Jump to content

The reputation, the myth, the legend


AH_Solid_Snake

Recommended Posts

I've been wondering if anyone has any good resources for trying to understand the F-14 in context. As with most polarizing topics you can find examples of extremes at both ends but you don't get much data on probabilities, occurences etc.

 

 

As a few examples:

 

 

Many videos from the mid 1970s when the F-14 was new talk about just how maintainable it is/was. Later it was retired due to being prohibitively expensive to maintain.

 

 

This could just be expectations changing over time, the F-14 has a lot more in common with the F-4 than it does with the F-18 and despite being the same generation their internals are lightyears apart.

 

 

At the same time I've seen references that the final cruises for even the old F-14A squadrons they had a pretty good maintenance story because for once they were given an abundance of spare parts because its the last cruise, if its broken, just pull it.

 

 

A third datapoint suggests that the swing-wing was a big problem and seen as overcomplicated and expensive. At the same time the wing glove box seems like it was probably the single strongest part of the airframe and highly unlikely to break, the list goes on.

 

 

 

 

This happens also for how deadly the F-14 was in air to air combat, on the one side routinely during interviews with USAF F-15/F-16 pilots they will claim to eat the Tomcats for breakfast without breaking a sweat. On the other hand the AIMVAL/ACEVAL evaluations from the 1970s showed the F-14 being incredibly competitive, especially up against very early F-15s with early APG-63s and AIM7 only, although my understanding of doctrine at the time was for fighter to fighter combat the F-14 would use the AIM7 also, with the Phoenix being reserved for the big expensive targets, and this would only change later due to the SU27/MiG29 and the need to stay competitive with AIM120 equipped aircraft.

 

 

I wonder how much of this can be explained away due to lack of ongoing investment, comparatively to the F-14 the F-15 received a great deal of ongoing upgrades both early in life and later.

 

 

A final example would be the notorious TF-30, we've seen even on these forums good firsthand sources like Victory 205 saying that the problems are way overexcaggerated, but it does come up again and again with quotes to the effect of "those motors cost lives" - this could again be a small number of very bad incidents (loss of life) are remembered over the more average experience of very few low impact incidents.

 

 

This goes on and on with each aspect of the F-14 (and probably any other aircraft with its fans and its detractors) - does anyone have any good insights or sources for trying to get a broader context to place the F-14 into?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering if anyone has any good resources for trying to understand the F-14 in context. As with most polarizing topics you can find examples of extremes at both ends but you don't get much data on probabilities, occurences etc.

 

 

As a few examples:

 

 

Many videos from the mid 1970s when the F-14 was new talk about just how maintainable it is/was. Later it was retired due to being prohibitively expensive to maintain.

 

 

This could just be expectations changing over time, the F-14 has a lot more in common with the F-4 than it does with the F-18 and despite being the same generation their internals are lightyears apart.

 

 

At the same time I've seen references that the final cruises for even the old F-14A squadrons they had a pretty good maintenance story because for once they were given an abundance of spare parts because its the last cruise, if its broken, just pull it.

 

 

A third datapoint suggests that the swing-wing was a big problem and seen as overcomplicated and expensive. At the same time the wing glove box seems like it was probably the single strongest part of the airframe and highly unlikely to break, the list goes on.

 

 

 

 

This happens also for how deadly the F-14 was in air to air combat, on the one side routinely during interviews with USAF F-15/F-16 pilots they will claim to eat the Tomcats for breakfast without breaking a sweat. On the other hand the AIMVAL/ACEVAL evaluations from the 1970s showed the F-14 being incredibly competitive, especially up against very early F-15s with early APG-63s and AIM7 only, although my understanding of doctrine at the time was for fighter to fighter combat the F-14 would use the AIM7 also, with the Phoenix being reserved for the big expensive targets, and this would only change later due to the SU27/MiG29 and the need to stay competitive with AIM120 equipped aircraft.

 

 

I wonder how much of this can be explained away due to lack of ongoing investment, comparatively to the F-14 the F-15 received a great deal of ongoing upgrades both early in life and later.

 

 

A final example would be the notorious TF-30, we've seen even on these forums good firsthand sources like Victory 205 saying that the problems are way overexcaggerated, but it does come up again and again with quotes to the effect of "those motors cost lives" - this could again be a small number of very bad incidents (loss of life) are remembered over the more average experience of very few low impact incidents.

