Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-14: The 1970's Perspective

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • pleuris
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2003
    • 68

    #81
    Arresting hook. (navalised????)

    Mig23MLD:
    The Rafale is a Mirage 4000 evolution and as such a land based fighter, when it was offered to the Germans or even Italians and british it was not offered as a naval fighter, but as a land based fighter and the proof is the Eurofighter has no arresting hook, which means it was not navalized.
    Both a/c/ mentioned in your post do have arresting hook, to catch cables at the end of the runway if the brakes do'n't work, but yes these are not navalised ones so yes the A/c are not navalised. Allthough there are proposals for an navalised version of the Typhoon. I surely don't think that an F-16 could be navalised.
    Pleuris

    Parvus Numero Magnus Merito

    Comment

    • Distiller
      Talent on Loan from God
      • Oct 2003
      • 4760

      #82
      There is a company called ESCO (part of Zodiac for some time now). A smallish company with big history, since back in the early years of carrier aviation they did all the recovery systems (cables and nets). They (and I think also Saab) do stationary and mobile emergency arresting equipment for airbases.
      http://www.esco.zodiac.com/index.cfm/navid-29

      The hooks on landbased tac aircraft are not only for to catch the plane in case he comes in too fast, or the brakes don't work, but also for aborted take-offs. That's why there are always two systems on a runway, when using cables around the middle of the runway, when using the net, at the end of the runway.

      And of course these systems - both the hook on the land-based airframe, and the cable - have nothing to do with the carrier cable arrestors. The land-based system is designed for rolling aircraft and draws out a nylon tape (only the middle 80 or so meter are steel) up to 400m to stop even heavy planes smoothly, the carrier system is all steel and does the same at much higher speeds and within around 150 meter.
      "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

      Comment

      • Schorsch
        Severely Transonic
        • Aug 2005
        • 3843

        #83
        Originally posted by eagle View Post
        Actually, the Tomcat used (quite small) external tanks pretty much all the time, probably more often than the F-16 carries its wing tanks. Its almost like they were part of the airframe. Thats perhaps why you didnt notice.

        On the range issue, you probably know the Afghanistan story where F-14 could fly missions without air refuelling over enemy territory (i.e. Afghanistan). Something the F-18E apparently could not. Thats no absolute answer, but at least we know the Tomcat has more range than the increased range Hornet.
        As I read your post I searched the folder where I stored all that Tomcat pictures (there were times when Schorsch was totally on collecting pictures). Anyways, I found none without external tanks, at least none which did not obviously show demonstration flights. The only pictures I saw with missiles and without tanks were those with 6 Phoenix.

        By the way, some numbers, F-14D, from official manual:
        OEW: 19856kg
        MTOW Carrier: 34500kg
        Fuel (int): 5810kg
        Fuel (ext): 1740kg
        Tanks (guess): 200kg
        ------------------------
        TOW: 27610kg
        Fuel fraction: 0.27

        + 4 AIM-9: 360kg
        + 4 AIM-120: 640kg
        + Pylons: ~200kg
        -----------------------
        TOW: ~28800kg
        Fuel fraction: 0.26
        Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

        Comment

        • Ich Dien
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2006
          • 84

          #84
          Originally posted by ST-21 View Post
          The FADF mission was always real. Keep in mind that USN was trying to figure out how to deal with the high speed strike aircraft and cruise missiles long before they became a consideration to others, as far back the late '50s. The F-111B was an outgrowth of the mission originally proposed for the F6D Missileer, namely a plane with a big radar that would have a long loiter time and would lob long range missiles at enemy aircraft and missiles. There was no reason for to to be supersonic except that was one of the thing shoehorned in when McNamara combined USN's FADF mission with USAF's tactical low level strike mission.
          The Fleet Defense Mission had changed a good deal in the 10 years between the cancellation of the F6D and the first flight of the F-14. No longer was the threat a few straggling Bears but Mach 1++ Blinders and soon Backfires with nuclear tipped supersonic long range Kitchens. The fleet is going to depend on how well those late 50s-early 60s Westinghouse radar and Bendix missiles are going to work. If the defender didn't go out and meet the threat before it got a shot off it was all over even if the bomber was downed, there was no carrier to go back to. Here supersonic sprint and altitude could help if the aircraft is parked far enough out in orbit with a whale. While the F-111 had decent top end speed but it took a while to get there, aside from aerodynamics improvements the F-14 tried to rectify this with its sophisticated VG intake ramps. I've heard conflicting reports about cancellation the F6D, McNamara axed it, Navy suits killed it, congress wouldn't fund it etc. Which is a shame because it could have made a decent Tanking, ASW or EW platform in addition.

