WT Forums

I have had the opportunity to discuss this subject with both Naval Aviators, and USAF fighter pilots, as well have done some very exhaustive research on the matter..........Where does the truth lie?

Most Naval Aviators within the F-14 community will concede that the F-14A is underpowered and over weight, as a air superiority fighter......VG wings and a very clean aerodynamic design errodes some of this vice, but in the air superiority arena the F-14A is outclassed by the F-15..........The F-14D I am told is a completely different story, while even with the bigger engines, the F-14D is still a 60,000 lb+ aircraft, and comapares in general size to the F-15E, the fusalage design, coupled with variable geometry gives it a distinct adavantage over the F-15C.....again this is the Naval Aviation, and specificialy the 14D community mindset............

You talk to the USAF, and the F-14 is refered to the "Tomgrape" and the F-14D is refered to the "SuperTomgrape".........They claim that its easy to defeat, at their discretion........and they claim to have no compromise to the F-14 at all......Either variant, and it is a complete over priced dog.

Men such as Rear Admiral Paul Gilcrest, the late Captain Henry Kleeman, and others say no way, and have the DACT experience to validate their beliefs.........I respect their opinions.

Other distinguished warfighters such as General Horner, the late General McCloud, and even Colonel Boyd adhere to the "Tomgrape" label, with kills in DACT that back their claims......Not to mention our own Mudslinger, and even Luke...I also respect their opinions.

The long and the short, is where does the truth lie? I understand the loyalty within certain air fighting communities, and that it is often aggresive in nature.........But in this case, the two schools of thought are completely polar opposite of one another..........You look at the "true gouge" on the Iran and Iraq war, and the F-14 has a combat record, that approaches that of the venerable F-15 in USAF and Israeli hands...........Is this a case of profesional bias at its worst, or is this a case of propoganda from a particular community? Its somewhat confusing to me, because not being a fighter pilot, and not having extensive hands on experience, I tend to believe what I read and hear......Help me out guys, whats the real deal here?

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You look at the "true gouge" on the Iran and Iraq war, and the F-14 has a combat record, that approaches that of the venerable F-15 in USAF and Israeli hands...........Is this a case of profesional bias at its worst, or is this a case of propoganda from a particular community? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


100% of Fighter aviation is cheap shotted attitudes toward other fraternities and aircraft.

You have to have aggressive men that believe they are the best and will fight well past the edge. Pride and community respect is on the line. Failure and comprimise is not an option for us.

As far as rateing Iranian and Iraqi pilots as first rate is a slapstick Joke, To use their performance as gageing the f14's ability......

You trully have to look at the way they train, the confidence and skill level of their pilots.

1 good pilot out of a see of many is not trully vindicative of an airforces fighting ability.

It's the standard that the Nato Countries maintain as a whole by average that makes us the best in the world. Isreal is no Slouch. They will pick up a 18 Year old kid and in 2 years turn him into the most dangerous and skilled pilot in the sky. Why is this possible? Simple they will never rest on their laurels. They have no standard. Success is everything to them. This is the same attitude of the US Aviation Community. We only take the best and we maintain the best. An average US Aviator is Better than 90% of foriegn governments counterparts.

It takes a great deal of time to be confident and build the eye, Brain and Muscle memory to be succesful in a fighter.

It takes a great deal of time to be a Combat quality pilot. It requires going at each others throats constantly.

"<---Jesus Powers My Hotrod---<<<"

"My purpose in life does not include a hankering to charm society."

Edited by - MrMudd on Mar 31 2003 05:23 AM

[quote]


The long and the short, is where does the truth lie? I understand the loyalty within certain air fighting communities, and that it is often aggresive in nature.........But in this case, the two schools of thought are completely polar opposite of one another--------

The old adage of fighter pilots make movies and attack pilots make history. Then we take a good airframe and start hanging ordnance off it.

The MIC is pissing away billions on NMD, Osprey, JSF, Raptor, etc. This has drained needed bucks to upgrade our actual frontline aircraft and weapons systems.