 

 

This goes on and on with each aspect of the F-14 (and probably any other aircraft with its fans and its detractors) - does anyone have any good insights or sources for trying to get a broader context to place the F-14 into?

 

 

I think a lot of it was perhaps due to it being one of the first microchip aircraft. Supposedly the M551, which also had a lot of electronics in it, had continual problems with the circuit boards delaminating, a problem I think I read was comparable in the F111. Add to that being out in the elements off the North Cape and landing in salt water splashed decks, its not surprising it wore out. What is surprising is any A models survived to conversions to D's, so I guess it cant have been that wore out.

 

 

I dont think the motors were so much the problem, as not investing in an electronic engine control system as was eventually fitted much earlier.There doesnt strike me as much logical reason why that wasnt done, other than they were perhaps saving pennies to get the B model engines....

 

 

I think it was a more effective combat aircraft than the F15. The F15 got far more kills. OTOH when you read the Iraqi's were running away every time they picked on an AWG9 on their threat warning receiver, that really to me says something about the aircrafts capablities. He who subdues his oponent without fighting shows the height of skill. Or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little personal anecdote - back when I was actively flying in F-4Es we didn't worry too much about F-14s as long as we were AIM-7 v AIM-7. Tactics and crew experience were more important. Plus it was nice fighting something that was easier to see (on radar and visually) than the F-4!

 

On occasion we would team up with Marine AV-8Cs to beat up on poor Tomcats coming off a cruise - that was almost like clubbing baby seals...again, all about tactics and being sneaky.

 

As far as it being a more combat effective aircraft than the F-15? One of the two is still in production. It's not the Tomcat...

 

Still a cool jet, though.

 

Vulture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’d need a lot of different contexts because a lot of what you list is across a wide span of time.

 

The maintainability question depended on available parts, engines and budgets. I’m guessing one of the videos you’re referencing from the 1970s is the ACEVAL/AIMVAL video where the Tomcat’s operational readiness was reported to be better than 90% (IIRC it was better than that, but I’d have to find the source again). This is because parts, engines, etc. were readily available and the teams were keeping up six aircraft (half a squadron). By 1980, “Hawk” Smith quipped that being a Tomcat squadron commander gave him two things in life he always wanted: to command a fighter squadron and to own a junk yard. He clarified that he wasn’t trying to disparage the plane, but the supply problems in the Navy at the time, and that half the Tomcats had bare firewalls due to engine shortages – a calculated dig at leadership to get the stuff the jet needed to work. As it stands, the F-14 had more black boxes in it that former generation aircraft that could be swapped faster, but did not have the fast-opening panels of later aircraft, removing and accounting for hundreds of screws which would need to be put back in when the work was done (one of the interviewees on the Fighter Pilot Podcast brings this up specifically). The Tomcat wasn’t retired because of maintenance; we’d have retired a lot more aircraft if that was the problem. It was multi-faceted; politics, end of the cold war, perceptions about roles, costs, savings by reducing number of airframes/parts/production lines, etc.

 

The swing-wing box was very much the strongest part of the airframe, but there were points in time where metal shavings were found in the pivots and they had to be inspected. It did add complexity to the aircraft and was expensive, but Grumman studied a fixed-wing version and decided it would not as easily meet the Navy’s requirements, and would be heavier. Both of these things can be true at the same time, it’s a trade-off.

 

When you compare any aircraft to any aircraft, the aircrew of that aircraft will say how much better they are than the other. It ALWAYS happens. An F-15 driver is flying the best airplane in the world. So is the F-16 driver. So is the F/A-18 driver. So is the F-14 driver. So is the F-4 driver. You will get all kinds of different responses, especially when someone is actively flying the aircraft and even more so when they’re inter-service. Tomcat drivers would say the exact same things about F-15s. I think the movie didn’t help, putting the F-14 squarely on the silver screen with laud and praise and pilots of other airframes constantly hearing about it and how great it is.

 

> [Airframe other than yours] is the best!

> (With eye twitching) No, it isn’t, and we beat up on them all the time. In fact, it’s probably the worst one out there. Heck, even Brand Y is better! We eat those guys for breakfast all the time! Not even a challenge!

