By: Anonymous
- 30th January 2002 at 19:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
Rabie- I here yaaaaaah! The Navy was to get a version of the F-111. That said the F-111 was never going to be a good fighter. Don't get me wrong it turned out to be one @#*$ of a bomber (i.e. strike aircraft) Now F-111 are being replace in USAF service by F-15E's! So, again to my point! Wouldn't the armed services of the US be better served by fewer types? Over Afganistan you have F-14D's and F-15E's flying the same mission! They both are very similar in size, shape, and weapons load! Same goes for the F-16 and F/A-18..............
New
By: Anonymous
- 30th January 2002 at 23:13Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: more on tomcat
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-01-02 AT 11:16 PM (GMT)]I agree with what you both are saying but I think the thing that killed the F-16 from naval service was the single engine.
Especially in light of experience with F-14A and all its engine problems.
Now with the JSF on the way, plus the performance of the Harriers in British and USMC service the Navy are less suspicious of singles.
A land based F-14 would have been much better for stopping Russian bombers coming over the pole, but then they didn't have very many bombers anyway. With two crew the F-14 could certainly do everything that the F-15 could do, or could be adapted to do. The only question from the AF point of view would be over the weight and complexity of the swing wing when big long airfields were assumed to always be available. The obvious reply would be the shorter takeoff run afforded by swing wings means availability of big long runways becomes less critical.
Ahhh politics... load of bollocks, but often the deciding factor. :-(
New
Posts: 79
By: avon1944
- 2nd February 2002 at 08:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
> the U.S. goverment spent billions of dollars to developed four
> fighters when it really only needed two!
Yes, there was politics BUT, what the USAF needed was quite different
than what the US Navy needed! The USAF needed a fighter that "could"
fight in BVR but, was ahead of its time in the closein dogfight. It
was better than any other fighter day or night! Being able to fight
effectively back then was far more difficult then than with the
systems we have today.
Remember, the F-111 had just FAILED!! I would have been silly to try
and "do it again"!
> Something like a F-14 and F-16 mix with the same engines and
> similar avionics
[I was a young man then] When the F-15 and F-16 were introduced they
had the same engines!! The F-16 was not suitable for the Navy's
needs and to re-engineer it was more trouble than to re-engineer the
YF-17 to the F/A-18.
> in reality is there much diference in proformance between the four?
YES! The way an F-15 enters a dogfight is quite different than the
F-14! The F-15 was made as a dogfighter first and formost! It was
designed. Its job was air superiority was close in dogfighting to clear
the air of enemy aircraft.
NOW, the F-14's number one task was to protect the fleet from "mass
raids" of Bear bombers loaded with anti-ship missiles. {Similiar to the
first encounter between the Soviet bombers and the US fleet in the book
"Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy} The fleet's first and best defense is
the F-14 intercepting the enemy bombers at a range that is too far to
launch their cruise/anti-ship missiles. Their secondary role was to
fight with the bomber escorts or, escorting carrier aircraft and figh-
ting off the enemy interceptors.
A study commissioned by Gen. Chappie James -NORAD, found that a F-15
with a modified AWG-9 and two Phoenix missiles has less range than a
F-14 with six Phoenix missiles! The F-14 was designed around the Phoenix
missile system! The Phoenix missile and the engines were a couple of
items of which the Navy used from the F-111B program!
The Navy never had a contract with General Dynamics, so they opted not
to buy the F-111B. The USAF had signed some form of contract with
General Dynamics. The Texas lobby was real strong then and the House
and Senate appropriated money for the first twenty-four F-111As! The
USAF was then the owner of the F-111A. If the USAF decided they didn't
want the F-111A, then Congress would subtract the appropriated funds
from the next year's budget AND, the penalties that would have to be
paid to General Dynamics and their subcontractors! It was cheaper for
the USAF to be the owners of an aircraft they didn't want than to
decline it!
When the F-111 was first specified, the USAF wanted an aircraft that
weighed forty thousand pounds. The first design phase came back with a
fifty thousand pound aircraft. By the time the first USAF prototype was
built, it weighed eighty thousand pounds and, the Navy version weighed
over ninety thousand pounds.
