The reputation, the myth, the legend

[RaisedByWolves]

Good to hear that “Duke” isn’t a complete pariah. I still enjoy watching his description regarding the “little pair of gomer goggles, a little gomer scarf....” The worst thing one can do is go into politics. Seems they all become tainted. But I will say he served his punishment and as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t change the fact that many decades ago he accomplished something spectacular and nothing will take that away from him.

[Top Jockey]

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. ;)

 

Hahaaa... well nobody is perfect, what can I say.

Regardless of those 'troubled routes', for every documentary I've seen he was always portrayed as a very combative and talented fighter pilot - the US NAVY equivalent of Robin Olds ?

 

Glad to know it, those must have been very interesting times.

 

I'll admit it was easy to recal him for the humorous comment, as he easily catches military aviation / air combat enthusiasts attention, from History channel TV documentaries and such.

Rightfully, its deeds in battle (i.e. the dogfight against the vietnamese MiG-17) made him sort of a legend.

Also, remember to read somewhere that some aspects in the movie TOPGUN were based on his experiences.

 

For people who does like this stuf, outmaneuvering a MiG-17 in an F-4 Phantom II, does look impressive.

[Spurts]

Victory205, pardon if you are tired of the question but were you front seat or back seat?

 

 

Growing up a mile from Miramar in the 80s (and growing up on Top Gun) the F-14 always set my heart aflutter and stirred my soul in a way no other jet could, even when I decided to try and be an F-16 pilot (that didn't work out).

 

 

When I saw the Heatblur launch trailer my wallet cringed and my heart leapt. I have a buddy I fly with as his RIO even though we both admit I am better in the front seat than he is.

 

 

I get a thrill out of either spot. Keeping the balance between AoA, speed, and G in ACM. Setting the WCS the right way so that my buddy has the right weapons at the right time. It's all a blast.

[Victory205]

The blokes that new Randy well said that he was a “plodder”, someone who wasn’t that talented, but put great effort into his craft. He’d sit at night, going through the procedures to start the engines for example. Shows you how mindset makes up for raw talent. His judgement and ego ultimately doomed him, but it appears that he learned his lesson and is a different person today.

 

Biggest contribution was the advent of Topgun at Miramar, where the best RAG instructors passed along how to fight the F4 using the vertical. Dan Pederson’s book is excellent on how the program was set up on a shoestring. Best investment the Navy ever made, well, maybe after the Angled Deck. ;)

 

I was a pilot, with only one or two hops in the back for training. I am about to retire, as in two weeks, and want to spend more time learning the back seat in the sim. My Topgun RIO lives about an hour’s drive away, and I’d love to get him in the back seat to hear what he has to say. We get together about once a year for skeet shooting or to attend a football game, etc.

 

I will purchase a new PC in a month or so, since I’ve been running on a Mac Pro under boot camp which adds to the hassles.

 

The Heatblur sim is a bargain at twice the price.

 

Yes indeed, ACM is a science based art. Nothing else compares. Once I was first exposed to ACM, I quit hunting. Fighting another human being made stalking animals seem trite.

 

Lastly, I’d put Robin Old’s life experience far above that of most aviators. He was a fantastic leader and warrior, with a long career of achievement and excellence, starting at West Point as a star athlete. I am glad that his daughter quit her job to write the book that detailed his career. I’ve always been amazed at the WWII pilots who learned to fly in biplanes, and ended up their flying careers in Mach 2 jets. Just amazing, and Olds was one of the best.

 

Having experienced an incompetent, backstabbing, selfish, Commanding Officer, I admire Robin Old’s leadership most.

[Home Fries]

Lastly, I’d put Robin Old’s life experience far above that of most aviators. He was a fantastic leader and warrior, with a long career of achievement and excellence, starting at West Point as a star athlete. I am glad that his daughter quit her job to write the book that detailed his career. I’ve always been amazed at the WWII pilots who learned to fly in biplanes, and ended up their flying careers in Mach 2 jets. Just amazing, and Olds was one of the best.

 

Having experienced an incompetent, backstabbing, selfish, Commanding Officer, I admire Robin Old’s leadership most.

 

QFT on both paragraphs. I had a skipper who would have sold his own mother down the river for a star. Robin Olds was a national treasure, and Operation Bolo was as much a psychological victory as a tactical one.

[Mikeck]

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

 

Doesn’t matter.....as long as it’s “far enough”. With new weapons, the F-18 has plenty of range to hit its targets. Likely closer in since it’s radar cross section is MUCH lower. You simply don’t need the range of the F-14 since you can get close enough with the F-18e. My point is that the range advantage of the f-14 over the f-18e is overstated...especially in a high Sam threat environment with the f-14s super ginormous radar cross section/ can’t get closer anyway.