 

The AIM-54s use for fighters was caused more so by the fact that the AIM-7 didn’t provide a performance advantage against Soviet fighters as the MiG-29 and Su-27 got promulgated. The AIM-54 did. “Bio” Baranek discussed it in an interview.

 

All of this stuff is out there, just read about it.

 

 

On occasion we would team up with Marine AV-8Cs to beat up on poor Tomcats coming off a cruise - that was almost like clubbing baby seals...again, all about tactics and being sneaky.

Vulture

 

It's funny because as I was writing my response, this came up. I heard the exact opposite from the Tomcat side - basically the first time they used VIFF, it surprised some Tomcat crews, and the Marines were yakking it up, but then when the Tomcat crews figured out "just do a high yo-yo" it became like "shooting fish in a barrel, we gunned four in a row once...not really a challenge." Goes right back to my point that everyone trash talks.

Rig: i9 10900KF @5.3GHz | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 3600MHz | ASUS ROG STRIX RTX 3090 24GB OC | ASUS Maximus XII Formula | 2x 2TB Intel SSD6 NVMe M.2 | VKB F-14CG on Gunfighter III Base | TM Warthog HOTAS | TM Rudder Pedals | HP Reverb G2

Hangar: FC3 | F-86F | F-4E [Pre-Ordered] | F-5E | F-14A/B | F-15E | F-16C | F/A-18C | Mirage 2000C | JF-17 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P | MiG-21bis | AJS-37 | AV-8B | L39 | C-101 | A-10C/CII | Yak-52 | P-51D | P-47D | Fw 190 A-8/D-9 | Bf 109 | Spitfire | I-16 | UH-1 Huey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as it being a more combat effective aircraft than the F-15? One of the two is still in production. It's not the Tomcat...

 

Well, we all know politics and lobbying have a much larger impact than simply aircraft performance...

  • Like 1
Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bio’s Take is spot on-

 

https://hushkit.net/2020/08/08/we-ask-a-real-topgun-instructor-to-rate-the-movies-realism-and-talk-f-14-tomcats/?fbclid=IwAR0uaUMbzZ3f-T85cL5LCamJtqLBcB581USxYkNFotUSQpUIrcIa4OQ40K0

 

The late 70’s were dominated by President Carter’s pathetic administration of the defense budget (Carter was a USNA grad and bubble-head). Ronald Reagan’s election and appointment of John Lehman to SECNAV completely changed the Navy‘s readiness. Parts are critical, as is maintenance talent. My squadron went from last to first, because we got a talented RIO who became our MO. He was well liked by the troops, and he brought a bunch of experience maintainers with him from the RAG/shore duty. He was like a mafia boss, calling in his chips. I learned a lot about leading men while working for him. One of the interesting aspects was that as the F14 community shrank at the end of it’s service, readiness got better because the parts supply was distributed over few airplanes with the crème of the maintenance talent being retained.

 

The fighter pilot podcast on the F14 was a bunch of Hornet drivers who came to the aircraft late in the program. That era was far different from the Cold War days, and the primary used the aircraft was CAS and AG. The pilot pipeline was very different also, as Okie described several times. The top jocks naturally wanted to go to the Hornet. You do not want to be in a declining community, your career choices get quite grim and limited. That was happening to the F4 community when I arrived. So during the 2000’s, the F14 community got sort of the second tier graduates, along with some transfers from the A6 community. If you read bio’s, you’ll see.

 

My view is that the biggest reason that the Tomcat was retired was the Navy’s misguided focus on having a huge number of ships that we didn’t need. SECNAV kept harping on a 600 ship Navy, based on an overwrought analysis of the Soviet threat. So the budget went to buying ships that spent most of their time sitting in port and in maintenance, leaving NavAir fighting for parts and manpower. Meanwhile, the USAF upgraded the F15 several times, re-engined it, upgraded radars, etc. Had the F14D arrived earlier with financial commitment, it might be flying today.