> All over the world these four aircraft fly ACM mission against each
> other. Do you think that any of the aircraft I've listed has a big
> advantage over the others? No!
For several years Congress outlawed the F-14 and F-15 from partici-
pating in ACM against each other! The reason was Presidential candidate
G. McGovern (liberal who wanted to slash the military budget) had a
vice presidential candidate from Missouri! He wanted to kill the F-14
Tomcat. As an incentive to make sure the F-15 was named the Eagle after
Sen. Tom Eagleton!!!
> Wouldn't the Services and Taxpayers be better serviced by a Hi-Low
> Mix of F-22's and JSF's for both the Air Force and Navy!
Yes BUT,,, the technology was not available at that time. It is now and
the F-35 is a great example. The composits and some of the coatings that
are O.K. for land service but, the "sea envirement" causes problems that
at this time have not been solved.
> It worked with the F-4 in the 60's, 70's and 80's! Why not now?
The F-4 Phantom-2 was a complete brake in philosophy of the time. It
didn't have a gun, it depended on missiles, had a two man crew, the
ability to be somewhat autonomous and, a large fuel supply. Dispite the
changes to the design caused by the need to meet the carrier's needs. As
good as the performance was for the F-4 Phantom-2 was it would have been
better if it didn't have to accomodate the aircraft carrier. Things like
the verticle stablizer being taller and thinner. An aircraft that is
six thousand pounds lighter in weight!
NOTE:
The military/Congress never investigated the possibility of speeding up
the production rate to reduce the the unit cost of the aircraft or
second source production parts. There is no way that it is economical
building two and one half Tomcats per month! The bottle neck was the
"electron beam welding" of the wing box assembly. The electron beam
welding had to be done in a vacuum chamber. There was only one but,
there was no talk of building a second one to speed up production.
Adrian
New
By: Anonymous
- 2nd February 2002 at 17:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
The F-14 and F-15 have flown many ACM mission against each other over the years with the Tomcat being the clear winner! During the early year the Tomcat only had a slight edge with its TF-30 engines but, when the F-14A+ (B) finally reached service with its new G.E. F-110's it was all over for the Eagle. As a matter of fact Tomcats from Oceana NAS and Eagles from Langly AFB often tied it up over the Atlantic! Its funny that you listed a Air Force General that actually supported the Tomcat over the Eagle! In a report to Congress he stated that the Tomcat was much better suited to the Air Force needs than the Eagle! My point here is that the Tomcat could do the Air Force mission just as well or better that the Eagle. So, why have the expense of both! You know the answer as does everyone else here. Politics and Big Business!!!! As for the Naval F-16 it never got past the concept stage! Throught, I think it would have been possible! Its funny the Russians took two land based fighters (Mig-29 & Su-27) and turned them into excellant Naval Aircraft! Your saying the the U.S. couldn't? Same goes for the F-22 and JSF. Back in the 70's the Air Force didn't want a Navy jet(F-14). Today its much the same! The Navy doesn't want the F-22. The F-22 has great low speed handling with its FBW and vectored thrust engines. It would make a great Naval Fighter! (and you wouldn't need a swing wing either regardless what the Navy says) Its all politics and it is much the same around the world...........
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 4th February 2002 at 05:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
Scooter.
Could you give us the details behind your claim that the Tomcat has it all over the F-15. We know how much you rely on facts, so give them to us. I would have thought that it would be pretty even given acceptable levels of training, with the nod going to the F-15 given its more recent engine, radar, weapons and other upgrades.
The only comment I ever heard a pilot make about the other guys fighter with my own ears, was an F-16 driver taking about how much he liked to fly against the F-14 because its intakes provided such great radar returns and it could be seen visually from afar. Could be he was right but to me the only reason he said it was because I made some offhand remark to him about an F-14 parked near his F-16 at an air show. Big deal. I am sure there are enough brags to go around.
You brought up the JSF and it is being designed with just those considerations that you mention, so maybe the US DOD is getting smarter. Then again, may be the JSF will turn out to be fine in one enviornment and crap in the other. Remember the navalized F-111?