Then you have the infighting in the services between bomber Vs fighter pilots. Attack Vs Fighter jocks.

Is their a John Boyd type left to figure it out??

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As far as rateing Iranian and Iraqi pilots as first rate is a slapstick Joke, To use their performance as gageing the f14's ability......

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I guess I used that example because the F-14 in U.S. Navy service has had very limited combat opportunities........4 kills over second rate airframes (Mig-23/SU-22) and 1 helo confirmed, several botched sparrow intercepts against Iranian F-4's is about it. It was probably not a very good example, Iran used to mantain a very high profiency level, before the Shah was deposed, and his residual military talent purged.........

So what you are telling me Mudd, is had you decided to chose the Naval Aviator career path, and ended up as a 14 driver, you would be on the other end of the argument?

Jack, whats your opinon on this subject? You seem to have some time under your belt, judging from your verbage.



If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>


So what you are telling me Mudd, is had you decided to chose the Naval Aviator career path, and ended up as a 14 driver, you would be on the other end of the argument?

Jack, whats your opinon on this subject? You seem to have some time under your belt, judging from your verbage.----------

Navy is going to be stuck with the Hornet Variants for decades. If you want to fly, Air Force will have many more options. Navy is only running 70 birds per carrier in the Iraq War too.

Navy is still stuck in the Cold War and blue water Navy. They love those fast attack subs that cost well over 1.3 billion tax bucks. They don't want to consider a non nuke powered sub that does the job almost as well for about 1/3 or less of a nuke boat.

The big push in all services now is SpecOps. Some big bucks has been headed their way in the last several years.

Probably best to wait for lessons learned in the Iraq War. Although I think there might be a move for building more robust weapons systems and less high tech. Hard to beat a Hog for CAS, those damn Apaches are taking serious hits, and @ 20 million taxbucks plus per Longbow copy they aren't cheap. Depending on the duration of the War, some big bucks will be needed to replace and overhaul ate up equipment. Hercs are already headed to the boneyard because of corrosion. J model Herc is pretty slow off the mark.

Airlift for damn sure is hurting. 141s are being parked at DM also.

Jack



If your not having fun, your not doing it right!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This overemphasis on SpecOps and rapid air deployability is a BIG mistake.

They are both very important, but they are coming at the cost of our real muscle, the US Army Heavy Divisions.

We go too nuts configuring ourselves for these brushfire wars, and we are going to be in big trouble if we suddenly find ourselves having to fight China(via Korea or Taiwan), India, Russia, or maybe even the EU.

Our heavy divisions need to be maintained and continually modernized.

"I Am Infantry...Follow Me!!!"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> So what you are telling me Mudd, is had you decided to chose the Naval Aviator career path, and ended up as a 14 driver, you would be on the other end of the argument?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Chad you know that Naval Aviation had always been my goal, as a young Enlisted Marine reservist. I did all the NROTC and PLC had to offer. Even earned my Private Single Engine land licence in the ROTC Program. But it wasnt until I was exposed to a More diverse aviation fraternity that I was Swayed to the USAF side of the house.

I did halfway through my USAF Flying Career exchange with a Marine F/A-18D (AW) unit for 8 months. I had a Great Deal of Growth and learning from that community. But in the end MY suspicions as a 20 year old Graduateing College was the same as the time I did the exchange. Naval and Marine Corpse aviation is living in the 70's. They have a very narrow path. A small unit base and very poor educational warfighting opportunities. In TPS I had the opportunity again to visit the Navy side of the House. Its nice to work in someone elses shoes and see how they do buisness.

Im not dogging the F14 Community. They make do with what they have. Politicians procure our aircraft...

Haveing said all of this. The fact of the matter is that the F14A has lived well past its prime. the F14D is doing well but its days are numbered. The downscaled navy and budget is going to kill the f14 Program all together. Hornets and the JSF is all that is going to be left.