 

All of that said, based on the reality of the overall threat and budget situation, it was time for the Tomcat to go. The problem is that it was replaced with a platform that is versatile, but extremely short ranged at the same time that the USN retired organic tanking resources. It’s so desperate that the USN is flailing with the concept of unmanned tankers. Step back and think about that for a moment. We’re paying the price for that as we speak, because the threat is morphing back into what we faced with the Soviets. We made intercepts of Soviet and USAF bombers over a 1000 miles from the ship. Astonishing. Today, lack of range is a huge problem.

 

Money and politics are always the primary driver of weapons systems. The Pentagon’s job is not fighting wars, it’s buying weapons. Think about it, if money were not an issue, then by 2010 or so, the USAF tactical community would have been sitting with 700 F22’s, and the F15 would have been retired shortly after the F14. The fact that the F22 buy was limited resulted in the long service life of the Eagle.

 

In the end, it is what it is. You can’t go back. Enjoy flying the amazing Heatblur simulator.

 

By the way, I fought USMC and RN AV8’s. It was simply like fighting an A4F with a radar. Easy fight. Some of these anecdotes from Euro platforms tangling with Tomcats flying cyclic ops with a minute of burner time available due to recovery fuel don’t provide a valid comparison. The real world missions entail external tanks and long ranges.


Edited by Victory205

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a comment on the “short range” of the F-18e in comparison. Is it a shorter range than the F-14? Sure. But it isn’t 1986 anymore and MANY weapons carried by modern attack aircraft have ranges FAR in excess of a laser guided bomb. JSOW, JASM and even a JDAM when dropped at high altitude and speed all allow the f-18 to hit targets at ranges from base compatible to the F-14

 

No one likes when their favorite toy is taken away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some handy responses with good info, thanks guys.

 

 

Its a shame the F-14 hasnt had the book renaissance the SR-71 has had recently, there are some healthy sized tomes such as https://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-Blackbird-Missions-Revised-Aviation/dp/1472815238/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=sr71+book&qid=1597850926&sr=8-2 almost 500 pages covering almost every aspect in a decent amount of detail.

 

 

I've no problem reading multiple sources but as I and others noted its such a broad timeline that you lose out on context.

 

 

Its brillant in 1970 vs its a dog in 2002 with no further information just leaves dangling questions whereas having a better timeline showing upgrade DIDNT happen here, budget cut DID happen here can help fill over those gaps.

 

 

Its funny though that in the space of 5 responses we've got a AV8 guy saying F-14s were like clubbing seals and a steely eyed F-14 aviator calling bull :D that feels like my research in a nutshell.

 

 

I think at the least USAF people write off the F-14 prematurely because they are probably also lacking that same context, they're not Navy guys, they're not F-14 guys they just know I turned up and fought someone somewhere and won.

 

 

 

Without jumping into another 14 vs 15 debate its interesting how metrics like "still in production" and "100 to 0" get thrown in very fast with pretty much zero qualification, the F-15s being built post 2000 are nothing like the F-15s being built circa 1990 when the last of the F-14Ds came off the production line and the 100 nil scoreboard doesnt really take into account that most of the 100 kills really were clubbing seals.

 

 

 

None of this changes history or makes anyones jet something its not, not everything is a game of top trumps.

 

 

And yes, since the F-14 was released for DCS its hard to even turn an eye to any other module - theres just so much personality and raw performance under the skin of the Tomcat that it makes all the electric jets pale in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I fought USMC and RN AV8’s.

 

 

Based on the timeframe do you mean the Royal Navy Sea Harriers? If you've got any stories in that regard I'd love to hear them, one of the more..... outspoken... pilots from that era of the RN, Sharkey Ward has written books and given multiple interviews regarding the little Sea Jet.

 

 

While he doesnt specifically list the F-14 in their DACT he does claim the F-15s were found to be easy prey, even when they were allowed to use their AIM7s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a comment on the “short range” of the F-18e in comparison. Is it a shorter range than the F-14? Sure. But it isn’t 1986 anymore and MANY weapons carried by modern attack aircraft have ranges FAR in excess of a laser guided bomb. JSOW, JASM and even a JDAM when dropped at high altitude and speed all allow the f-18 to hit targets at ranges from base compatible to the F-14

No one likes when their favorite toy is taken away

 

And what would be the ranges of the F-14 with the "JSOW, JASM and even a JDAM"? :music_whistling:


Edited by Hummel

all navy 500x100.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a comment on the “short range” of the F-18e in comparison. Is it a shorter range than the F-14? Sure. But it isn’t 1986 anymore and MANY weapons carried by modern attack aircraft have ranges FAR in excess of a laser guided bomb. JSOW, JASM and even a JDAM when dropped at high altitude and speed all allow the f-18 to hit targets at ranges from base compatible to the F-14

 

No one likes when their favorite toy is taken away

 

Range is not just 'how close can I get before I have to turn back', its also loiter time. Without A/A refueling and a full load the current generation aircraft just do not compare to what the F-14 had which I believe what Victory205 is referring to.

''Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.''

Erich Fromm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as it being a more combat effective aircraft than the F-15? One of the two is still in production. It's not the Tomcat...

 

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. Retirement date is not driven by capability only. The Legacy Hornet is no longer in production while the Viper is, doesn't necessarily mean one is significantly better than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As far as it being a more combat effective aircraft than the F-15? One of the two is still in production. It's not the Tomcat...

 

Still a cool jet, though.

 

Vulture

 

 

While there are numerous reasons to be attributed to the demise of the Tomcat in service. I think we can agree that naval aircraft in general just have a shorter shelf-life than land-based aircraft. Even the much newer Legacy Hornet has been replaced among carrier-based squadrons by the Super Bug. I realize the Hornet still serves with USMC and among USN aggressor squadrons.


Edited by CarbonFox

F/A-18C; A-10C; F-14B; Mirage 2000C; A-4E; F-16C; Flaming Cliffs 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, this is all academic, and it gets old at some point, but I'll indulge for a moment to make a point.

 

Much of the problem is that "aviation enthusiasts", which used to be comprised singularly of book worms, and now is combined with sim jockeys, understandably don't comprehend nuance or depth of a complex environment. Most folks start with a premise, then attempt to build a narrative to suit their preferences. In the old days, it would be ridiculous, irrelevant numbers quoted from Jane's, now it's often wikipedia, and a throw away paragraph from a poor selling book. Don't get me started on Youtube videos, made without peer review for the purposes of gathering clicks. It's hilarious to watch people defend some of the BS artists, who are sitting there bemused that anyone actually believes their stories. See "LA Speed Story" for an example.

 

The goon is referencing air to ground stand off is a good example. The range problem I am referencing is countering the air to air threat in defense of both fleet and land based allies in the Pacific. You know, China... Said goon, and I say this in a loving way, doesn't have the background to understand. Some other goons, reference everything to their experience online in DCS. It has nothing to do with the world, which is one of the reasons I am uninterested in online play or even single missions offline.

 

Mikeck's callsign is now "Goon" by the way. :)

 

So many of these discussions devolve into comparisons between aircraft A vs B. Well, it doesn't work that way. All fighters are part of a larger package and are integrated as such. If we are going to war, then guess what, three seconds before the declaration we're going to hit every revetment on your airbase with Tomahawks and stealth delivered bombs. We're going to crater your runways, we're going to jam your radars. Then for anyone who is stupid enough to get airborne, we're going to hurl SM2/6's at you from our floating SAM sites. What was your mission again? You forgot?

 

Some other distractions. Currently, the typical mission for NATO aircraft in the Middle East could be accomplished by employing an AD1 Skyraider with upgraded targeting avionics. It's irrelevant to the total mission discussion. One must be very careful to not become complacent in a very low threat environment in one, small arena.

 

Yes, the AV8's were fought like an A4. One or two turns, followed by a vertical killing move. A one circle flight could be taken immediately to a looping fight, but it was easy and familiar. No big deal. The RN boys had an AA radar, with which they were quite good. I got launched as a spare and defected to the RN to lead a section of Sea Harriers against a section of F14A. When we merged, I kept going so I wouldn't confuse everyone, and watched the fight from above. The Tomcats had little problem. I got to experience their radar work on that run, and it was exemplary. Those series of engagements, including the aforementioned 1v1's, setup by splitting sections, were specifically tasked with tanker fuel so we had time for afterburner during the engagements. Both aircraft types were carrying tanks in the North Atlantic.