Hindsight is wonderful and you are trying to apply todays values to decisions made 20-30 years ago. They had to go with the facts as they saw them. Politics will always remain a consideration in military spending to some degree.
Lastly, everyone here has already heard how the Russians took the Mig-29 and the SU-27 and turned both of them into 'excellent Naval aircraft".IMHO that story is getting a little tired. One Tomcat or Hornet on the deck is worth more that a carrier load of imaginary Flankers and Fulcrums.
Regards
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th February 2002 at 07:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
The thread that won't die. Everyone is wandering........
By: seahawk
- 4th February 2002 at 07:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
>Scooter.
>Lastly, everyone here has already heard how the Russians
>took the Mig-29 and the SU-27 and turned both of them into
>'excellent Naval aircraft".IMHO that story is getting a
>little tired. One Tomcat or Hornet on the deck is worth more
>that a carrier load of imaginary Flankers and Fulcrums.
Now I´m waiting for Garry B´s appearance !!
Honestly how do you believe in this ?? And how do you come to believe the F 14 is better then the F 15. I remember some dogfights between Israeli F15 and Navy F14 and the F14 got a real beating. They even got their asses kicked by the F16s. So plz give us some facts about it.
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th February 2002 at 09:40Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: more on tomcat
Why not...
The imaginary Su-33s have recently had their training facility in the Ukraine reactivated, so they can get some more imaginary practise. The fact that the RuAF has no money for spares and is focusing on upgrades and the RuNavy has hundreds of nuke powerplants than need deactivating but aren't because of a shortage of funds plus a sub fleet to look after even though as a service they have never had money thrown at them except for subs, and yet they still manage to find the resources to keep the option alive suggests the Su-33s will be around a lot longer than the tired old F-14s, which are soon to be made into spam cans }>.
Elp
The thread that refuses to die, yet deserves death more than any other current thread... :-(
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 4th February 2002 at 12:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: Anonymous - 30th January 2002 at 19:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
Rabie- I here yaaaaaah! The Navy was to get a version of the F-111. That said the F-111 was never going to be a good fighter. Don't get me wrong it turned out to be one @#*$ of a bomber (i.e. strike aircraft) Now F-111 are being replace in USAF service by F-15E's! So, again to my point! Wouldn't the armed services of the US be better served by fewer types? Over Afganistan you have F-14D's and F-15E's flying the same mission! They both are very similar in size, shape, and weapons load! Same goes for the F-16 and F/A-18..............
By: Anonymous - 30th January 2002 at 23:13 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: more on tomcat
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-01-02 AT 11:16 PM (GMT)]I agree with what you both are saying but I think the thing that killed the F-16 from naval service was the single engine.
Especially in light of experience with F-14A and all its engine problems.
Now with the JSF on the way, plus the performance of the Harriers in British and USMC service the Navy are less suspicious of singles.
A land based F-14 would have been much better for stopping Russian bombers coming over the pole, but then they didn't have very many bombers anyway. With two crew the F-14 could certainly do everything that the F-15 could do, or could be adapted to do. The only question from the AF point of view would be over the weight and complexity of the swing wing when big long airfields were assumed to always be available. The obvious reply would be the shorter takeoff run afforded by swing wings means availability of big long runways becomes less critical.
Ahhh politics... load of bollocks, but often the deciding factor. :-(
Posts: 79
By: avon1944 - 2nd February 2002 at 08:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
> the U.S. goverment spent billions of dollars to developed four
> fighters when it really only needed two!
Yes, there was politics BUT, what the USAF needed was quite different
than what the US Navy needed! The USAF needed a fighter that "could"
fight in BVR but, was ahead of its time in the closein dogfight. It
was better than any other fighter day or night! Being able to fight
effectively back then was far more difficult then than with the
systems we have today.
Remember, the F-111 had just FAILED!! I would have been silly to try
and "do it again"!