          Back to the F-14 being designed as a fighter first and fleet defender second, its a little conspicuous that the mock up of the 303E was armed with Sparrows and not AIM-54s. I've seen three view drawings also show it armed with 4 AIM-7s while C, D and F were with 6 AIM-54s, but I can't recall if these were official Grumman sketches or done later. The E was the most "fighter-like" of all the Grumman 303 proposals save for the 303G which was smaller, AWG-10 equipped and had no hope of carrying in the Phoenix. However, after the contract was signed the alterations to the 303 made the production aircraft more suitable towards FADF mission and away from the fighter role.

          And as a side note here's a Grumman promotional video from 1977 about the efforts taken to integrate the F-14 into the IIAF called "The Grumman Challenge".

          Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5Xsi2xU-A
          Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=a2mzXvug-PY
          Part 3: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pnNMB_kVN8I
          Part 4: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LrAJispev-w

          Comment

          • Distiller
            Talent on Loan from God
            • Oct 2003
            • 4760

            #85
            That music! Those haircuts! Those mustaches!
            Rapid change and cultural shock -- couple of years later another cultural shock took place!
            I remember very similar movies from the Republic of South Vietnam, the future breadbasket of South-East Asia!

            Thx for the links!
            "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

            Comment

            • Pioneer
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Aug 2005
              • 722

              #86
              Originally posted by Sens View Post
              You have to look to the starting-point in the 60s.
              It was the F-111, the AIM-54 and related radar to start with.
              A lot of related money was spent already! So what to do? To make the best from that at hand already or to start with something new. In that Cold War times, every year a new fighter saw service everywhere and some upgrades of other ones too. The pace of development was similar to that of the personal computers in the 90s to give an idea about that. If it is for office-work only a 32 Bit PC is still enough most of the time. But none of us did stick to that economical considerations really. So no cheap blames please. -
              The AF had no need for the AIM-54 and could stick to something lighter, what it did. The frontal area of a design had something to do with the radar-dish in those days. Neither the navy nor the airforce people were fools really. The technology advances in the 70s did allow to break the trend of heavier fighters.
              I do remember about the Tu-28P and the MiG-31 of today too.
              The US Navys involvement in the TFX program (the F-111A/F-111B), was a further development for its original cancelled Fleet Air Defence Aircraft (FAD) program, which was originally put forward as a 1957 Request for Proposal (RfP), which intern was won by Douglas F6D Missileer.
              It was to this FAD program that the Pratt and Whitney TF30 turbofan developed for.
              As a cost saving measure, the US Navy stipulated it wanted the TF30 to power both the F-111A/B and later the F-14.
              It would be with much irony, that as a cost saving measure in demanding the use of the PW TF30, it would cost the Navy (and the USAF) dearly in the true performance and capability, of the F-111 and F-14 (unfortunately!!)

              Regards
              Pioneer
              Attached Files

              Comment

              • Sens
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2000
                • 12298

                #87
                Originally posted by Pioneer View Post
                The US Navy’s involvement in the TFX program (the F-111A/F-111B), was a further development for its original cancelled ‘Fleet Air Defence Aircraft’ (FAD) program, which was originally put forward as a 1957 Request for Proposal (RfP), which intern was won by Douglas F6D Missileer.
                It was to this FAD program that the Pratt and Whitney TF30 turbofan developed for.
                As a cost saving measure, the US Navy stipulated it wanted the TF30 to power both the F-111A/B and later the F-14.
                It would be with much irony, that as a cost saving measure in demanding the use of the PW TF30, it would cost the Navy (and the USAF) dearly in the true performance and capability, of the F-111 and F-14 (unfortunately!!)

                Regards
                Pioneer
                In the hindsight the USN was right. The F-14A did fullfill its job till the retirement. Neither the true performance and capability was a real issue by that. Even when the USN had received something like the F-14D from the start, nothing had changed as the history did judge. Something that can not be disputed really.

