David Hingtgen Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 Fri, Jan 9, 10PM Eastern, 9 central. The History Channel. One of the better and more interesting F-14 shows out there. Of course, try to ignore when they accidently show F-15's instead... The show repeats 4 hours later. Mods---this thread only needs to be up for 20 hours or so, can I have that much?
Jolly Rogers Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 How in the world did they mistake the F15 for the F14?!
Mobyrz Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 Wonder if they'll talk about the Iranian f-14's... http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/plane...nes/q0077.shtml ...has some good pics of the cammo pattern on the tomcat.
Coota0 Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 If you watch it, take it with a grain of salt, if this is the same episode of modern marvels that thye showed a few months ago, it's got a lot of mistakes in it.
captain america Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 How sad that such a formidable aircraft is being "replaced" by a slower, less manoeuvrable aircraft with less payload capacity and shorter range... The things the US NAVY will do to save some maintenance bucks! Had they opted to replace the F-14's front windscreen, build it with a greater amount of composite materials, replace the engines and avionics with those derived with the F-22(and an MATV nozzle), it could have flown competitively for another decade...I'm really going to miss that ol' turkey.
mbs357 Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 I will die the day they retire the F-14... I love the thing so much. /me cuddles 10 year old 1/48 toy he got somewhere...
Nightbat Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 I will die the day they retire the F-14...I love the thing so much. /me cuddles 10 year old 1/48 toy he got somewhere... The biggest mistake on retiring the Tomcat: No idiot was dumb enough to take on an F-14 expect alot more dogfights with the new fleetdefenders the good news is: we can all buy one in a few years time, start saving peeps!
David Hingtgen Posted January 9, 2004 Author Posted January 9, 2004 (edited) Yes, quite a few mistakes. But it's still better than most. Sad, isn't it? 20 mistakes are better than 40... But they do go over the Iranian F-14's, and it's at least a modern overview of the F-14---too many documentaries are too old to even have the F-14D, and sometimes even F-14B, in it. Edited January 9, 2004 by David Hingtgen
bsu legato Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 You guys must be thrilled the The Final Countdown is coming to DVD in a special edition. Other than Top Gun, is there any other film that showcases the F14 as well?
Coota0 Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 How sad that such a formidable aircraft is being "replaced" by a slower, less manoeuvrable aircraft with less payload capacity and shorter range... The things the US NAVY will do to save some maintenance bucks! Had they opted to replace the F-14's front windscreen, build it with a greater amount of composite materials, replace the engines and avionics with those derived with the F-22(and an MATV nozzle), it could have flown competitively for another decade...I'm really going to miss that ol' turkey. Since when is the F-14 mor manuverable than either the F/A-18 or the F-35?
David Hingtgen Posted January 9, 2004 Author Posted January 9, 2004 (edited) There are no "absolute rules". It always depends on the situation. But at very high altitudes, the F-14 owns all. It's the wing gloves... (and the fuselage) (Also, it's very smooth and stable when bombing, very accurate) (Plus the sheer power that the F-14D has---if they'd have had that engine 20 years ago, the F-14 would be an even greater legend than it is) Edited January 9, 2004 by David Hingtgen
GreenGuy42 Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 Fri, Jan 9, 10PM Eastern, 9 central. The History Channel.One of the better and more interesting F-14 shows out there. Of course, try to ignore when they accidently show F-15's instead... The show repeats 4 hours later. Mods---this thread only needs to be up for 20 hours or so, can I have that much? That reminds me of a WWII special on Battleships... kept showing US Iowa class ships to represent old battlewagons.... ...rather annoyed me, really.
GreatMoose Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 Oh yeah, I've seen that program a couple of times. It's really good. My favorite part (SPOILER!!!) is when they show one of the prototype models carrying 2 sidewinders, 2 sparrows and 6, count 'em SIX Phoenixes! That's right, there's a Phoenix on each nacelle hardpoint. It frickin' sweet!
David Hingtgen Posted January 9, 2004 Author Posted January 9, 2004 (edited) Heh, don't even get me started on battleships. I can tell the individual Iowa's apart... (especially since I'm converting the Missouri into the Iowa, piece by piece...) ::edit:: 6 Phoenixes on an F-14. Perfectly acceptable. One condition: it's so heavy, you cannot land on a carrier like that. So only if you're going to be landing on a "real" runway. Good for training, airshows, Top Gun, etc. If the F-14 ever does its true design role, fleet defense, they would be launched that way, since they would be expected to fire them off and take out enemy planes. (You can take back 4, which is why you usually see them with that many--but if you leave with 6, you better get rid of two before getting back to the carrier, one way or another) Are you sure it was 6/2/2 Phx/Sprw/Side? Because I don't think you can carry Phoenixes AND Sparrows on a wing-glove pylon. Not too sure about Sidewinders either. Of course, for test flights you can try just about anything. Edited January 9, 2004 by David Hingtgen
Coota0 Posted January 9, 2004 Posted January 9, 2004 I think David is right, I thought you could carry (not inclusing air to ground ordanance) 6 pheonixs only, 4 pheonix, 2 sidewinder, and 2 sparrow (my favorite for flight sims) or you could carry 4 sidewinders and 4 sparrows. Anybody know if you can carry 8 Sparrows or 8 Sidewinders?
