’m not the one who’s flat out wrong... maybe your opinion is colored from too many reruns of TopGun, but as former Hornet driver I have pretty of HUD tapes of poor turkey drivers who believe that same stuff as you.

 

Could you be more specific? Were you going up against the A model or B/D Tomcats? Also, were you flying the C Hornet with the F404-GE-402 engines and was either aircraft carrying external tanks/weapons?

 

I would also be interested to hear what advantages in performance the Hornet has over the Tomcat.

 

Thanks!

[SgtPappy]

Great article.

 

On the F-15, I read him say that it took near-perfect execution, and that he came out roughly even at the end of his career. Awesome.

 

And guess what? I am not going to call him a liar or ask him to provide some data because his experience doesn't match with someone else's! Yay.

 

This is how easy these discussions should be! :joystick:

 

I can see both positions on this topic and how we always get a little heated because we're all nerds!

 

And even though I do agree with your assessments, I do not think Hummingbird explicitly stated anyone was lying, but rather implied that the assertion by the Eagle pilot did not line up with the data. Hummingbird and I are quite academic/engineer-oriented when it comes to data and data does not lie, so we often forget to look at other things when we see nice graphs :)

 

But as you also mentioned Steve, most planes in service aren't brand new with shiny engines and therefore do not fit the data well always.

[Cigar Bear]

Sorry....Pure oversimplified nonsense.

 

Grumman designed the bird to the fleet defense requirements but by no means was dog fighting not first and foremost in its designer's minds and results. I grew up in a Grumman family and town and what you state is patently false.

 

It is not the Tie Fighter Top Gun would have you believe, but it is by no means an average dogfighter, any more than an F15 or Su. It requires a PILOT to FLY it with skills and does not have the FBW aids so many have come to know and love here in our sim world.

 

 

 

Actual stick and rudder understanding and skill is widely lacking in the sim world as evidenced by the questions and often pontificating comments relating to the flight model and performance and dog fight topic all over the net. Therefore people are feeling like the Tomcat has somehow let them down when it is in many ways just the opposite.

Sorry... absolute over complicated crud... and some strange reference to how an defunct aircraft corporation is assigned to your lineage.??

 

The F-14 was the only operational user of the AIM-54, the primary design characteristic other than carrier ops. While it could beat an F-4 or anything else the Navy was flying at the time in a one on one match (because the A4 still was underpowered) it was not equivalent to F15, especially since it lacked operational thrust to weight and bled a lot energy for turn performance.

[Hummingbird]

Hummingbird wrote "when no one gives a shit about the peace time limits, the Tomcat more often than not seemed to give the Eagle a licking".

 

Yes, that doesn't mean the F-14 is greatly superior, it just means it seems it to have won more often than it lost against the Eagle when peace time limits weren't holding it back and an experienced pilot was behind the controls. Winning more often than losing does not = almost always winning.

 

This needs to be said when someone posts information claiming the F-14 was "easy as picking grapes", as the truth is entirely different if the match up is truly even.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

And yet somebody responded say 'he's a liar... because charts'. I questioned that.

 

I at no point said he was a liar. And that's the main problem here, you putting words into other peoples mouths.

[Hummingbird]

Oh you mean like a bunch of competitive guys getting together and talking about their victories over guys that aren't in the room? Sounds very definable and quantifiable.....oh wait! Its the opposite of that! :smartass:

 

And to answer your question: yes. I have spoke with lots of Tomcat crews that have beaten Eagles multiple times at DACT. One of our best SMEs had a memorable round of three 2v4s (2 F-14As against 4 F-15Cs) and the Eagles lost 2 out of 3.....but I'm sure the Eagles were proud when they won the 3rd round. Surely they declared the Tomcats grapes after that 3rd victorious engagement.....

 

But the thing is that these engagements come down to a lot of factors: SA, tactics, expectations, and the capability of the aircraft. The F-15 has its advantages and so does the F-14, in the end the aircraft factors are agueably less important despite the fact that people around here tend to fall into camps and think that aircraft type predicts the outcome of an engagement. It doesn't and a fair fight means that you messed something up.

 

There is a reason why anecdotal experience is rated as the least reliable form of evidence, it is deeply flawed and subject heavily to selection bias. People don't like to remember unpleasant things, even when they try. And as you spend time with one community, you hear lots of stories of their victories and come to assume that they always win (or worse.....you believe their assertion that they always win ;) ).

 

But reality is far harder to quantify. In the end there are lots of HUD cameras shots with Tomcat pippers on the Eagle and lots of Eagle pippers on Tomcats. The funny thing is.....I've never actually seen an Eagle pipper on a Tomcat. I've seen lots of vice versa, but seems the Eagle drivers don't like to take pictures......or maybe its something else. :D

 

-Nick

 

+100

 

Like I said, pilots are people too, and what'ever you fly you also tend to think is the best, esp. if the difference is actually quite small.

 

Bottom line being both aircraft were excellent and very close in terms of ACM capability, so close that pilot mistakes would probably dictate the outcome 99% of the time.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Hummingbird

[Cigar Bear]

Could you be more specific? Were you going up against the A model or B/D Tomcats? Also, were you flying the C Hornet with the F404-GE-402 engines and was either aircraft carrying external tanks/weapons?