Need to let the 60's Naval Force projection strategies go. The world is not like it was 30 years ago. Everything is joint these days. The idea of being a Clippers fan vs the Lakers or vice doesnt fly anymore. everything is joint and integrated in the digital battlespace.

What is needed is tactical strike mulitrole aircraft....And Pilots trained in this mindset. Your manpower and warfighting potentional is trippled.. bye bye a-6 crew, bye bye f14 crews. What you have left is a fully capable pilot core with 1-2 multirole aircraft that can keep the pressure on our advesaries without having ,logistics, maintenence, aircrew, special gear shortfalls.

To think in the 60's specialist mindset is highly unproductive for the Navy.

Airforce has a long list of specialist aircraft it has dumped in the past 13 years.

"<---Jesus Powers My Hotrod---<<<"

"My purpose in life does not include a hankering to charm society."

[quote]
Naval and Marine Corpse aviation is living in the 70's. They have a very narrow path. A small unit base and very poor educational warfighting opportunities. ------

All services are living in the Cold War Era. The leaders grew up in this era.

Jack

Very good dialog guys, Thank you...I will respond later when I have more time.


If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

I may be drifting to another tangent here, but are we in danger of "lowering the bar" from a technoliogical standpoint, out of cost cutting, and the lighter, more flexiable argument. Why not keep the F-22 in limited number, with the ability to ramp it up to be mass-produced if need be. India, China, and others are openly criticizing, not disagreeing with what the view as a "unilateral" invasion on Iraq. It seems to me that we have almost reached the point of needing to keep a "fast response military" tp deal with hotspots, and a two theatre capable military on a"combat ready" standby to deal with threats like North Korea, etc............I am typing this on the cusp, while I am grabbing lunch, but things seem to be in the process of shifting.

BTW I appreciated your candor Mudd in your previous responses.
-Chad

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Navy is still stuck in the Cold War and blue water Navy. They love those fast attack subs that cost well over 1.3 billion tax bucks. They don't want to consider a non nuke powered sub that does the job almost as well for about 1/3 or less of a nuke boat.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I see your point Jack; however, the Navy decommed the Nuke CG's for exactly that reason. Admiral Rickover created a "nuclear bueracratic mess" when he shaped the Navy his way, this not only affected the Dolphins, but much of the surface fleet as well, I think with the emergence of the Ticonderoga class CG's and the Arleigh Burke Class DDG's with gas turbine powerplants, that are damn efficient and capable you will see a "littoral" Navy, backed by the traditional "blue water" fleet (eg) Fast Attacks, Boomers, CVN's.................All we need is a warplane that can do both jobs, not just the "littoral" fighting. F-35 will work, some sort of F/A-22N would be ideal, remember, the Navy invented the strike fighter.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

[quote]
I may be drifting to another tangent here, but are we in danger of "lowering the bar" from a technoliogical standpoint, out of cost cutting, and the lighter, more flexiable argument. Why not keep the F-22 in limited number, with the ability to ramp it up to be mass-produced if need be. ---------

F-22 is a FRED and probably go along the lines of the F-117.

The Navy very quietly retired it's nuke surface ships, except for the Carriers. I gotta remember the exact figures, but a Nuke carrier isn't much faster than a conventional powered one because of the support required of the battle group. The biggie was less cost for conventional power. Now you have these podded electric motors on cruise ships that are really awesome.

Iraq War will be a real lesson learner. I just hope we learn them.

Jack

"The only lesson history has taught is that man forgets all historys lessons".

Sad, but usually true.

"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"

Nimitz Class CVN's are a 30+ Knot ship.........Ship Speed is a two fold factor for CV's.....Wind over the flight deck, for launches, traps........Rapid Trasit, for a foward presence.

Carriers can move away from the battle group when need be, with the fast attack SSN's to move quickly. I think you will always see a Nuclear Powered CV force.