 

We had a USMC F-4S squadron at my reserve NAS. We fought them 1v1 often. It was about a 45 second kill, and ended up in guns tracking. You had a 90 degree bite after the first turn. Despite experienced aviators, the Phantom just couldn't turn, even with slats.

 

We combined with them at Nellis to serve as bogeys for the FWS F15's developing AMRAAM tactics. Very different world when there are fifteen aircraft on your side, where sustained turning isn't the critical factor. Having a lot of hot noses with forward quarter missile capabilities changes everything. It goes back to the real world employment. Multi bogey's, surface to air, jamming, all are rarely considered by the layperson.

 

But a Planespotter™ will come up and ask you about the dash version number of your chaff adapter. The Brits are nuts. ;)

 

Odds and ends.

 

I've been doing a bunch of canvassing of old friends who retired from the Navy as CDR's and CAPT's with lots of time on the F14. Guess what the average TF30 stall experience was? How many hours on average between engine stalls?

 

We had zero issues with wingsweep in any of my squadrons. The worst aspect was trying to get the manual handle engaged the automatic slot after spreading the wings. I called it "Wing Wrestling". We did have slat and flap torque tube issues, which I suppose was an adjunct of the sweep system. They broke on occasion.

 

There were two incidents that I knew of where F14's got their wings stuck aft, and two asymmetric sweep incident that I know about.

 

By far, the highest maintenance issue was keeping the AWG9 running.

 

Biggest issue in the AIM54C? Getting a clearance to fire. There is a way to do that, but politics and our superior's risk aversion precluded that in most cases. There were times where we were good to go, but no threats emerged. You can probably figure it out yourselves.

 

Medium PRF in the D was a long sought after solution. The cancellation of the massive F14D purchase was a huge disappointment, as was the slow pace of TF30 replacement in the F14B. Had to keep those frigates sitting at the pier well stocked with beans and bored sailors.

 

I'd have given anything for a RLG to replace the INS. I flew behind three of them in Boeings for decades- not one issue. If there were hand held GPS's back then, I'd have had one lashed to the hassle handle above the windscreen, and another one in every pocket. ;)

  • Like 1

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, this is all academic, and it gets old at some point

 

That's totally fair, I imagine at some point rehashing old arguments with neophytes at best gets old.

 

As a Brit, Planespotter TM, bookworm and simjockey I'll take all of those on the chin :megalol:

 

I've been doing a bunch of canvassing of old friends who retired from the Navy as CDR's and CAPT's with lots of time on the F14. Guess what the average TF30 stall experience was? How many hours on average between engine stalls?

 

I'll bite.....experience very low, MTBF very high?

 

 

By far, the highest maintenance issue was keeping the AWG9 running.

 

Biggest issue in the AIM54C? Getting a clearance to fire. There is a way to do that, but politics and our superior's risk aversion precluded that in most cases. There were times where we were good to go, but no threats emerged. You can probably figure it out yourselves.

 

This seems like a bit of a potential book in and of itself. From what I can put together the F-14 kind of missed the sweet spot in terms of the 1991 Gulf War. In the 70s and through the 80s with a TV system and doctrine built around integration with the E2 and aircraft organic to its own air wing the F-14 would have been absolute top dog.

 

By the time you get to 1991 due to the build up of forces prior to the air war commencing the USAF is running the show in terms of AWACS and has had plenty of time to bring dozens of F-15s with new NCTR in country, both of which elbow the F-14 off to the side while the Eagle is earning its stripes.

 

Some of that was almost certainly rivalry and wanting to make sure their service came out looking good, but at least some of it can be justified with the ROE remaining very strict and the F-14 not having been fitted with any new electronic gear to help meet them.

 

Its a shame the APG-71 wasn't a retrofit upgrade, but as has been mentioned it doesn't happen in a vacuum and NAVAIR doesn't exist to procure upgrades to keep 1 aircraft in the fleet indefinitely - things could have been very different. They just weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good points which describe the situation leading up to the first Gulf War (GWI). Had Saddam not stopping at Kuwait, USS Independence and the Saudi's would have had their hands full.

 

I'm not a traditional Planespotter, but I sometimes use Flight Radar 24 and Flight Aware to track friends or my inbound flight. Fun when there is weather, watching your commuter flight divert where you know it will be at least five hours before you head to work.