Apollo Leader Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 Fri, Jan 9, 10PM Eastern, 9 central. The History Channel.One of the better and more interesting F-14 shows out there. Of course, try to ignore when they accidently show F-15's instead... The show repeats 4 hours later. Mods---this thread only needs to be up for 20 hours or so, can I have that much? Looks like I'll have the History Channel on tonight.
gnollman Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 Looks like my vcr will have to hit the late night show... there's a new Powerpuff Girls on tonight at nine.... heh heh. *takes cover*
Dat Pinche Haro! Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 such a beautiful machine and still had a lot of years left in it
David Hingtgen Posted January 10, 2004 Author Posted January 10, 2004 (edited) Max Sidewinder load is 4, one on each stub-pylon on the wing pylon, and one on each pylon itself. (The F-14's wing-glove pylon can't actually carry anything itself. But it can take MANY adapters--most commonly the Sparrow adapter. But the stub pylon's rail can only hold Sidewinder adapters, and things like it--targeting pods, etc) Max Sparrow is 6---4 on the belly, and 1 on each wing pylon. You can do 6/2 Sparrow/Sidewinder. You can also do 4/4, just like your standard F-15 load. Sidewinders, 2 per side: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-aim09-01l.jpg (notice that they're live weapons, this is likely on an actual mission photographed by the wingman) Also, I did find a pic of a Sidewinder on a stub pylon while a Phoenix was on the main, so you CAN do 6/2 Phx/Side. But you're not going to see 2 Sparrows anywhere when you've got 6 Phx, there's nowhere to put them. F-14's are much more versatile than F-15A/C's, weapons-wise. Edited January 10, 2004 by David Hingtgen
Gaijin Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 (edited) Makes me wish I had my old GI Joe Skystriker toy when I was a kid. Edited January 10, 2004 by Gaijin
David Hingtgen Posted January 10, 2004 Author Posted January 10, 2004 I had forgotten how many "wrong plane" shots there were. If it wasn't an F-14, assume the plane they were showing WASN'T the plane they were talking about. (Ironically, they even did a "Top Gun" and showed some F-5's as MiG's)
Jolly Rogers Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 You guys must be thrilled the The Final Countdown is coming to DVD in a special edition. Other than Top Gun, is there any other film that showcases the F14 as well? FINALLY! So what extra goodies will there be on the disc?
Capt Hungry Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 The Final Countdown............. The flight scenes in that movie are excellent. It will be interesting to see what if anything is included. Did anyone ever read the book? Read the book afore I saw the movie. The movie actually stayed fairly true to the book.
EXO Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 The Final Countdown is coming??? It's about time! I thought I was gonna have to go thru a wormhole back in time to go see that movie again.
91WhiskeyM6 Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 I will die the day they retire the F-14...I love the thing so much. /me cuddles 10 year old 1/48 toy he got somewhere... The biggest mistake on retiring the Tomcat: No idiot was dumb enough to take on an F-14 expect alot more dogfights with the new fleetdefenders the good news is: we can all buy one in a few years time, start saving peeps! Please! assuming a fighter got passed the AIM-54C missiles, the Tomcat bleeds hydraulics like any other fighter. This is why the Tomcat got replaced by A MORE MANUEVERABLE and versatile fighter: The F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. Without the danger of TU-95 Bears or the TU-160 BlackJack Bombers. Why continue producing or deloping a fighter larger than an adequate one? The F-15C Eagle is king among the teen US fighters(14,16, & 18)with OVER 90+ kills without ever being shot down. The Eagle was utilized by many nations in killing Mig/Sukhoi/French fighters. The Best fighter of all time? the P-51D Mustang of WW2. The F-15 Ranks second.