Ironicaly the USS Enterprise CVN-65 is the fastest ship in the fleet, if not the world [ large dispacement warship]

Because of this, the Boomers, fast Attacks, and CV's will always be nuclear. Rickover had many vices, but what he did in regard to Nuke Carriers and Boomers was historic.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

[quote]


Carriers can move away from the battle group when need be, with the fast attack SSN's to move quickly. I think you will always see a Nuclear Powered CV force.

---------------

You will never see a Carrier without other surface ships nearby. They need the firepower to protect them. Let alone the support ships.

Rickover's main problem was he became a dictator. Not well known is the USS Nautlius damn near sank because of some vibration problems. Took a major refit to fix it. It's still classified after 50 years almost of what the problem was.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Ironicaly the USS Enterprise CVN-65 is the fastest ship in the fleet, if not the world [ large dispacement warship]
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Marginally OT, If they were still in commission, would not the Iowa class Battleships be faster?


"The First Rule in a Gunfight: Have a gun. If you violate this rule, no other rules apply" Jeff Cooper

[quote]

Marginally OT, If they were still in commission, would not the Iowa class Battleships be faster?

-------------

No, nuke powered carriers can get up and go. Bringing the BBs back was a bad move and costly too. 50 year old powerplants, high maintenance, old powder, older shells, etc. Recall the turret that blew on the Iowa. Best guess was a green crew, old powder and probably an overram.

Jack

The USS Wisconson attained 35.5 Kts in trials.

That is significantly faster than any documented speed ANY nuke powered carrier has ever attained.

During ODS 1, the USS Wisconson was escorting the Constellation battlegroup(?), and they recieved orders to "proceed to the gulf at the fastest possible speed".

In doing so(through a typhoon no less), the Wisky left the battlegroup in her dust, and got to the Gulf 2 days ahead of the rest of the battlegroup.

In rough seas the Iowa's are the fastest surface ships ever built.

"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"

Edited by - m21 sniper on Apr 04 2003 2:03 PM

[quote]
The USS Wisconson attained 35.5 Kts in trials.

That is significantly faster than any documented speed ANY nuke powered carrier has ever attained.

--------

Documented. Kinda of like our subs never exceed 40 knots or SR-71s don't cruise much above FL800.

A BB could take some hits and keep on trucking. A Carrier is a lot more fragile and needs those Aegis ships for firepower.

Jack

Well we got to go by what is publicly documented, right?

LOL, for all we know the Nimitz CVN's do 40 kts. Then again, for all we know the do what is listed

"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"

Chadrewsky
I do not know which is the better of the two planes but I feel that the 15E and the 14D are with in a few percentage points of each other. I have an Air Force bias but I could live with 3000 or 4000 F-14D and if anyone did make a better fighter then us then we could always use the Phoenixes to knock down the door. I picked out the F-14 because the Navy needs a plane to land on it ships so the Air Force would have to live with the F-14. Plus I feel the Air Force need to learn to land on carries anyway. I feel this is like the F-4 being use by all the services back in the 60s thought the 80’.
I also feel that this war which I do support will run the clock out on most of our 30 to 50 year old air craft like the C-5, C-141, H-47, H-53, H-46, KC-135, B-52, plus others. Twenty-one B-2 at over 150 billions is just not the way to go.

M21 Sniper
“This overemphasis on SpecOps and rapid air deployability is a BIG mistake.
They are both very important, but they are coming at the cost of our real muscle, the US Army Heavy Divisions.
We go too nuts configuring ourselves for these brushfire wars, and we are going to be in big trouble if we suddenly find ourselves having to fight China(via Korea or Taiwan), India, Russia, or maybe even the EU.
Our heavy divisions need to be maintained and continually modernized.”
Yes Sniper, I also feel it is a very big mistake you can’t control ground from the air or with a dozen SperOps if there is no one on your side in the local area. We do need the SperOps but I would like to have some 15 to 20 heavy divisions and if we can not move then fast enough by boat then build about 500 C-5s or so.