 

Guys act like dropping yhe 14 was ALL political. It wasn’t. The F-14 lacks low observability prohibiting it from getting anywhere near a near-peer target.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Mikeck

[Raubritter]

Use new weapons as an argument, but refuse them for the other side. OK - f/a-18E is not f/a-18A or C (hint of a supertomcat) .If you use stealth technology, then the size is not as important as you say). And even E is not f-35 in stealth assessment.

Nobody claims that Tomcat was ideal and the reasons for its removal from service are ALL political. But some of them are for sure.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Hummel

[Jester2138]

Doesn’t matter.....as long as it’s “far enough”.

 

More fuel = loiter time = afterburner time in combat = better

[sublime]

 

No one likes when their favorite toy is taken away

 

esp when the toy is sex with jet engines on it

[IronMike]

Doesn’t matter.....as long as it’s “far enough”. With new weapons, the F-18 has plenty of range to hit its targets. Likely closer in since it’s radar cross section is MUCH lower. You simply don’t need the range of the F-14 since you can get close enough with the F-18e. My point is that the range advantage of the f-14 over the f-18e is overstated...especially in a high Sam threat environment with the f-14s super ginormous radar cross section/ can’t get closer anyway.

 

Guys act like dropping yhe 14 was ALL political. It wasn’t. The F-14 lacks low observability prohibiting it from getting anywhere near a near-peer target.

 

 

 

 

It is great to see that we have people who have flown both jets for comparison and faught so many wars in real life to make statements like that...

 

 

 

 

 

JSOW and co do not make up for the range of the Tomcat. Just take a look at the Afghanistan missions, where Tomcats were waiting at the targets for the hornets to finally fulfill their 2nd or 3rd midair refueling so they could even make it to the target... Let alone to fly fleet defense or intercepts up to a thousand miles from the carrier, as Victory pointed out. But hey, you must have flown both jets and participated in many wars to know better than actual Navy pilots...

 

 

It's one thing, guys, to have an opinion based on our aviation enthusiasm, research and sim experiences. But it's another to keep holding on to them, when someone who has the actual real life experience tells you otherwise. :smilewink:

[captain_dalan]

 

 

 

 

JSOW and co do not make up for the range of the Tomcat. Just take a look at the Afghanistan missions, where Tomcats were waiting at the targets for the hornets to finally fulfill their 2nd or 3rd midair refueling so they could even make it to the target... Let alone to fly fleet defense or intercepts up to a thousand miles from the carrier, as Victory pointed out. But hey, you must have flown both jets and participated in many wars to know better than actual Navy pilots...

 

 

 

Not to mention fleet defense and CAP/BARCAP. Good luck covering the same area and-or engaging the same enemies with a slower and shorter-legged bird :thumbup:

[Home Fries]

A lot of it was the domino effect from the A-12, both its cost overruns and its eventual cancellation.

 

When the A-12 was cancelled, the Navy didn't have a replacement lined up for the A-6. The F/A-18 was intended to replace the A-7 (light attack), and as a superb piece of engineering it did this quite well and then some. However, it was never intended to perform the all-weather deep strike/medium attack mission of the A-6 (though the Marine Corps employed the F/A-18D for all-weather attack).

 

When the A-12 was cancelled, either DoD or Big Navy (not sure which - I was a midshipman at the time) took it out on NAVAIR. This was also post-Tailhook, so NAVAIR was a political punching bag. The Tomcat was an expensive plane with its maintenance requirements going up due to sustained operations over (at the time) 20 years. When it came time to upgrade the Tomcat, NAVAIR was given a Sophie's Choice of taking either the AMRAAM upgrade or the LANTIRN integration, but not both. Given the A/G focus post Desert Storm, NAVAIR opted for LANTIRN. Once the Navy started getting rid of the Phoenix missile, the Tomcat was a great airframe with Fox 1 capability.

 

In replacing both the A-6 and the F-14 with the Hornet platform, the Navy saved money by sacrificing significant capability in all weather power projection. Not just the A-6 that could carry a significant amount of hate and discontent in all weather conditions, but the F-14 that excelled in the fighter sweep role that could really clear the corridors for a deep strike.

 

EDIT: Since McAir was developing the A-12, by replacing the A-6 and F-14 with the F/A-18E/F, McAir (now Boeing) was ironically rewarded for its failures. Conversely, killing the A-6 and F-14 effectively cut Grumman off at the knees, and it soon fell victim to a hostile takeover by Northrop.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Home Fries

[Spurts]

killing the A-6 and F-14 effectively cut Grumman off at the knees, and it soon fell victim to a hostile takeover by Northrop.

Great perspective in that last post. This snippet here has bugged me for years. Grumman IS NavAv. Don't get me wrong, McAir knocked it out of the park with the F-4, but when a target absolutely, positively, had to be wiped off the face of the earth a long way from the ship... it was the Grumman tadpole that took care of it.

