Talk:Grumman F-14 Tomcat/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hundreds of new images available

There has been a batch upload of the US Navy military website and there are now hundreds of new images in the Commons Category, FYI...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This one seems a better alternative for main picture. BrickBreak (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. On a somewhat related issue, after reading a comment concerning pictures on the F-15 page, I think the pictures on this page suffer from a similar issue. The pictures should clearly and accurately present the text of the sections they're supposed to represent. The Engines and Landing Gear sub-section shows a picture of an F-14 with its refueling probe extended. I can see someone reading the subsection title and then looking at the picture, and then getting confused. Although, I just reread the section and it does include a lot about F-14's the fuel system. That section needs to be retitled or broken up. Also, there's no less than six pictures of decommissioned F-14s sitting at museums or wherever on display; that's a bit excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 00:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken photo link. It's a good photo too, so I wouldn't oppose it going in the Lead now. I added the existing one, and it was the best of the lot at that time. Anyway, tehre's no reason Lead photos can;t be changed every few months when there are plenty of free photos available to use. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of good free photos. I uploaded about a dozen or so F-14 pictures a week ago from defenseimagery.mil to Wikimedia Commons that I thought were good. That's a pretty good photo. Here's two more from a similar angle that are good candidates: F-14D and F-14A. I have no problem changing the main image every so often. - Agsftw (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing some of the pictures might help the page out a lot. Particularly some of the 6 museum aircraft pictures. Having that many of them adds very little value to the article and they eventually just clutter the page. Should probably start vetting the images for better quality, composition and relevance. I may start doing that within the next week. (Christmas holiday!) Also, off this section's topic, may start to try shortening some of the sections here. I'll be sure to put any significant changes in the talk section for consensus prior to doing it. I'll probably start with the operational history section. Since there's a dedicated operational history article for the F-14, can move a lot of it there. Like many of the Lebanon details which takes up almost half of that section. (While the very significant action it saw during the last 1/3 of its operational history from 1994-2006 seems to get the least mention.) Agsftw (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Primary role(s) of F-14

I'm removing 'interceptor' from the info box since it seems to imply that interception was the F-14's primary role. The F-14's primary role was as a fighter (conducting fighter sweep and escort) according to Grumman. You can get that from pg 55 in this book and pg 51 in this book. In addition:

From NAVAIR's Evaluation Division Director in 1973: "...the F-14A was designed primarily as an air superiority weapon. Its basic flight design gross weight corresponds to the escort mission with Sparrows and accommodates the Phoenix missiles and ground attack weapons as alternate loads."

From NAVAIR 01-F-14AAD-1 Pg 1-1: "The F-14D aircraft is a supersonic, two-place, twin-engine, swing-wing, air-superiority fighter designed and manufactured by Grumman Aerospace corporation. In addition to its primary fighter role, carrying missiles (Sparrow and//or Sidewinder) and an internal 20-mm gun, the aircraft is designed for fleet air defense (Phoenix missiles) and ground attack (conventional ordnance) missions."

This book and the Dept of the Navy Naval Historical Center and the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum classify the F-14 in pretty much the same manner.

I'm considering changing the role to air superiority, based on these same sources, if there are no objections. Agsftw (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable, although air superiority would have a heavy implication that the aircraft was used for interception as well as dogfighting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The F-14 was designed to be a fleet air defense fighter for the US Navy. That's means Interceptor in basic terms. It was designed for dogfighting also. Multi-role capabilities came later in its career though. -fnlayson (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the sources I provided in my first post, the manufacturer, the person in charge of aircraft design for the US Navy from 1957 to 1973 (when the F-14 was designed), and the operating forces state the fleet air defense capability was secondary to its fighter/dogfighting capability. I don't think there are more reliable sources than that. If Unless someone can provide a more reliable source stating otherwise, it makes absolute sense to say that the F-14's primary role was not as an interceptor. Therefore, it is not imprudent to remove anything implying that interception was its primary role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The original role of the F-14 is "to provide long-range air defence of the US fleet" which in basically means interceptor, the Phoenix (range over 100 miles) wasnt a dog fighting weapon. MilborneOne (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That was not its primary role (I think I used good references to support that). So, here's another quote from NAVAIR's former Evaluation Division Director explaining how the F-14 came about:

" The F-111B was most nearly useful when employed in a fleet air defense role, in effect acting as a MISSILEER but with half the capability. Other fighter missions, such as escorting attack airplanes, had to be done with a higher performance, more maneuverable, and more versatile airplane than the F-111B. Grumman, associated with General Dynamics, had performed F-111 improvement studies, under contract, ranging from minor changes to complete redesigns. McDonnell had also studied, under contract, various improvements to the F-4, including a design with a variable sweep wing. A new airplane, to complement the F-111B, was also under study by everyone. This design finally evolved as a multi-mission airplane, VFAX, capable of performing better than a F-4 as a fighter, and better than the A-7 as an attack airplane. The concept was valid only under the premise that it was complementary to the AWG-9 and Phoenix capability represented by the F-111B. However, as the latter design degraded in attractiveness, by 1967 and 1968, very serious study efforts were undertaken to find a true solution of the Navy's fighter problem. In essence, this finally evolved as upgrading the VFAX to carry the AWG-9 fire control system and the Phoenix missiles."

To paraphrase, he's saying the Navy was planning to design a complimentary fighter that could perform the fighter missions the F-111B could not perform. However, instead of paying for two totally different platforms, it was decided that the best way forward was to design an all-around fighter plane that could also carry the the AWG-9 and Phoenix. In other words, the F-14's original design was not just for fleet air defense. Agsftw (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That may have been the original intention, but the F-14 as it was introduced, did not take on a multi-mission role which implies more than just air fighting. It was not a fighter bomber until much later in its career. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

- The F-14 came from the VFX program, not VFAX. VFAX resurfaced later and was filled by the F/A-18. The F-14 was still designed to carry AIM-54 Phoenix first and AIM-9 Sparrows second. However the mounting hardware was interchangeable. So both dogfighter and interceptor applies. Its ground attack capabilities were largely undeveloped until the 1990s. -fnlayson (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with the basic histories of most modern U.S. tactical aircraft. I grew up reading many of the generic aircraft guide books that were available, and I have a couple very recent ones too. If you read what follows that quote in the paper I linked, that concept became the VFX. The requirements for the VFX included cannon, sidewinder and sparrow. It was a requirement from the outset. VFAX resurfaced when it was determined that the Navy and Marines Corps would not be able to replace its entire F-4/A-7 fleet with the F-14, and the Hi-Lo mix concept started getting pushed to the Navy and Air Force. And for crying out loud, that paper came from one of the guys responsible for bringing the F-14 to fruition... Agsftw (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. It looked like the quote and your earlier comments seemed to miss the VFAX change to VFX. -fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Who decides what is 'too much'?

"The upgrades were priced in the billions, a bit much for an interim solution..." I really do not like the latter half of this sentence, as it is inherantly a point of opinion on deciding what is too much. I remember this principle being expressed back in the Concorde reviewing, of letting the reader reach their own conclusions of what is and is not 'amazing', or in this case 'too much'. Even if Concorde was cited as being described as amazing from a noteworthy individual, it doesn't become objectively amazing; an upgrade proposal can be judged as too costly to be reasonable, but this judgement should clearly be expressed as the review point of a certain organisation or individual, not as an objective declaration of the article itself. I could go off on a parellel chain of reasoning on how several interim programs that did run into the billions went ahead anyhow, but the comparison is mildly pointless and aside from the issue that has me niggled. Making a note of the high cost as a drawback is objective, make proclaimations of being too costly as statement rather than viewpoint wonders into the territory of 'lines in the sand' on where this line is drawn, something which I would not particularly enjoy mediating or participating in. I'd really prefer it to be clear that "The upgrades were priced in the billions, Person X held the opinion that this was too great for the limited service life expected", if it is to stay put. Kyteto (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The full upgrade was too much for Congress to fund the full upgrade. The next previous sentence states this. -fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it strikes me as logic to restructure the sentence to make it clear that it was Congress making this judgement of cost.(right now, that isn't clear, which is my concern) Kyteto (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good fix, thanks. Ah, eventually I started with text from vectorsite.net when I originally worked on this ground attack text in one of my sandboxes. -fnlayson (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nacelle spacing

In the fuselage design section it states "The nacelles are spaced apart 1 to 3 ft". The photos (eg pancake) do not show a significant variation from 1 to 3 feet, and it looks a lot more like 3 feet than 1. Would it be more correct to say "approx. 3 feet"? Degrey1 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