 

Amazing technology today.

 

I also have a library that I built last summer, filled with over a thousand books on all subjects, from economics, to aerodynamics, to history of all era's, philosophy etc. So far, no romance novels. ;)

 

Over a thousand eBooks as well, because they are so convenient for a constantly traveling pilot.

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late 80's when Air Defense Commands Air National Guard Phantom units rides were being boneyarded, a few of them attempted to acquire surplus unwanted Cat's from desert storage. It was favorably received at the guard bureau level due to lack of suitable air frames and extreme animosity toward single seat F-16A's, ADF crews wanted to keep two seat interceptors at almost any cost. Plan hit a brick wall at regular.USAF@pentagram. They didn't appreciate certain units going around their backs directly via their own local US senators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victory205 your post reminded me of something. I did 20 years in the Air Force, 4 different AFSCs (what you call rates) one of them had me working in AWACS for a time. We were talking intercepts with some fighter jocks on a simming forum and sure enough the armchair simming "experts" where telling us how to run them "correctly". We were dumbfounded. I had to ask "Have any of you actually seen or been in an E-3?" Their answer was, no....at that point Flip (retired albino driver) just said he was done and left the conversation. Most of these back room simmers haven't even seen most of these planes they are "experts" on. To take it one step further we had a guy who was a huge F-4 fan. A walking encyclopedia of F-4 knowledge, and he had the audacity to tell a former F-4 pilot who flew in Vietnam, that he was flying it wrong. It is great if they have passion for their hobby. I'm an aviation nut....and yes I love the Tomcat....even though I was Air Force. But I would never have the unmitigated gaul to tell an actual fighter pilot his job.

[sigpic][/sigpic]

US Air Force Retired, 1C371

No rank or title will ever be as important as the unit patch you wear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can appreciate you not revealing all the secrets to this beast. I have a list of questions I have been wanting to ask in regards to flying the Tomcat but in the end I have been reading your posts, watching videos and figuring it out for myself. I am having more fun doing it that way. I do appreciate the time you spend here. So basically as you said about learning, I'm being quiet, listening and keeping the questions to a minimum. :)

[sigpic][/sigpic]

US Air Force Retired, 1C371

No rank or title will ever be as important as the unit patch you wear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...

 

Yes, the AV8's were fought like an A4. One or two turns, followed by a vertical killing move. A one circle flight could be taken immediately to a looping fight, but it was easy and familiar. No big deal. The RN boys had an AA radar, with which they were quite good. I got launched as a spare and defected to the RN to lead a section of Sea Harriers against a section of F14A. When we merged, I kept going so I wouldn't confuse everyone, and watched the fight from above. The Tomcats had little problem. I got to experience their radar work on that run, and it was exemplary. Those series of engagements, including the aforementioned 1v1's, setup by splitting sections, were specifically tasked with tanker fuel so we had time for afterburner during the engagements. Both aircraft types were carrying tanks in the North Atlantic.

 

We had a USMC F-4S squadron at my reserve NAS. We fought them 1v1 often. It was about a 45 second kill, and ended up in guns tracking. You had a 90 degree bite after the first turn. Despite experienced aviators, the Phantom just couldn't turn, even with slats.

 

We combined with them at Nellis to serve as bogeys for the FWS F15's developing AMRAAM tactics. Very different world when there are fifteen aircraft on your side, where sustained turning isn't the critical factor. Having a lot of hot noses with forward quarter missile capabilities changes everything. It goes back to the real world employment. Multi bogey's, surface to air, jamming, all are rarely considered by the layperson.

 

...

 

 

Hello there.

 

Let me tell you Victory205, regarding the DACT against the Phantom what happened was; that you and your team mates were indeed very lucky... lucky you never crossed paths with Mr. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in his F-4J.

 

Otherwise, I believe that he would have thaught all of you "Tomcat maverick wildcards", a lesson in old-school fashioned Air Combat Maneuvering... and probably with one of the Phantom's engine out...

 

But hey, there's no shame whatsoever about it; "in order to overcome our difficulties, one must first know and experience them" and such.

 

All the best! :thumbup:

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

Let me tell you Victory205, regarding the DACT against the Phantom what happened was; that you and your team mates were indeed very lucky... lucky you never crossed paths with Mr. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in his F-4J.