[IronMike]

Yup, and no one is saying that the Tomcat didnt run its course of time or the hornet isn't a great replacement in parts, or even a better one in others. But when it comes to long legs and fleet defense, barcaps etc etc... its shorter legs do not compare to what the Tomcat had to offer in this regard.

 

 

 

It's not a pissing contest. It's about trying to dissect history correctly.

 

 

 

 

And here's another thing: I am very confident in telling real life pilots how certain stuff makes me successful in a sim. I have over 20k hours in it afterall. But when it comes to real life, I see only one course of action: I keep my mouth closed, I ask careful questions and I listen. There is absolutely nothing, and I mean zero, I can add to their experience. Zip. In other words: one has to be careful to categorize one's knowledge correctly: sim knowledge, second hand knowledge from print or other media as well as stories (hear-say) and real expertise, as in having carried out a certain profession. If you keep these lines sharp, you will always be able to steer clear and keep an open mind that will let you learn more than you know.

Edited August 21, 2020 by IronMike

[AH_Solid_Snake]

I guess there's an awful lot of cutting cloth going on. In some ways after such a surge of A/G operations over a ten year period against little to no air opposition in order to sustain your current tempo you have to accept a reduction in capability to keep it up.

 

Against this backdrop the Super Hornet was pitched as the low cost evolution of an already low cost aircraft - hence the F-18E designation for what could have been argued to be a new aircraft once development finished - its a much easier sell to pitch an "upgrade" than another brand new project after a couple of high profile fizzles.

 

For the current budget conscious navy the all Rhino air wing offers a lot of benefits in terms of spare parts commonality, low cost per flight hour, relatively young airframes with low hours with a huge overlap in terms of training ex legacy hornet crews.

 

As Victory alluded to this only becomes a problem if your next opponent looks like Russia again or China, for which you could make an argument for the all grumman airwing of the 80s being a better match for long range penetrations without support, but those airplanes all timed out years ago.

[Bearfoot]

Good discussion here, and great to hear from the experts with real world knowledge!

 

One questions is, why is it the Phoenix was never replaced? Or more specifically, why is there was not a missile with the same long range of the Phoenix to give that critical F-pole advantage? Even if the Soviet bomber threat disappeared having a nice long stick would still have been desirable for the the air superiority role no matter what, no? Was this political? Or some sort of strategic perspective where nobody thought you would need to knock down aircraft from > 40nm away?

[Victory205]

A lot of it was the domino effect from the A-12, both its cost overruns and its eventual cancellation.

 

When the A-12 was cancelled, the Navy didn't have a replacement lined up for the A-6. The F/A-18 was intended to replace the A-7 (light attack), and as a superb piece of engineering it did this quite well and then some. However, it was never intended to perform the all-weather deep strike/medium attack mission of the A-6 (though the Marine Corps employed the F/A-18D for all-weather attack).

 

When the A-12 was cancelled, either DoD or Big Navy (not sure which - I was a midshipman at the time) took it out on NAVAIR. This was also post-Tailhook, so NAVAIR was a political punching bag. The Tomcat was an expensive plane with its maintenance requirements going up due to sustained operations over (at the time) 20 years. When it came time to upgrade the Tomcat, NAVAIR was given a Sophie's Choice of taking either the AMRAAM upgrade or the LANTIRN integration, but not both. Given the A/G focus post Desert Storm, NAVAIR opted for LANTIRN. Once the Navy started getting rid of the Phoenix missile, the Tomcat was a great airframe with Fox 1 capability.

 

In replacing both the A-6 and the F-14 with the Hornet platform, the Navy saved money by sacrificing significant capability in all weather power projection. Not just the A-6 that could carry a significant amount of hate and discontent in all weather conditions, but the F-14 that excelled in the fighter sweep role that could really clear the corridors for a deep strike.

 

EDIT: Since McAir was developing the A-12, by replacing the A-6 and F-14 with the F/A-18E/F, McAir (now Boeing) was ironically rewarded for its failures. Conversely, killing the A-6 and F-14 effectively cut Grumman off at the knees, and it soon fell victim to a hostile takeover by Northrop.

 

Lots of truth here... ^^^^

[AH_Solid_Snake]

The 120D or Meteor would seem to be replacements in that regard, although it did take a long time for them to come along?

[TLTeo]

Meteor won't be used by the US Navy though. Realistically, the Phoenix wasn't replaced (or rather, was replaced by a Phoenix/Sparrow hybrid in the AMRAAM) because with the technology available when the AMRAAM was designed originally, you likely still have to choose betweeen a heavy long range missile (e.g. AIM-54C) that can't really be carried by anything smaller than a Tomcat, or by a medium range missile that fits most aircraft (thus reducing costs hugely). Only much more modern missiles like Meteor or the 120D can have ranges comparable to or higher than the Phoenix, in much smaller form. Just my guess.