EzyJack
“The Navy very quietly retired it's nuke surface ships, except for the Carriers. I gotta remember the exact figures, but a Nuke carrier isn't much faster than a conventional powered one because of the support required of the battle group. The biggie was less cost for conventional power. Now you have these podded electric motors on cruise ships that are really awesome.”
This has always annoyed me because you need OIL to run these new ships and you need to fuel them with tanker and the tanker have to be protected so you need more ships which guess what we are not building!

Irregardless of Mudd's well informed opinion, the flight profile of the AIM-54C+ leads me to belive the F-14D would have a huge BVR advantadge when operating in their element... over the water.
With no terrain features to hide behind, or bounce radar echoes off of, the APG-71 would pick up the Eagle at a hell of a long way off.

With the standard load of 4 AIM-54's, 2 AIM-7's, and 2 AIM-9's the F-14D(or D's) could salvo fire their Pheonixes from a hell of a distance, WAY outside the range of AMRAAM.

That means that if Pheonix scored just a 25% kill rate(and it has a HUGE lethal zone) it will be able to defeat any opponent it can see at the extreme ranges Phoenix offers.

Because Pheonix flys a parabolic trajectory to 100,000 feet and stays passive in a steep terminal dive at Mach 5+ it is probably the hardest AAM in the world to put eyeballs on, IMHO.

At 3000+ Knots(about 70% FASTER than a high velocity rifle bullet) and because the motor is burned out thereby giving no smoke trail, the Phoenix is invisible to the naked eye.
Because it's seeker does not activate until a range of 20,000yds, and because it is so fast, the Pheonix will give very little RWR warning, and as i said, is invisible to the naked eye in it's terminal dive.

That flight profile coupled with a 17G manuevering threshold and a massive 135lb controlled fragmentation warhead should be an extremely lethal combonation.

Of course i am but a lowly ex grunt, so what do i know

"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"

Tisk Tisk...

Another poorly informed Grunt that knows nothing about radar or a Weapons abilty to achieve a Kill....

Ive proved over a dozens of times how poor and how easy an F14 Can be defeated. They never could understand why I always stayed invisible to them and ended up on their six.

Just because the road ahead is clear at Low/Med/High altitudes doesnt mean you will have a perfect picture.

You may want to ask a couple F14 crews why Russian Migs had intercepted them, undetected and shadowed them while the F14s were harrassing the bear.....

Radar is ridiculously easy to defeat if you know how it works and know how the advesary is working his sensors.

All Westinghouse radars have one critical flaw, that was learned by the Russians many moons ago. These same lessons are taught to students. However they never pay attention to that bit of knowledge.

Weapons Instructors like me. Enjoy beating up arrogant opinions above as stated by you and every dumb driver that was over confident in his weapons systems.


Whats the purpose of putting a missile in a place I was never at.

It's ok Snipe you can continue to spew your BS. You still dont know what the hell your talking about.




"<---Jesus Powers My Hotrod---<<<"

"My purpose in life does not include a hankering to charm society."

Its all about tactics......
Now can I ask this Mudd......Where you ever pitted against the "D" with the IRST gear, or passive search and track capabilities......All I know is what I read, and hear, but the Mig suprise isn't a exclusive to the F-14 community. I have been told, and I have read that the 14 has probably the best "counter stealth" abaility of any US fighter, in regards to IRST, Sheer Radar horsepower.........and Aviator/RIO tactics...........Just food for thought.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

It's OK Mudd, i pretty well expected you'd unload.

I can take it

And remember, for every USAF Zoomie that claims Pheonix blows there is a USN Squid that says it don't.

I've talked to lots of both.

Also, as Chadrewski stated, the Phoenix C+ can be launched passively solely in the IRST, or they can link their radars to triangulate targets at extremely long ranges.

Sure, radar can be beat, but so can the one in the Beagle, right(particularly since the APG-71 is an IMPROVED version of the APG-70 of the F-15E)?



"US Army Snipers- One shot, one kill"