ewilen Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 (edited) Saw part of the beginning before deciding to just record it and watch it later without commercials. From what I saw, I have one question. I had thought that Whiskey's reasoning was the standard one: F-14 was developed for fleet defense against Soviet bombers. But the show says it was designed to deal with a threat from "cruise missiles". I would think maybe they're talking about long-range air-launched missiles--i.e., F-14 is supposed to knock down bombers carrying anti-ship missiles before they can launch. But the show explicitly talks about shooting down the cruise missiles. Is this a mistake, or what? Edit: carrier-->carrying Edited January 11, 2004 by ewilen
Dobber Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 David, do you know why the F-14D's had the wing Glove Vane removed? Never understood why. F-15 suck TOMCATS rule. I love how they showed the Tomcat showing up the Eagle in the Fly-off for the Iranians! Chris
Coota0 Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Saw part of the beginning before deciding to just record it and watch it later without commercials. From what I saw, I have one question. I had thought that Whiskey's reasoning was the standard one: F-14 was developed for fleet defense against Soviet bombers. But the show says it was designed to deal with a threat from "cruise missiles". I would think maybe they're talking about long-range air-launched missiles--i.e., F-14 is supposed to knock down bombers carrier anti-ship missiles before they can launch. But the show explicitly talks about shooting down the cruise missiles. Is this a mistake, or what? Ideally the F-14 was supposed to use it's AIM-54s to knock down the bombers before they got into range to launch their cruise missiles, but if a missile got off the Tomcat could intercept it and shott it down. Today this isn't a probelm Hornets can engage incoming missiles, but when the F-14 was introduced F-4s and A-7s just didn't have the radar to lock on to a low flying missile, the F-14's radar could. Hope that helps to answer your question.
David Hingtgen Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 A few things: 1. F-14's true role is fleet defense. Against bombers, and missiles. The F-14 IS designed to go after cruise missiles, or large anti-ship missiles. 2. A BIG, HUGE factor in that is speed. The F-14 is supposed to get off the carrier as fast as it possibly can, and race at Mach2+ to engage the "carrier-threatening" weapons as far from the carrier as possible. It carries the Phoenix missile so as to engage it as soon as possible, as far from the carrier as possible. 3. That said, a Super Hornet cannot do that any better at all than an F-18C, and worse than a Tomcat. You do NOT want to let the missiles get to within just a few miles, 30 secs from you carrier, and pray that your CIWS or RAM can take it down. Those are LAST-DITCH defenses. The Tomcat is your main long-range carrier defense, combined with Ticonderoga-class cruisers for mid-range defense. (And any other ship with its CIWS surrounding the carrier) 4. The best a Hornet (regular or super) is going to be able to do is race out at a slower speed, carrying shorter-ranged weapons. It's not going to get as far, as fast. Super Hornets cannot go faster, nor carry better weapons, that a regular Hornet. 5. So how exactly, is a Super Hornet better? Than either a regular Hornet, or Tomcat? *In the fleet defense role, the reason for the Tomcat's existence?* See, the Tomcat isn't a close-range agile dogfighter. That's what we bought a whole bunch of F/A-18C's for. The Tomcat, is an interceptor. Like the F-15. F-15 isn't as agile as an F-16 in most situations--the F-16 is a dogfighter, not an interceptor. F-15's are interceptors. You don't "replace" F-15's with F-16's simply because they're more agile--they fill different roles. We generally pair our planes--F-15/16, and F-14/18. A fast, long-range interceptor, and a slower, but more agile (and cheaper) dogfighter. So, now there's the Super Hornet. Well, we've already got our dogfighter, the regular Hornet. And we have our high-speed, long-range interceptor, which also performs fleet defense. And it's cheap. But the Super Hornet--is a regular Hornet with 2 more AMRAAM's. And it costs a LOT. So why would we replace the high-speed interceptor and the long-range Phoenix with the low-speed fighter and medium-range AMRAAM? Since we COULD have built a whole lot of brand-new F-14D's for a lot less than new F-18E's, and converted many F-14A's to F-14D config, you can't argue they're physically old. About the only real issue is ease of maintenance. However, a plane has to be REALLY unhandy before it's worth spending tens of millions to replace a single plane with one whose panels are easier to open. Finally--even if you go AMRAAM vs AMRAAM, or F-14 vs F-18C, the Tomcat still has the most-powerful, longest-ranged radar of all--it can track enemy missiles farther than just about anything, and engage quicker due to superior speed. Also, an AMRAAM on an F-14 is better than an AMRAAM on an F-18, since the AMRAAM gains speed from what it is launched from---Tomcats will launch AMRAAMs at a higher speed, thus the missile can go farther, faster---thus engaging enemies farther away. (That is a big part of how the F-22 is supposed to work--since it can supercruise a lot of the time, it'll always have that nice big boost of speed and kinetic energy to add to the AMRAAM). F-14's (and F-18's) will rarely be going that fast, but when fleet defense is the mission, they WILL be going that fast, and the F-14 is even faster than the F-22, and way faster than a Hornet. (F-18 is the slowest fighter in some 30 years, it can't do anything for the AMRAAM). (And Super Hornets aren't any faster).