 

I would also be interested to hear what advantages in performance the Hornet has over the Tomcat.

 

Thanks!

My experience was against F-14A+ and D’s, and I flew F/A-18 A/B/C/D’s. And a good variety of lot# and software loads. Both standard and EPE engines. Usual configuration was centerline fuel tank, tacts pod, captive AIM-9, so really not a combat load for either platform (and honestly once you start hanging stuff from any jet your mileage is really gonna start to vary...).

 

Whenever you start to compare jets you need to realize that each individual airframe of the same type is going to handle differently - operating at the edge of these envelopes the differences can really become apparent- we’d always seem to have a bird or too that was “bent” lol...

 

Anecdotally the F/A-18 had better operational thrust to weight, bled a whole lot less in turns, was fully controllable at a crazy low airspeed - when a Tomcat was departing, and had more reliable radar for in close ops - VertAcq was your friend... The Tomcat was faster (top end) and a much more sophisticated and powerful radar (long range contact with AIM-54 employment was awesome to behold) and had way way more gas than us - and in the real world that’s important. The Tomcat was also much larger than the Hornet, so (despite the “bubble” canopy) it was easier to pick up visually. Lose sight, lose fight.

 

Hope that helps!

[Hummingbird]

Again, if one side has to call "knock it off" already at 6.5 G's or lower, then that will have a huge impact on the amount of possible outcomes.

[ENO]

Great article.

 

On the F-15, I read him say that it took near-perfect execution, and that he came out roughly even at the end of his career. Awesome.

 

And guess what? I am not going to call him a liar or ask him to provide some data because his experience doesn't match with someone else's! Yay.

 

This is how easy these discussions should be! :joystick:

 

I don't know if you've already seen them- but I made this reference a bit earlier... There are a couple guys who did interviews for the Aircrew Interview channel on youtube that I think may interest you. There are a couple remarkably candid accounts of how various aircraft performed against the F-14...

 

If you're interested, do a search for the interviews by Keith "Okie" Nance (he has a few... all are really good to listen to since he doesn't mince his words- at all) and the other one I think is pertinent to this discussion is from David "Hey Joe" Parsons (Part 1).

 

"Hey Joe" does tell a great story where he thinks he was actually flying with Okie (Hey Joe was a RIO and Okie an F14 driver with about 6000 hours- 3900 of which were in various Tomcat models) in some DACT against F-15s and the real turn around where Tomcats were more competitive seemed to be in the shift to what Eagle drivers called "Big Motors."

 

There are a lot of things to consider when attributing success or failure to engines alone- and Okie goes to some pretty great lengths to elaborate on several factors including what he calls "flying his best jet."

 

Anyway- as I sat back watching the debate above unfold all I could think about was that these interviews really captured the essence of the back and forth. Seemed like people were just misreading context and going at a statement a different way than was intended while it was practically summarized in these interviews.

 

Anyway- just go youtube search those two names... Hey Joe only really had the one story about the F-15s... but Okie is asked about a variety of different platforms several times.

Edited May 15, 2019 by ENO

[BlackLion213]

I haven't made any claim, so there is zero burden of proof on me. And, for goodness sake, this is an internet chat, not a court of law.

 

Totally the thing to say when you can't back-up a claim, I'll give you that. I think that Hummingbird over-stated his position, but thats another matter.

 

Great article.

 

On the F-15, I read him say that it took near-perfect execution, and that he came out roughly even at the end of his career. Awesome.

 

And guess what? I am not going to call him a liar or ask him to provide some data because his experience doesn't match with someone else's! Yay.

 

This is how easy these discussions should be! :joystick:

 

Yes, so you agree that they appear to be equals?

 

When a proper execution leads to success, errors lead to losses, and exchange rates are equal; that means it involves relative equals. Also note the lack of comments like "winning usually meant the F-15 made a mistake" or "it was rare, but sweet", etc. Does this translate into "invariably in a killing position" for the Eagle? Certainly sounds like a contradiction to me.

 

So like I said.....still no evidence and lots of talk.....

 

-Nick

[Dino Might]

Sorry... absolute over complicated crud... and some strange reference to how an defunct aircraft corporation is assigned to your lineage.??

 

The F-14 was the only operational user of the AIM-54, the primary design characteristic other than carrier ops. While it could beat an F-4 or anything else the Navy was flying at the time in a one on one match (because the A4 still was underpowered) it was not equivalent to F15, especially since it lacked operational thrust to weight and bled a lot energy for turn performance.

 

Please watch this:

@ 8:30 - discussing design focus on fighter escort, 4 sparrows and a gun. Plane was not "built around the Phoenix." The FAD mission involving more internal fuel and Phoenix was incorporated into the design, but those stores were considered an overload condition.

 

Later on he talks about cockpit visibility and mentions RIOs role in ACM. Long story short, you put big bubble canopies on fighters that are designed for dogfighting.