> Something like a F-14 and F-16 mix with the same engines and
> similar avionics
[I was a young man then] When the F-15 and F-16 were introduced they
had the same engines!! The F-16 was not suitable for the Navy's
needs and to re-engineer it was more trouble than to re-engineer the
YF-17 to the F/A-18.
> in reality is there much diference in proformance between the four?
YES! The way an F-15 enters a dogfight is quite different than the
F-14! The F-15 was made as a dogfighter first and formost! It was
designed. Its job was air superiority was close in dogfighting to clear
the air of enemy aircraft.
NOW, the F-14's number one task was to protect the fleet from "mass
raids" of Bear bombers loaded with anti-ship missiles. {Similiar to the
first encounter between the Soviet bombers and the US fleet in the book
"Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy} The fleet's first and best defense is
the F-14 intercepting the enemy bombers at a range that is too far to
launch their cruise/anti-ship missiles. Their secondary role was to
fight with the bomber escorts or, escorting carrier aircraft and figh-
ting off the enemy interceptors.
A study commissioned by Gen. Chappie James -NORAD, found that a F-15
with a modified AWG-9 and two Phoenix missiles has less range than a
F-14 with six Phoenix missiles! The F-14 was designed around the Phoenix
missile system! The Phoenix missile and the engines were a couple of
items of which the Navy used from the F-111B program!
The Navy never had a contract with General Dynamics, so they opted not
to buy the F-111B. The USAF had signed some form of contract with
General Dynamics. The Texas lobby was real strong then and the House
and Senate appropriated money for the first twenty-four F-111As! The
USAF was then the owner of the F-111A. If the USAF decided they didn't
want the F-111A, then Congress would subtract the appropriated funds
from the next year's budget AND, the penalties that would have to be
paid to General Dynamics and their subcontractors! It was cheaper for
the USAF to be the owners of an aircraft they didn't want than to
decline it!
When the F-111 was first specified, the USAF wanted an aircraft that
weighed forty thousand pounds. The first design phase came back with a
fifty thousand pound aircraft. By the time the first USAF prototype was
built, it weighed eighty thousand pounds and, the Navy version weighed
over ninety thousand pounds.
> All over the world these four aircraft fly ACM mission against each
> other. Do you think that any of the aircraft I've listed has a big
> advantage over the others? No!
For several years Congress outlawed the F-14 and F-15 from partici-
pating in ACM against each other! The reason was Presidential candidate
G. McGovern (liberal who wanted to slash the military budget) had a
vice presidential candidate from Missouri! He wanted to kill the F-14
Tomcat. As an incentive to make sure the F-15 was named the Eagle after
Sen. Tom Eagleton!!!
> Wouldn't the Services and Taxpayers be better serviced by a Hi-Low
> Mix of F-22's and JSF's for both the Air Force and Navy!
Yes BUT,,, the technology was not available at that time. It is now and
the F-35 is a great example. The composits and some of the coatings that
are O.K. for land service but, the "sea envirement" causes problems that
at this time have not been solved.
> It worked with the F-4 in the 60's, 70's and 80's! Why not now?
The F-4 Phantom-2 was a complete brake in philosophy of the time. It
didn't have a gun, it depended on missiles, had a two man crew, the
ability to be somewhat autonomous and, a large fuel supply. Dispite the
changes to the design caused by the need to meet the carrier's needs. As
good as the performance was for the F-4 Phantom-2 was it would have been
better if it didn't have to accomodate the aircraft carrier. Things like
the verticle stablizer being taller and thinner. An aircraft that is
six thousand pounds lighter in weight!
NOTE:
The military/Congress never investigated the possibility of speeding up
the production rate to reduce the the unit cost of the aircraft or
second source production parts. There is no way that it is economical
building two and one half Tomcats per month! The bottle neck was the
"electron beam welding" of the wing box assembly. The electron beam
welding had to be done in a vacuum chamber. There was only one but,
there was no talk of building a second one to speed up production.