NR-1

Anyone hear know about the incident in which an F-14 with a Pheonix missile was lost in the ocean and the military sub NR-1 retrieved it? I didn't know wwhere to put it so can someone please make the edit. The source is a book called Dark Waters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.45.239 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Errors/questionable text

I've generally been quite impressed with Wikipedia; however, this article has numerous errors. Just a few (perhaps I can take the time later to go through the details): the engine inlets have nothing whatsoever to do with the A-6, nor do the wings. It's pretty obvious when you look at both aircraft (the A-6 inlet is rounded, designed for subsonic flight, and has no "ramps". The Tomcat's inlet is somewhat square and has moveable/programmable ramps to create shock waves so that supersonic air never reaches the compressor. The A-6 wings are fixed sweep angle and are cambered for subsonic flight; the F-14 has variable sweep wings hinged on the wing box and cambered for supersonic flight--there are no commonalities). Clearly, the statements in the article must be considered "opinion" and should be deleted. The Tomcat's landing gear does have some similarities with the Intruder, but it's not an exact copy. The wings and fuselage have virtually ZERO to do with the climb rate of any aircraft (stated in the section saying that the F-14 was to improve on the F-4's performance). Climb rate is almost entirely dependent on thrust-to-weight ratio, although drag has an impact, of course. The statement in the article is simply wrong, based on aerodynamics and the laws of physics and should be removed.

I've flown F-4's (F-4B, E, J, N, S), A-6's (A-6E, KA-6D, EA-6A), and the F-14 (I was one of the first test pilots on the Tomcat program). McNamara had nothing whatsoever to do with the F-14 (there is a statement that we skipped the prototype phase to bypass McNamara). In fact, McNamara left SECDEF in '68, while the F-111B (the Navy variant, which I watched carrier qualifying on Coral Sea in July of 1968) was still a viable Navy program. The F-14 wasn't even a figment of the Navy's imagination at that point (other than to say that anyone with any sense knew the F-111 could never be a fighter--you simply cannot fight in a dogfight if you can't see out of both sides of the airplane). The statement regarding McNamara and prototypes is simply not fact and should be removed from the article. Micro1966 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Micro1966...You should read this book. It was co-authored by the former president and CEO of Grumman. In addition to the book, this link will take you to a retyped paper by the NAVAIR's Evaluation Division Director from 1957-73. That site is a really good resource on the beginnings of the F-14. It is the correspondence, notes and other documents from NAVAIR's Evaluation Division Director during that time. Both of the book and link contradict your comments that the F-111 was a viable program to the Navy in 1968 and that the F-14 wasn't a figment of the Navy's imagination prior to July 1968. Most of the F-14 test pilot's names are public information. A lot of these things are pretty easy to verify... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The text says they are only similar, and that is probably referring to underlying structural design of the components. The Navy was studying/planning for a fighter to replace the F-111B in 1968. They had seen Grumman's study concepts from the year before. This is mentioned in the article and referenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the text in question. I could not find anything like that in several F-14 books or books with significant coverage of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sure Grumman used what all they learned from the A-6, F-111B and other aircraft on the F-14. If someone has a source with this type info, please add it with enough explanation for context. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The list of aircraft on display is missing the Jolly Rogers's 200 Tomcat on display at Air Zoo in Kalamazoo. 68.251.42.182 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Internal gun and fighter design

The addition of the M61 vulcan to the F-14 is just as important a milestone in naval fighter design as when guns were removed from the F-4 Phantom which was not intended to be a daylight dogfighter, which the F-8 was. The F-14's most pressing need was to give the Navy a dedicated dogfighter with close-in weapons. Every modern fighter after the F-14 (15, 16, 17, 18) included internal guns. The gun was added for an important reason. It is unhelpful to remove mention of what was an important omission from the current description Redhanker (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.historynet.com/mcdonnell-f-4-phantom-essential-aircraft-in-the-air-warfare-in-the-middle-east.htm

In close encounters with MiGs over Hanoi, Americans learned the most bitter lesson of all. The Phantom had been designed without a gun because the Pentagon thought the age of the missile had arrived. This was a catastrophic mistake-so a 20mm M61A1 Vulcan 'GatIing' gun was belatedly slung under the nose of the F-4E model. The modification looked distinctly like an afterthought, its barrel poking out from nose contours that weren't particularly streamlined anyway.