ewilen Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) I haven't really looked at the cost side, but I think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that we simply don't consider fleet defense to be much of a priority any more compared to tactical bombing. I understand that the Super Hornet is supposed to improve on the Hornet in respect to range and payload. Range gives the carrier a longer reach inland where necessary, greater distance from land-based anti-ship missiles otherwise, and greater loiter time for aircaft assigned to on-call close air support. Now, you may come back and say the Bombcat could do the job just as well as a Super Hornet, at a lower startup cost. If so, I'm out of ideas--we'll have to ask Dick Cheney. Or you could say that we should have waited for the JSF instead of building the Super Hornet--in which case, we'll need to ask William Cohen Edited January 12, 2004 by ewilen
David Hingtgen Posted January 12, 2004 Author Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) Bigger planes carry more stuff. F-14D's have long range, and a large bombload, and are very accurate. So let's replace all the proven, rather young planes with an equally-performing unproven plane that costs way way more! (And then spend a year correcting wing flutter, and then killing its range improvement by having to re-align the pylons) Tomcats can bomb with the best, and intercept with the best. No Hornet is good as an interceptor. Better close-range dogfighter, but the US as a rule likes to avoid that, and practically "snipe" enemy planes at a distance. As it is now, the Super Hornet lost a good chunk of its "new improved" range over the regular Hornet due to the pylon modifications needed. Don't know the current range/payload specs. Anyways, I forgot to answer Dobber's question about wing gloves. Actually, all Tomcat's lost them. In effect. In the mid-80's, F-14A's had them locked into the retracted position, then the mechanism was removed and they were sealed over. ::edited for the 3rd time:: Ok, I'm going to go against most books and stuff. I say if an A was converted to a B or D, it'll keep them locked and sealed. But if built as a B or D, they never had them. Why? They didn't do anything really. It wasn't worth the additional weight and maintenance. They were more effort to keep working, than they were worth. Much like an F-15 or B-1B's nozzle plates. ("Turkey feathers"). The loss of performance is considered worth the cost/risk savings. (if something jams, it's usually BAD) Their actual design use was to move the center of lift forward, to counteract the rearward movement of the center of lift caused by going supersonic. They are canards, jusy very weak, and immobile. Why move the center of lift forwards? It'll relieve stress on the tail--when the center of lift goes back, the tail will have to provide constant downforce (more than normal) to keep the plane level. Since F-14's (and most swing-wing planes) rely 100% on the stabilators for roll/pitch control at high speed, there's that much less response/control from them for roll and pitch, since they're already being used for trim. But it seems they're not worth it. (Many possible reasons, I don't know why--either the glove vanes are ineffective, or the lift change isn't as great as thought, or the tail can easily cope with it, etc) Edited January 12, 2004 by David Hingtgen
hellohikaru Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Too bad the Tomcats were never given AMRAAM capability. and i think the jigs were destroyed. Blame Dick**** Cheney for this. Perhaps this is an accurate sign of things to come the do-it-all not so super-duper-hornet http://www.arcair5.com/Gal2/1001-1100/Gal1...rts/gal1027.htm Nice article though
David Hingtgen Posted January 12, 2004 Author Posted January 12, 2004 Sadly, the Super Tomcats were supposed to be the first thing to get AMRAAM capability. Could have done 6/2 AMRAAM/Sidewinder--equal to the F-15C or F-22. Specifically, VF-111. Oh well, at least Shin's F-14A+Kai got them...
Warmaker Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) To me it seems the US Navy's carrier decks were filled with everything a CV/CVNBG could need in the days of Desert Shield/Storm. Tomcats, Hornets, Intruders, etc. Speaking of the Intruder, the USN still hasn't found a real replacement for that workhorse. The drill now is to put a boatload of external tanks (short legs of the Hornet) and give the warriors 1-2 arrows in their quiver for any strikes. Except for the Bombcats of course. Nowadays I swear the big wigs for the Navy are driven to have the decks/hangars filled with nothing but Hornets and their derivatives. Then there's the whole mess with the Super Bug. Then there's the Prowler's replacement, the E/A-18G Growler <_< Rooiiiggghhht. Sorry to the Prowler fans for that little tid bit if they didn't know. Hellohikaru, about that weird kitbash of the Super Hornet, you're forgetting one more thing to put on the wings. A pair of KC-130 Inflight Refueling Pods and Drogues. Edited January 12, 2004 by Warmaker
Recommended Posts