Adrian
By: Anonymous - 2nd February 2002 at 17:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
The F-14 and F-15 have flown many ACM mission against each other over the years with the Tomcat being the clear winner! During the early year the Tomcat only had a slight edge with its TF-30 engines but, when the F-14A+ (B) finally reached service with its new G.E. F-110's it was all over for the Eagle. As a matter of fact Tomcats from Oceana NAS and Eagles from Langly AFB often tied it up over the Atlantic! Its funny that you listed a Air Force General that actually supported the Tomcat over the Eagle! In a report to Congress he stated that the Tomcat was much better suited to the Air Force needs than the Eagle! My point here is that the Tomcat could do the Air Force mission just as well or better that the Eagle. So, why have the expense of both! You know the answer as does everyone else here. Politics and Big Business!!!! As for the Naval F-16 it never got past the concept stage! Throught, I think it would have been possible! Its funny the Russians took two land based fighters (Mig-29 & Su-27) and turned them into excellant Naval Aircraft! Your saying the the U.S. couldn't? Same goes for the F-22 and JSF. Back in the 70's the Air Force didn't want a Navy jet(F-14). Today its much the same! The Navy doesn't want the F-22. The F-22 has great low speed handling with its FBW and vectored thrust engines. It would make a great Naval Fighter! (and you wouldn't need a swing wing either regardless what the Navy says) Its all politics and it is much the same around the world...........
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 4th February 2002 at 05:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
Scooter.
Could you give us the details behind your claim that the Tomcat has it all over the F-15. We know how much you rely on facts, so give them to us. I would have thought that it would be pretty even given acceptable levels of training, with the nod going to the F-15 given its more recent engine, radar, weapons and other upgrades.
The only comment I ever heard a pilot make about the other guys fighter with my own ears, was an F-16 driver taking about how much he liked to fly against the F-14 because its intakes provided such great radar returns and it could be seen visually from afar. Could be he was right but to me the only reason he said it was because I made some offhand remark to him about an F-14 parked near his F-16 at an air show. Big deal. I am sure there are enough brags to go around.
You brought up the JSF and it is being designed with just those considerations that you mention, so maybe the US DOD is getting smarter. Then again, may be the JSF will turn out to be fine in one enviornment and crap in the other. Remember the navalized F-111?
Hindsight is wonderful and you are trying to apply todays values to decisions made 20-30 years ago. They had to go with the facts as they saw them. Politics will always remain a consideration in military spending to some degree.
Lastly, everyone here has already heard how the Russians took the Mig-29 and the SU-27 and turned both of them into 'excellent Naval aircraft".IMHO that story is getting a little tired. One Tomcat or Hornet on the deck is worth more that a carrier load of imaginary Flankers and Fulcrums.
Regards
By: Anonymous - 4th February 2002 at 07:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
The thread that won't die. Everyone is wandering........
elp
usa
Posts: 4,202
By: seahawk - 4th February 2002 at 07:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: more on tomcat
>Scooter.
>Lastly, everyone here has already heard how the Russians
>took the Mig-29 and the SU-27 and turned both of them into
>'excellent Naval aircraft".IMHO that story is getting a
>little tired. One Tomcat or Hornet on the deck is worth more
>that a carrier load of imaginary Flankers and Fulcrums.
Now I´m waiting for Garry B´s appearance !!
Honestly how do you believe in this ?? And how do you come to believe the F 14 is better then the F 15. I remember some dogfights between Israeli F15 and Navy F14 and the F14 got a real beating. They even got their asses kicked by the F16s. So plz give us some facts about it.
By: Anonymous - 4th February 2002 at 09:40 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: more on tomcat
Why not...
The imaginary Su-33s have recently had their training facility in the Ukraine reactivated, so they can get some more imaginary practise. The fact that the RuAF has no money for spares and is focusing on upgrades and the RuNavy has hundreds of nuke powerplants than need deactivating but aren't because of a shortage of funds plus a sub fleet to look after even though as a service they have never had money thrown at them except for subs, and yet they still manage to find the resources to keep the option alive suggests the Su-33s will be around a lot longer than the tired old F-14s, which are soon to be made into spam cans }>.
Elp
The thread that refuses to die, yet deserves death more than any other current thread... :-(
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 4th February 2002 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: kill it off
Was thinking the same thing.