Here is a reference book that believes it is important to note the F-4 did not have a gun:Redhanker (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Grumman F-14 "Tomcat" James Perry Stevenson Aero Publishers 1975

p. 21 The F-4 would eliminate the dogfight by sending out a missle in its place and the pilot wouldn't have to visually see his target... The F-14 was designed as an air Superiority aircraft without compromising its other missions... For close in work, the Tomcat has a gun, the M61 20mm cannon. The Navy's F-4s never had a gun. The F-14 then, becomes a flexible flying weapons platform, capable of fighting like its greatgrandfather the Hellcat or performing the mission of a stand-off fleet defence interceptor.

- Redhanker (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the text, as written when I post this, covers that point sufficiently without overstating it/gumming it to death. - BilCat (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The deletion of the gun in favor of missles, and the re-inclusion, starting with the F-14 is a milestone in fighter design, and covered over and over again in documentaries and books on dogfighters. There is overstatement, and there is glaring ommission. The F-111B also failed where the F-4 succeeded because it was not versatile, it did not carry medium or short range missles and it was not configured to deliver bombs, the Tomcat did all this and had an internal gun. The first battle of Thanh Hoa Bridge was what first got the attention of fighter designers when Mig-17s scored victories against supersonic fighters in 1965, by which time the F-111B was ready to test. Redhanker (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Accidents ?

I doubt it, but does this article need an Accidents section to cover particular notable accidents? Here's a possible entry moved from Pratt & Whitney TF30:

"On October 25, 1994, Kara Hultgreen, the first woman to qualify as a carrier-based F-14A pilot, was killed when one engine on her F-14 suffered a compressor stall on final approach to the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), and the aircraft inverted.<:ref>US Navy Constellation page</ref><:ref>New York Times, March 1, 1995.</ref>"

With the TF30's stall problems on the F-14, I'm sure there are more like that, possibly too many to list. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The original prototype crashed too due to failure of hydraulic pump. Surely that's worth a mention. 195.59.43.240 (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, was not the prototype crash due to an unsupported 90-degree bend in a hydraulic control line? Vibrations caused the bend to fatigue, then break, fracturing the pipe and thereby losing the hydraulic fluid. Leading to loss of control and therefore loss of the aircraft. 60.228.54.19 (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Iranian F-14 kills during Iran-Iraq war

Hi BilCat I've mentioned the source. And the author of my source is the aother of the most of other parts of this article.I mentioned only confirmed shot-downs and I didn't write the unconfirmed ones. By the way some parts of the article don't have a source.Diako Zandi 00:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your reference is created a cite error and is incomplete. There is no Combat 2004 book in the Bibliography section for the footnote to point to. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Iraq had no Su-17, no Mig 27, no Mirage 5 and their Mi24 were in fact Mi25... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.218.130 (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Su-22 is the export name for Su-17. And Mil Mi-25 is the export name for Mil Mi-24. About the Mirage-5 please read carefully the book "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat" Diako Zandi 22:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diako1971 (talk • contribs)

Yes and the Su-20 is also an export version of the Su-17 which the Iraqis also had whats the point of this? They still had no Su 17s but 20/22s thats what the aircrafts name is, if it is an Su-17 its name would be Su-17 but for several reasons it is Su-20/22, and still they had no Mirage 5 and still they had no Mig-27 and still they had no Mi-24s! What´s in this book saying that Iraq had Mirage 5s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.79.158 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the droop nose.

There is only a fleeting mention of a big problem that the F4 Phantoms had in performing a landing on an aircraft carrier. That is, that such a landing requires a very nose high attitude, which makes it difficult for the pilot to see his target (the carrier). The droop nose of the Tomcat, coupled with the good lift at low speed provided by the swept forward wings, which requires less angle of attack and hence not so much of a nose-up attitude, solves this problem. This was one of the driving criteria of the aerodynamic design of the F14. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article. 60.228.54.19 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean with a droop nose, because from where i sit i don't see a droop nose on the F14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.118.136.54 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Shot down by UFO

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b9bded1d2580

Loses due to alien invasion notable? Hcobb (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont think you really need us to answer that question, more surpised why you asked. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)