                Comment

                • Pioneer
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Aug 2005
                  • 722

                  #88
                  Originally posted by MiG-23MLD View Post
                  Schorsh
                  From 1974 to 1985 it was really a very good fighter interceptor, but with the advent of fighters like the MiG-29K and Su-33, it started showing signs of obsolecence, the Su-33 and MiG-29K could take off without the aid of a catapult, as fighters would out turn and outmaneuver the F-14.
                  [/B]
                  Yes this is true that both the MiG-29K and Su-33 can take off without catapult, but this has less to do with the overall capability of these two planes, as opposed to the then Soviet's problems with developing and fielding catapults, as well as their want and philosophy of simplicity, when it came to developing their (later Admiral Kuznetsov and Chinese Liaoning) class.
                  One has to remember that the none use of catapult by both the MiG-29K and Su-33 means that they can't and don't carry their full fuel and weapons load capacity, which negates overall range and loitering time on station, to say nothing of their sustainability and effectiveness in combat. When was the last time you saw a MiG-29K and or a Su-33 taking off with a full weapons complement for serious warfighting? Where as the Tomcat constantly launched with its full FAD complement of fuel and weapons to conduct its real-time mission!

                  Also can I add, that this no-need for catapult launch capability supposed advantage, in terms of real-world warfighting means that the Soviet's decision to negate the need/want of catapults also had a further detrimental impact on its carrier full capability, in that without catapults, its carrier was unable to deploy an efficient AEW/AWACS (Yak-44E) capability to match and support the true effectiveness of its MiG-29K and Su-33 in the FAD mission.

                  Its apparent that the Soviet's saw and appreciated the limitations of non- catapult equipped carriers, as its Ulyanovsk would have been able to carry the full range of fixed-wing carrier aircraft, as opposed to the limited scoped Admiral Kuznetsov, as it was designed and supposed to have been equipped with "Manyak" steam catapults! Its both good and at the same time a pity that the Soviet's never completed Ulyanovsk!

                  P.S. please keep in mind, that the F-14D with the General Electric F110 engines capability it should have had from day one (alas GE F401), could launch without catapults if required in an emergency (although I must admit, I don't know if this required a limitation of both fuel and weapons!)

                  Regards
                  Pioneer
                  Attached Files

                  Comment

                  • Pioneer
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2005
                    • 722

                    #89
                    Originally posted by Rocky View Post
                    The fixed wing Grumman VFX design 303F was one of eight final design configurations. I have no figures related to it, sorry.
                    I found this mate!
                    Although my 3-view drawing doesn't look as clean-lined/refined as beautifully as your picture

                    Regards
                    Pioneer
                    Attached Files
                    Last edited by Pioneer; 26th September 2015, 02:22.

                    Comment

                    • Y-20 Bacon
                      Senior Member
                      • Apr 2013
                      • 2176

                      #90
                      are there any pics of F-14s deployed to Vietnam? supposedly there were 2 squadrons at the end of the war.

                      Comment

                      • Pioneer
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Aug 2005
                        • 722

                        #91
                        [QUOTE=JoeinTX;1087240]Funny, that LTV LWF candidate looks a lot like the Eurofighter Typhoon of today.

                        The USN could have lived comfortably with improved Phantoms throughout this time and done so at less cost to the taxpayer.

                        Grumman obvious pitched a highly modified F-14 to the USAF as a F-106 replacement, but the lack of a credible Soviet bomber threat against the "lower 48 states," meant that there was no pressing need
                        QUOTE]

                        JoeinTX, as much as a Tomact fan as I am, I have to agree with your analogy re the "improved Phantoms"
                        One could almost base this analogy that in truth for its 32-year career, the Tomcat never used its Aim-54 Phoenix missile in actual combat! (Just my analogy)

                        Just to supplement your statement re the "modified F-14 to the USAF as a F-106 replacement", I've posted a picture of the F-14 IMI proposal mock-up to meet that USAF RfP of 1972!