 

Regarding the JSOW/range argument...how does that make any sense? The range of a JSOW is what, 50 miles (being optimistic)? That's still lower than the range advantage a JDAM-equipped Tomcat has over a JSOW-equipped Hornet, and that's even assuming we decided to keep Tomcats in service but to not upgrade them to JSOW or other goodies....

[AH_Solid_Snake]

On the range argument I think what folks are trying to point out is you rarely get to fly a straight line to the target, drop and leave, so taking maximum theoretical ranges and then adding on a weapons range is probably not feasible in a real world drop.

 

As ever more fuel means more options.

 

I think its really worth remembering that we're not playing top trumps and trying to claim the F-14 is better in all regards than anything before or since, but that every airframe is a compromise.

 

I'm an engineer, albeit not an aeronautical one, so I'm very familiar with the iron triangle. You can trade capability, time to develop, and cost. But extending any one axis will shorten the others.

 

The F-14 in its day was no compromise for performance and it was deep in cold war territory so money was much less of a concern than it is now, particularly with unit costs inflating in line with the F-series number.

 

That no compromise allowed it to stay competitive for longer than it otherwise might have, but nowadays it would still be completely trounced by an F-22 in many respects.

 

One thing the F-14 never lost however was its extreme fuel capacity coupled with a very long loiter time once you have the wings in Cessna mode, its an option any of the variants of the F-18 just don't have.

 

We can debate how useful this is in any given scenario but all the best answers about most topics start with, it depends, and what is the situation.

[Home Fries]

And don't forget that even when the wings were swept that was also helping with fuel consumption. Higher speeds means more lift, which also means more induced drag. Swept wings reduced the lift generated, thereby reducing the drag at higher speeds, which reduced the amount of thrust required to maintain speed.

[captain_dalan]

Good discussion here, and great to hear from the experts with real world knowledge!

 

One questions is, why is it the Phoenix was never replaced? Or more specifically, why is there was not a missile with the same long range of the Phoenix to give that critical F-pole advantage? Even if the Soviet bomber threat disappeared having a nice long stick would still have been desirable for the the air superiority role no matter what, no? Was this political? Or some sort of strategic perspective where nobody thought you would need to knock down aircraft from > 40nm away?

 

Meteor won't be used by the US Navy though. Realistically, the Phoenix wasn't replaced (or rather, was replaced by a Phoenix/Sparrow hybrid in the AMRAAM) because with the technology available when the AMRAAM was designed originally, you likely still have to choose betweeen a heavy long range missile (e.g. AIM-54C) that can't really be carried by anything smaller than a Tomcat, or by a medium range missile that fits most aircraft (thus reducing costs hugely). Only much more modern missiles like Meteor or the 120D can have ranges comparable to or higher than the Phoenix, in much smaller form. Just my guess.

 

Regarding the JSOW/range argument...how does that make any sense? The range of a JSOW is what, 50 miles (being optimistic)? That's still lower than the range advantage a JDAM-equipped Tomcat has over a JSOW-equipped Hornet, and that's even assuming we decided to keep Tomcats in service but to not upgrade them to JSOW or other goodies....

 

The bomber threat was gone. And it seams like the Navy went for surface ship based anti-air to take the brunt of a potential threat. Need for air superiority also went away, as most theaters of operations had access to friendly air bases, thus dedicated air-to-air could be left to the Air Force. And for what the AF had at the time (AMRAAMs and new stealth) the need for actual long sticks didn't seam that urgent. Some would argue that even now it isn't.

[Victory205]

The bomber threat was gone. And it seams like the Navy went for surface ship based anti-air to take the brunt of a potential threat. Need for air superiority also went away, as most theaters of operations had access to friendly air bases, thus dedicated air-to-air could be left to the Air Force. And for what the AF had at the time (AMRAAMs and new stealth) the need for actual long sticks didn't seam that urgent. Some would argue that even now it isn't.

 

Good stuff, but a lot of folks are missing that there is a desperate need for long range AA defense (which also entails strike capabilities). That entails organic tanking as well.

 

There is such a thing as a tactical range profile as well. Having to obtain adequate range by flying a bingo profile for most of the flight has negative implications.

[Southernbear]

It sure would have been interesting if the Japs had taken the F-14 over the F-15. Considering what they did with the F-4 and that it only retired last year you could only imagine what they could've done with the Tomcat.

 

Likewise it would have been interesting if the Iranians took the F-15 over the F-14 and maybe we wouldn't have such issues with the aircraft being such a unicorn in the Aviation community.

 

We can only dream

 

[USAFMTL]

Lots of truth here... ^^^^

 

Must be the former RIO in Homefries coming out. :D