F14B for air to ground: was it for real or as a "last option" ?

[shagrat]

So air to ground with unguided bombs and rockets was never a real option?

Unguided Bombs and Rockets delivery, computation and HUD symbology was even part of the original design.

The reason the Tomcat mostly dropped guided/smart bombs, was the requirement of the missions it flew. Balkans/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq... all required surgical strikes and precision bombing, so LGBs and JDAMS were "the thing" to get to drop any bombs in earnest. They were very much capable of dropping unguided bombs, but ROEs called for only guided ordnance for most strikes. That applied to all Jets, Airforce, NAVY and Marines, alike, by the way. The Bombcat story is an interesting one. :)

[DerBayer]

Thank´s for your replays! It is a very interesting topic.

[Swordsman422]

So air to ground with unguided bombs and rockets was never a real option?

 

Unguided bombs were used as well. F-14s wired for TARPS couldn't carry the LANTIRN, but during OIF, sometimes F-14 Recce sections were also armed with a pair of Mk. 80 series dumb bombs for just in case. IIRC, a VF-2 recce flight dropped unguided bombs on Saddam's yacht Al Mansur, which was suspected of being used as a command and control center, and destroyed it.

 

They could and did carry unguided bombs operationally, but the precision of LGBs and later JDAM was preferred.

[Bearfoot]

Here's a spin on this .... were Tomcats ever considered (or was there any planning/training) for the maritime strike role?

 

They obviously never carried stand-off weapons for this like the Harpoon, SLAM, or Maverick (though https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm says it was possible they could?), which the A-6's and Hornets could.

 

(1) So did the maritime strike torch pass directly from Intruders to Hornets?

 

(2) What would be the feasibility/realism of Tomcats dropping dumb freefall munitions as antiship strike? I think the Argentinian Skyhawks did this in the Falklands, but I imagine this was exceptionally dangerous and aircraft would be shredded by a respectable CIWS?

[Spiceman]

To clarify... TARPS jets could carry the LANTIRN, they just couldn’t carry both at the same time....

[Chuck_Henry]

Here's a spin on this .... were Tomcats ever considered (or was there any planning/training) for the maritime strike role?

 

They obviously never carried stand-off weapons for this like the Harpoon, SLAM, or Maverick (though https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm says it was possible they could?), which the A-6's and Hornets could.

 

(1) So did the maritime strike torch pass directly from Intruders to Hornets?

 

(2) What would be the feasibility/realism of Tomcats dropping dumb freefall munitions as antiship strike? I think the Argentinian Skyhawks did this in the Falklands, but I imagine this was exceptionally dangerous and aircraft would be shredded by a respectable CIWS?

 

(1) Yes. F/A-18s are the spiritual successors to A-6s, especially in the Marine Corps where the F/A-18D squadron designation retains the All-Weather (AW) suffix even though they have no functional difference from the Cs. F-14s, at least the A and B variants, simply lacked the provisions in the mission computers and weapon control system for stand-off missiles. I imagine the D could have been wired for it, but the early sunset of the entire Tomcat fleet likely killed that discussion.

[TLTeo]

Here's a spin on this .... were Tomcats ever considered (or was there any planning/training) for the maritime strike role?

 

They obviously never carried stand-off weapons for this like the Harpoon, SLAM, or Maverick (though https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm says it was possible they could?), which the A-6's and Hornets could.

 

(1) So did the maritime strike torch pass directly from Intruders to Hornets?

 

(2) What would be the feasibility/realism of Tomcats dropping dumb freefall munitions as antiship strike? I think the Argentinian Skyhawks did this in the Falklands, but I imagine this was exceptionally dangerous and aircraft would be shredded by a respectable CIWS?

 

 

2) Honestly, none. In the 80s the Harpoon existed already and a lot of aircraft could fire it. The only reason the Argentinians used Skyhawks in the Falklands is that they had a total of 4 Super Etendards and 5 Exocets, all of which were fired at some point, so they didn't have much of a choice. And yeah, the Skyhawk's mission was incredibly dangerous. The Argentine Navy and Air Force actually predicted an atrocious attrition rate for their sorties; in practice it didn't go as badly as expected, but (if Wikipedia's numbers are to be believed) they still lost 22 Skyhawks in ~150 sorties out of a fleet of 58. Not good odds for the pilots.

 

 

By contrast, the US Navy had plenty of choices of better weapons to use by the time the Tomcat was in service (and honestly, far before it too - I imagine the Walleye would be less bad for example).

Edited April 26, 2020 by TLTeo

[Bearfoot]

Thanks for clearing that up, all.

 

I really would love to have a (flyable) A-6. The F-14 and A-6 would be the perfect team! And I love the idea of a maritime strike mission with some stick-and-rudder chutzpah.

 

(1) Yes. F/A-18s are the spiritual successors to A-6s, especially in the Marine Corps where the F/A-18D squadron designation retains the All-Weather (AW) suffix even though they have no functional difference from the Cs. F-14s, at least the A and B variants, simply lacked the provisions in the mission computers and weapon control system for stand-off missiles. I imagine the D could have been wired for it, but the early sunset of the entire Tomcat fleet likely killed that discussion.

 

2) Honestly, none. In the 80s the Harpoon existed already and a lot of aircraft could fire it. The only reason the Argentinians used Skyhawks in the Falklands is that they had a total of 4 Super Etendards and 5 Exocets, all of which were fired at some point, so they didn't have much of a choice. And yeah, the Skyhawk's mission was incredibly dangerous. The Argentine Navy and Air Force actually predicted an atrocious attrition rate for their sorties; in practice it didn't go as badly as expected, but (if Wikipedia's numbers are to be believed) they still lost 22 Skyhawks in ~150 sorties out of a fleet of 58. Not good odds for the pilots.

 

 

By contrast, the US Navy had plenty of choices of better weapons to use by the time the Tomcat was in service (and honestly, far before it too - I imagine the Walleye would be less bad for example).

[QuiGon]

The F-14 and A-6 would be the perfect team!

Indeed

 

[stuart666]

Going bck to the original question, the F14 was originally going to be procured by the US Marine Corp as well, as a replacement for the F4. It was only the spiraling cost that put them off, or so I understand. Many of the air to mud functions presumably were largely for their use.

[shagrat]

To clarify... TARPS jets could carry the LANTIRN, they just couldn’t carry both at the same time....

...and reconfiguration was complex and took a lot of time so AFAIK they had dedicated TARPS Jets for an entire cruise/deployment, unless the jet couldn't be repaired and the TARPS needed on a working one.

[turkeydriver]

Regarding TARPs- on As and Early Bs(A+) it was one or the other. Ds could carry both but not at the same time. Reason for this was the databus standard on the aircraft. D didn’t have any limitations