                        Regards
                        Pioneer
                        Attached Files

                        Comment

                        • Pioneer
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Aug 2005
                          • 722

                          #92
                          Here you go Rocky!
                          Another pic of the Design 303F study

                          Regards
                          Pioneer
                          Attached Files

                          Comment

                          • MSphere
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2010
                            • 8983

                            #93
                            Originally posted by Pioneer View Post
                            Yes this is true that both the MiG-29K and Su-33 can take off without catapult, but this has less to do with the overall capability of these two planes, as opposed to the then Soviet's problems with developing and fielding catapults, as well as their want and philosophy of simplicity, when it came to developing their (later Admiral Kuznetsov and Chinese Liaoning) class.
                            One has to remember that the none use of catapult by both the MiG-29K and Su-33 means that they can't and don't carry their full fuel and weapons load capacity, which negates overall range and loitering time on station, to say nothing of their sustainability and effectiveness in combat. When was the last time you saw a MiG-29K and or a Su-33 taking off with a full weapons complement for serious warfighting? Where as the Tomcat constantly launched with its full FAD complement of fuel and weapons to conduct its real-time mission!
                            I am not sure whether the F-14 is the best base for comparison.. Although the much trumpeted 2AIM-9 +6AIM-54 loadout (6,400 lb) was possible, it was rarely used due to weight stress on airframe. Typical Tomcat loadout was 2AIM-9 +2AIM-54 +3AIM-7 = 3,900 lb. Weight-wise that corresponds to roughly 4xR-73 +4xR-27ER loadout and that is nothing that the Su-33 wouldn't regularly handle.

                            It is the practical usefulness which plays a role, not the theoretical max. loadouts.

                            Comment

                            • Levsha
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2006
                              • 2851

                              #94
                              Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                              I am not sure whether the F-14 is the best base for comparison.. Although the much trumpeted 2AIM-9 +6AIM-54 loadout (6,400 lb) was possible, it was rarely used due to weight stress on airframe. Typical Tomcat loadout was 2AIM-9 +2AIM-54 +3AIM-7 = 3,900 lb. Weight-wise that corresponds to roughly 4xR-73 +4xR-27ER loadout and that is nothing that the Su-33 wouldn't regularly handle.

                              It is the practical usefulness which plays a role, not the theoretical max. loadouts.
                              How often did Su-33 take off with 4 R-73 and 4 R-27? Have you seen a picture of this?

                              JoeinTX, as much as a Tomact fan as I am, I have to agree with your analogy re the "improved Phantoms"
                              One could almost base this analogy that in truth for its 32-year career, the Tomcat never used its Aim-54 Phoenix missile in actual combat! (Just my analogy)
                              That's not much of an analogy. In any case, AIM-54 was used a few time by the Iranians.

                              Comment

                              • MSphere
                                Senior Member
                                • Feb 2010
                                • 8983

                                #95
                                Originally posted by Levsha View Post
                                How often did Su-33 take off with 4 R-73 and 4 R-27? Have you seen a picture of this?
                                Well, a capoture like that, at the moment of take-off or carrier landing is a big wish considering that even land-based Russian aircraft are seldom seen carrying weapons operationally. Kuz was never operationally deployed in a conflict, that makes the thing rather hard to accomplish..

                                This is the best I could find.. A quite beaten #88 with 4xR-27s and R-73s (cannot recognize it clearly but most likely only two of them).

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	506.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	185.3 KB
ID:	3664338
                                Last edited by MSphere; 26th September 2015, 11:17.

                                Comment

                                • Andraxxus
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Sep 2012
                                  • 954

                                  #96
                                  Thats possibly the landing image of this take-off:

                                  Click image for larger version

Name:	33.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	18.1 KB
ID:	3664339

                                  6xR-27 4xR-73 (R-27s on stations #1 and 2 were visible in the video I took this image, which I can't find right now)

                                  As a math guy, I did some calculations about Su-33 and MiG-29K's take off performance in the past (after it was discussed in Chinese Navy thread), I didn't post it because it was quuite off-topic, I can make a new thread if anyones interested.

                                  Comment

                                  • MSphere
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Feb 2010
                                    • 8983

                                    #97
                                    Originally posted by Andraxxus View Post
                                    As a math guy, I did some calculations about Su-33 and MiG-29K's take off performance in the past (after it was discussed in Chinese Navy thread), I didn't post it because it was quuite off-topic, I can make a new thread if anyones interested.
                                    Thanks.. I'd love to read your analysis..

                                    Comment

                                    Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                    Collapse

                                     

                                    Working...
                                    X