@@dons3006 Interesting story, the Navy did intend to implement AMRAAM in the F-14 fleet. There was a billion dollars set in the budget for this, as the F-14D only required a software change but most F-14A and B would require additional hardware for the AWG-9/15 to be 100% compatible. This was included in previous update plans that were canceled. The hardware and software was completed, too. It was the F-14 that did AMRAAM testing and development at the Pacific Missile Test Center, including all of the early firings. When the time came, the F-14 people in the fleet used the AMRAAM money to put the LANTIRN pod on the jet. Looking back, if you could only do one, they made the right move. Personally I think they should have done all the upgrades. Yes, Cheney ultimately sealed the F-14's fate.
F-111F was an excellent LGB dropper at night. WSO would use the attack Radar on his path after doing all the NAV work to get them set up into the TGT area. Then he could deploy the PAVE Tac FLIR/Laser Designator pod and provide self-targeting for GBU-10s and GBU-12s. It was a deep penetration/strike, all-wx platform with precision hit capability on runways, taxiways, shelters, munitions bunkers, and after attriting all those targets, switched to tank-plinking in kill boxes every night in ODS. There was never a US military campaign where F-111s and F-14s acted in strike roles together. F-14A was strictly a Fleet Defense and Escort fighter in ODS, while RF-14As conducted TARPS missions for photo recon. Had we kept F-111F and incorporated GPS into it, it would have been an even more capable striker with JDAMs and LGBs. It required a ton of maintenance like the F-14, so USAF was happy to divest of it with F-15E replacing it. F-15E+ with AESA, GPS, and modernization is a phenomenal strike platform with impressive payload and range. ST-21 would have brought game-changing reach to the Carrier Strike mission sets, but would still have a lot of the mx problems of the F-14 due to FLCS architecture, even with FBW.
@@LRRPFco52 The F-14A and F-14B both served in what you call ODS. They did not act strictly in Fleet Defense and Escort, they conducted Offensive Counter Air and Mig Sweeps. RF-14A, that's a funny way of referring to TARPS missions. Which were also flown by F-14Bs, resulting in the loss of one aircraft. You are making assumptions about the limitations of a proposed future Tomcat variant that never got off the drawing board as though it would still be using 1970s components. That doesn't make sense.
@@v8packard F-14A and F-14A+ got banned from OCA early-on in ODS after Red Sea-based squadrons lit-up friendlies and had to be deconflicted by USAF AWACS. F-14A and A+ didn't have modern NCTR capes, so BVR PID sucked with them outside of TCS range. F-14D got the Strike Eagle Radar with added over-sea modes, so it was the first F-14 with modernized BVR capes. F/A-18C already had those, which is partly why they had successful intercepts and F-14s almost blue-on-blued. My statements about what ST-21 would have been are based on intimate familiarity with systems development in propulsion, FLCS, mechanical systems, hydraulics, and avionics of that time. It would not have been more advanced than Super Hornet in those systems, so we can then say with confidence that it would have required MMH/FH somewhere between SH (14-32hrs)and legacy Tomcat (40-60hrs). So it's very reasonable to say ST-21 would have been in the 17-45 MMH/FH region on the bathtub graph.
@@FancyPantsOnFire The ejector racks on fusealage would release, eject down, arming wire pulled, and fly along just under the A/C/. Rather Dangerous eh? IOW, poor separation on drop.
That same contained tunnel Vortex phenomenon led to an early F-14A shooting itself down with an AIM-7 during separation tests in 1973. The missile was ejected with a nose-up attitude, then its motor ignited and impacted the front of the F-14. In the fleet, they just didn't use that weapon station.
The Tomcat should have stayed in service.. and there should have been a F-14DX fully digital Tomcat, with better multirole capabilities. Imagine a F-14 working with F-35s... F-35 run the AIM-120s, and the F-14DX with the new AIM-174 missile, AND its radar, and the backup of the F-35s.