 

Straight from the horse's mouth, the F14 was designed as a fighter that also met the fleet defense interceptor role.

 

Anyone who wants to keep up this endless debate of F15 vs F14, have at it, but the F15 was a one trick pony. The F14 could do it all, and fairly well, and then go land on a carrier, to boot.

 

I believe "Lex" LeFon when he said the F15C was probably the best air to air platform in his time, but even he admitted it was only that.

 

The F14 deserves every bit of admiration it gets and then some.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Dino Might

[Cigar Bear]

Please watch this:

@ 8:30 - discussing design focus on fighter escort, 4 sparrows and a gun. Plane was not "built around the Phoenix." The FAD mission involving more internal fuel and Phoenix was incorporated into the design, but those stores were considered an overload condition.

 

Later on he talks about cockpit visibility and mentions RIOs role in ACM. Long story short, you put big bubble canopies on fighters that are designed for dogfighting.

 

Straight from the horse's mouth, the F14 was designed as a fighter that also met the fleet defense interceptor role.

Thanks Dino, appreciate the info. I was kinda hoping your position wasn’t based on a youtube video, but there ya go... in the interest of time and the fact that I’m realizing that this is becoming a flat earth society for Naval Aviation history... here is my question- If the F-14 wasn’t designed to employ the AIM-54, which was created to destroy targets at range (thus interceptor...) how would one explain the fact that it is the only US fighter to employ it?

 

And so let’s all agree then that the F-111, because the US Airforce designated it a “Fighter”, is also designed for dogfighting.

[Dudikoff]

Thanks Dino, appreciate the info. I was kinda hoping your position wasn’t based on a youtube video, but there ya go... in the interest of time and the fact that I’m realizing that this is becoming a flat earth society for Naval Aviation history... here is my question- If the F-14 wasn’t designed to employ the AIM-54, which was created to destroy targets at range (thus interceptor...) how would one explain the fact that it is the only US fighter to employ it?

 

So, posting a conference video from the guys involved into designing the damn thing is misinformation? Interesting..

 

Nobody's saying that carrying AWG-9 and AIM-54's that came with the Navy requirement wasn't an important part of the design, but there's more to it than simply being designed as an interceptor as those missiles weren't intended to be used against fighters (in e.g. escort role).

Edited May 15, 2019 by Dudikoff

[BlackLion213]

Thanks Dino, appreciate the info. I was kinda hoping your position wasn’t based on a youtube video, but there ya go... in the interest of time and the fact that I’m realizing that this is becoming a flat earth society for Naval Aviation history... here is my question- If the F-14 wasn’t designed to employ the AIM-54, which was created to destroy targets at range (thus interceptor...) how would one explain the fact that it is the only US fighter to employ it?

 

That inference is a pretty weak argument. Is it safe to call the Hornet a bomber because it was an A-7 replacement? That was indeed the role.

 

But the "designed for" argument has little merit once the aircraft is in the fleet. Irrespective of design requirements (which was to be a superior ACM aircraft to the current fighter - the F-4J), the F-14 spent the first 2/3rds of its career as a dedicated air to air killer and the last 10 years as a "strike fighter" sharing both strike and fighter roles.

 

NFWS was vast majority Tomcat crews until the early 90s and remained a major contingent till the end in 2006. The Tomcat crews spent a ton of time training for ACM and intercepts, it was their mission unlike the F-111 or F-15E (or even F/A-18C to be honest - which spent more time doing A-G training).

 

But let's distill it down to the essentials, the cold hard metrics.

 

(USN) F-14A-D Air-to-Air combat exchange ratio: 5:0

(USN) F/A-18A-D Air-to-Air combat exchange ratio: 2:1

 

Sure, both platforms wanted for opportunities, but when it counted the F-14 delivered and the Hornet left something to be desired.

 

And remember that the Hornet's exchange ratio was all 3rd generation Soviet fighters (MiG-21s and a MiG-25).

 

Feel free to spin it all you want, but thats what happened and those are the metrics. The Hornet a superior fighter to the Tomcat...? Not in combat.

 

-Nick

Edited May 15, 2019 by BlackLion213

[Basher54321]

But let's distill it down to the essentials, the cold hard metrics.

 

(USN) F-14A-D Air-to-Air combat exchange ratio: 5:0

(USN) F/A-18A-D Air-to-Air combat exchange ratio: 2:1

 

Sure, both platforms wanted for opportunities, but when it counted the F-14 delivered and the Hornet left something to be desired.

 

And remember that the Hornet's exchange ratio was all 3rd generation Soviet fighters (MiG-21s and a MiG-25).

 

 

Although you generally put some good arguments forward - this is on the face of it not one of them.

 

Kill ratios in combat are also product of circumstance - (e.g you still have to be in the right place at the right time) and whole ton of factors that don't lend well if you are simply trying to compare them 1 for 1.

 

For example replace an FA-18C with an F-14 in Desert Storm with problematic EW gear and the MiG-25 still gets a kill regardless.

 

And the F-14 got 4 x 3rd Gen jets (2 fighters) and a chopper! - so not seeing what you are getting at here.