 

Otherwise, I believe that he would have thaught all of you "Tomcat maverick wildcards", a lesson in old-school fashioned Air Combat Maneuvering... and probably with one of the Phantom's engine out...

 

But hey, there's no shame whatsoever about it; "in order to overcome our difficulties, one must first know and experience them" and such.

 

All the best! :thumbup:

A glance at your bio says you live in Portugal.

 

 

Now, I've never lived in or even visited Portugal. So, what would you say then, if I began to speak about Portugal, either in a positive or negative light, having never set foot inside it's borders? Your response would probably contain a lot of incredulity, right? I've never even visited your country, how could I possibly know if I'm right or wrong?

 

 

Heatblur's module is mountains of fun. I've whiled away a lot of hours playing with it since release, and I feel like I understand the Tomcat a lot better than I ever did before. But I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively about flying it. The closest I ever came was seeing them come and go outside of NAS Oceana and catching some airshow demos. I don't doubt at all that DCS: F-14 is as close as any of us could get to the experience of actually being there, but as good as I'm sure that it is, it's a simulacrum, a mimicry. Simulations are simulations, and real life is real life.


Edited by Nexus-6

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We played with both Brit Harriers (the early ones) and Marines, and never did anyone use VIFFing - it's a cool trick but really? As far as getting into a turning fight with a Tomcat - yeah, if an F-4 driver was dumb enough to do that he was toast. So don't do it! ACM is fun and all, but real world is really about SA and tactics (and cheating). So yes, a Tomcat will be all over a Harrier in a "dogfight", but if you can get the Harrier into the fight unobserved while the Tomcat is drooling over a kill on a bugging out F-4, it can make for some nice gun tracking film of a Tomcat getting it's brains gunned out!

 

All fun stuff that made Friday night in the o'club fun.

 

Vulture

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A glance at your bio says you live in Portugal.

 

 

Now, I've never lived in or even visited Portugal. So, what would you say then, if I began to speak about Portugal, either in a positive or negative light, having never set foot inside it's borders? Your response would probably contain a lot of incredulity, right? I've never even visited your country, how could I possibly know if I'm right or wrong?

 

 

Heatblur's module is mountains of fun. I've whiled away a lot of hours playing with it since release, and I feel like I understand the Tomcat a lot better than I ever did before. But I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively about flying it. The closest I ever came was seeing them come and go outside of NAS Oceana and catching some airshow demos. I don't doubt at all that DCS: F-14 is as close as any of us could get to the experience of actually being there, but as good as I'm sure that it is, it's a simulacrum, a mimicry. Simulations are simulations, and real life is real life.

 

Indeed to be honest, when I wrote the above comment, part of my mind was telling me:

 

"there will be probably a few people in the forum, which may not catch that it is purely a humorous provocation towards @Victory205"...

 

So, to be perfectly clear: that comment was nothing other than just that, and I believe he already knows my 'record', with the cheap talk easy jokes - that's why I even added the Phantom's engine out ! :thumbup:

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

Let me tell you Victory205, regarding the DACT against the Phantom what happened was; that you and your team mates were indeed very lucky... lucky you never crossed paths with Mr. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in his F-4J.

 

Otherwise, I believe that he would have thaught all of you "Tomcat maverick wildcards", a lesson in old-school fashioned Air Combat Maneuvering... and probably with one of the Phantom's engine out...

 

But hey, there's no shame whatsoever about it; "in order to overcome our difficulties, one must first know and experience them" and such.

 

All the best! :thumbup:

 

Actually, I have “crossed paths“ with Randy Cunningham, he was the CO of VF126 when I went through NFWS. They supplemented Topgun with F5’s and he was in some of our large strike engagements providing bogey support. He was at the O’club every Friday night, holding forth about something.

 

We all still keep in touch with him today, even after he spent time in jail for bribery, fraud and conspiracy to commit both as a US Congressman. He’s changed quite a bit. ;)

 

Willie Driscoll gave the “Mig Killer Debrief” to our class, and ended up quite accomplished and successful in banking after his Navy Career. Everyone loves Willie...

 

The quoted post is a Classic example of what we’ve been talking about. ;)

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...