It would have been called the F-14DX Tomcat II, just like what the DoD did with the F-15EX Eagle II recently. Imagine if they actually slapped on AESA on this beast! The Tomcats were already slinging hypersonic AiM-54C Phoenix missiles, which no other Western fighter in service is currently operating with (Eagle II is still years away from being operational with the upcoming hypersonic missile technology that the US military abandoned and forgot about for the past 20 years)
The updated tomcat would essentially be a missile truck capable of carrying either 20ish short or medium range air-air missiles or 12 massive long range hypersonic missiles or 12 medium smart bombs or 4 really heavy smart bombs like bunker busters all because of new technology in bomb/missile racks, hard points and the metallurgy that allows for much stronger wings and airframe Just like you see with the new-build F-15EX Eagle II. They would simply hang 30-40 miles behind the stealthy F-35s and take their targeting info from the F-35s who would “paint” the target for the Tomcats to launch their long range barrage against any unsuspecting enemy formation. The ULTIMATE combo!
F-14D was a hangar queen like all the others though with 40-60 MMH/FH. You would need to totally redesign the structures, seals, FLCS, actuators, wing box, and would still have a very high actuator count. And you're still left with a giant RCS target begging to be shot down by modern missiles, who would have easy tracks.
I know right?! Imagine what could have been. I think if leadership at the time had been granted a vision of today’s conflicts, they may have supported continuing the Tomcat and improving it further. At least I hope they would. Sometimes I even hope today’s leadership may try to design a new version still.
The fact remains that the F-14 was hideously expensive to maintain and fly.This ultimately killed off any ambitions of Super Tomcats or the like. Especially when you took the Hornet into the equation which was far cheaper to operate, took up 2/3rds of the deck space and was designed to do air to air and air to ground from day 1. The fact also remains that as much as we love the Tomcat, including me, the US envy brass couldn't get it off their decks quick enough in the end for the reasons I mentioned above plus some. Like the F-111, I think we need to allow the venerable Tomcat to retire in peace with all the accolades its earned and be remembered for the potent and superior platform it was throughout its service. It's also the biggest movie star of all aircraft since the Spitfire. 'Any time baby'.
This is completely inconsistent with actual maintenance records, and the high sortie/availability rate of the F-14D and the late, upgraded F-14B. This notion originated with the Hornet Mafia using maintenance hours of a high time F-14A that had 2 deferred overhauls. Not exactly representative of the actual fleet. On it's first deployment, the F-14D had similar maintenance to new F/A-18C aircraft.
@@v8packard Come on. Stop it. I'm an Aussie and we're proud of our F-111 history but we're well aware of the cost of keeping her in the air. Sharing many components with the F-14, the same can be said. I mean no disrespect to the Tomcat but I'm a realist. Spare me the 'Hornet Mafia' nonsense. Facts care little about your feelings. Like I said, let the Tomcat retire with the pride and reverence she deserves. Stop trying to drag her into a decade she wouldn't survive. Long live the Tomcat and Aardvark (Pig here in Australia). 🇦🇺🇺🇸
The swing wing was the most robust part of that airplane. There were maybe two wing mechanism failures in 32 years. How do you come up with goofy statements like that?
@@v8packard Post a BS in Applied Math/CS, from LTU, Southfield MI, enlisted into the NAV. Spent 98 days at AOCS, NAS P-cola with Marine Gunnery Sgts. Most non fun time of my life. Did a TAD in Boston, and then billeted with VT-6 NAS Whiting for Primary. The IP's, Instructor Pilots, talked, as a junior Officer I listened and learned, I'll stand by my statement.
@@v8packard It was the intensive, costly, and time consuming, maintenance that kept the Tomcat aloft. There's a macabre joke in the Aviation Community, 'Designed by people with PhDs, built by people with Masters degrees, flown by people with BS degrees, and maintained by people with HS diplomas. .
@@scottwolf8633 Yes, maintaining ultra high performance tactical aircraft is labor intensive. Especially when operating from aircraft carries. Just look at the maintenance hours of high time Hornets and Super Hornets that are equal to, or higher than, the maintenance hours of the F-14 fleet with similar airframe hours. Or, look at the maintenance hours the F-35C fleet is racking up, for near new airframes.
I always wondered why AMRAAM’s were never implemented. Cheney put the nail in the proverbial Tomcat coffin in the end.
@@dons3006 Interesting story, the Navy did intend to implement AMRAAM in the F-14 fleet. There was a billion dollars set in the budget for this, as the F-14D only required a software change but most F-14A and B would require additional hardware for the AWG-9/15 to be 100% compatible. This was included in previous update plans that were canceled. The hardware and software was completed, too. It was the F-14 that did AMRAAM testing and development at the Pacific Missile Test Center, including all of the early firings. When the time came, the F-14 people in the fleet used the AMRAAM money to put the LANTIRN pod on the jet. Looking back, if you could only do one, they made the right move. Personally I think they should have done all the upgrades.
Yes, Cheney ultimately sealed the F-14's fate.
Can’t remember what the exact figures were, but the Tomcat had the highest strike accuracy out of all coalition aircraft.
I believe the F-111 was superior in that category.
@@smeary10The 2 aircraft didn't overlap in service in that capacity. I don't think the F-111 ever incorporated GPS guidance in USAF service.
F-111F was an excellent LGB dropper at night. WSO would use the attack Radar on his path after doing all the NAV work to get them set up into the TGT area. Then he could deploy the PAVE Tac FLIR/Laser Designator pod and provide self-targeting for GBU-10s and GBU-12s. It was a deep penetration/strike, all-wx platform with precision hit capability on runways, taxiways, shelters, munitions bunkers, and after attriting all those targets, switched to tank-plinking in kill boxes every night in ODS.
There was never a US military campaign where F-111s and F-14s acted in strike roles together. F-14A was strictly a Fleet Defense and Escort fighter in ODS, while RF-14As conducted TARPS missions for photo recon.
Had we kept F-111F and incorporated GPS into it, it would have been an even more capable striker with JDAMs and LGBs.
It required a ton of maintenance like the F-14, so USAF was happy to divest of it with F-15E replacing it.
F-15E+ with AESA, GPS, and modernization is a phenomenal strike platform with impressive payload and range.
ST-21 would have brought game-changing reach to the Carrier Strike mission sets, but would still have a lot of the mx problems of the F-14 due to FLCS architecture, even with FBW.
@@LRRPFco52 The F-14A and F-14B both served in what you call ODS. They did not act strictly in Fleet Defense and Escort, they conducted Offensive Counter Air and Mig Sweeps. RF-14A, that's a funny way of referring to TARPS missions. Which were also flown by F-14Bs, resulting in the loss of one aircraft.
You are making assumptions about the limitations of a proposed future Tomcat variant that never got off the drawing board as though it would still be using 1970s components. That doesn't make sense.
@@v8packard F-14A and F-14A+ got banned from OCA early-on in ODS after Red Sea-based squadrons lit-up friendlies and had to be deconflicted by USAF AWACS. F-14A and A+ didn't have modern NCTR capes, so BVR PID sucked with them outside of TCS range. F-14D got the Strike Eagle Radar with added over-sea modes, so it was the first F-14 with modernized BVR capes. F/A-18C already had those, which is partly why they had successful intercepts and F-14s almost blue-on-blued.
My statements about what ST-21 would have been are based on intimate familiarity with systems development in propulsion, FLCS, mechanical systems, hydraulics, and avionics of that time.
It would not have been more advanced than Super Hornet in those systems, so we can then say with confidence that it would have required MMH/FH somewhere between SH (14-32hrs)and legacy Tomcat (40-60hrs). So it's very reasonable to say ST-21 would have been in the 17-45 MMH/FH region on the bathtub graph.
I missed out piloting that Steam Powered Aereoplane.
A Pukin Dog told me the F-14 had difficulty dropping stores ie. Mk82 etc. because of slipstream.
He told you wrong?
@@FancyPantsOnFire The ejector racks on fusealage would release, eject down, arming wire pulled, and fly along just under the A/C/. Rather Dangerous eh? IOW, poor separation on drop.
This was resolved with a revision to the cartridges in the bomb racks that release the stores. Not a big deal.
@@v8packard Once again, only a CAD can remedy the problem.
That same contained tunnel Vortex phenomenon led to an early F-14A shooting itself down with an AIM-7 during separation tests in 1973.
The missile was ejected with a nose-up attitude, then its motor ignited and impacted the front of the F-14.
In the fleet, they just didn't use that weapon station.
I wish they would bring the Tomcat back she was a great aircraft.
The Russian hoards great line
Sad sorry but snot did not go to bed that day ):
The Tomcat should have stayed in service.. and there should have been a F-14DX fully digital Tomcat, with better multirole capabilities. Imagine a F-14 working with F-35s... F-35 run the AIM-120s, and the F-14DX with the new AIM-174 missile, AND its radar, and the backup of the F-35s.
It would have been called the F-14DX Tomcat II, just like what the DoD did with the F-15EX Eagle II recently.
Imagine if they actually slapped on AESA on this beast! The Tomcats were already slinging hypersonic AiM-54C Phoenix missiles, which no other Western fighter in service is currently operating with (Eagle II is still years away from being operational with the upcoming hypersonic missile technology that the US military abandoned and forgot about for the past 20 years)
The updated tomcat would essentially be a missile truck capable of carrying either 20ish short or medium range air-air missiles or 12 massive long range hypersonic missiles or 12 medium smart bombs or 4 really heavy smart bombs like bunker busters all because of new technology in bomb/missile racks, hard points and the metallurgy that allows for much stronger wings and airframe Just like you see with the
new-build F-15EX Eagle II. They would simply hang 30-40 miles behind the stealthy F-35s and take their targeting info from the F-35s who would “paint” the target for the Tomcats to launch their long range barrage against any unsuspecting enemy formation. The ULTIMATE combo!
F-14D was a hangar queen like all the others though with 40-60 MMH/FH. You would need to totally redesign the structures, seals, FLCS, actuators, wing box, and would still have a very high actuator count. And you're still left with a giant RCS target begging to be shot down by modern missiles, who would have easy tracks.
I know right?! Imagine what could have been. I think if leadership at the time had been granted a vision of today’s conflicts, they may have supported continuing the Tomcat and improving it further. At least I hope they would. Sometimes I even hope today’s leadership may try to design a new version still.
The fact remains that the F-14 was hideously expensive to maintain and fly.This ultimately killed off any ambitions of Super Tomcats or the like. Especially when you took the Hornet into the equation which was far cheaper to operate, took up 2/3rds of the deck space and was designed to do air to air and air to ground from day 1. The fact also remains that as much as we love the Tomcat, including me, the US envy brass couldn't get it off their decks quick enough in the end for the reasons I mentioned above plus some. Like the F-111, I think we need to allow the venerable Tomcat to retire in peace with all the accolades its earned and be remembered for the potent and superior platform it was throughout its service. It's also the biggest movie star of all aircraft since the Spitfire. 'Any time baby'.
This is completely inconsistent with actual maintenance records, and the high sortie/availability rate of the F-14D and the late, upgraded F-14B. This notion originated with the Hornet Mafia using maintenance hours of a high time F-14A that had 2 deferred overhauls. Not exactly representative of the actual fleet. On it's first deployment, the F-14D had similar maintenance to new F/A-18C aircraft.
@@v8packard Come on. Stop it. I'm an Aussie and we're proud of our F-111 history but we're well aware of the cost of keeping her in the air. Sharing many components with the F-14, the same can be said. I mean no disrespect to the Tomcat but I'm a realist. Spare me the 'Hornet Mafia' nonsense. Facts care little about your feelings. Like I said, let the Tomcat retire with the pride and reverence she deserves. Stop trying to drag her into a decade she wouldn't survive. Long live the Tomcat and Aardvark (Pig here in Australia). 🇦🇺🇺🇸
@@smeary10 You want to maintain pride in history? Record it accurately.
Dead Wrong so read mine..
@@grummanfanschneid ruclips.net/user/shortsYP7l0Y1Tnvg
Swing wing geometry doesn't hold up to the marine environment.
The swing wing was the most robust part of that airplane. There were maybe two wing mechanism failures in 32 years. How do you come up with goofy statements like that?
@@v8packard Post a BS in Applied Math/CS, from LTU, Southfield MI, enlisted into the NAV. Spent 98 days at AOCS, NAS P-cola with Marine Gunnery Sgts. Most non fun time of my life. Did a TAD in Boston, and then billeted with VT-6 NAS Whiting for Primary. The IP's, Instructor Pilots, talked, as a junior Officer I listened and learned, I'll stand by my statement.
@@scottwolf8633 If all of that is true you should know better
@@v8packard It was the intensive, costly, and time consuming, maintenance that kept the Tomcat aloft. There's a macabre joke in the Aviation Community, 'Designed by people with PhDs, built by people with Masters degrees, flown by people with BS degrees, and maintained by people with HS diplomas. .
@@scottwolf8633 Yes, maintaining ultra high performance tactical aircraft is labor intensive. Especially when operating from aircraft carries. Just look at the maintenance hours of high time Hornets and Super Hornets that are equal to, or higher than, the maintenance hours of the F-14 fleet with similar airframe hours. Or, look at the maintenance hours the F-35C fleet is racking up, for near new airframes.