WT Forums

I know that there flew one Tomcat in the US in colours of Iran. It was a never deliverd airplane. Now the Tomcats (almost) are gone, I want to know where this plane is gone to. A museum or is it gonna rotten away on a graveyard for aiplanes?

Salute
Dutchy

Termites do it in the dark!
(47FS Barksdale afb)

_________________
73-1664

Actually they were delivered to Iran . I think I am reading you correctly. iran did fly them and succesfully against Iraq. As a matter of fact they are the only ones to shoot a Pheonix in anger. I guess I didnt read it correctly. If there is a Tommy in Iranian colors that didnt get delivered, it is an A model and will likely rot away.

Oh yeah.......Well I'm a tomcat guy and your a homo !

_________________
YGBSM !

Here an article about that Tomcat Hawg 166, and I am sure it was flying in the US.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Gulf War I: The war between Iraq and Iran

In 1974 and 1975 the Shah of Iran had ordered some 80 F-14As as the only foreign customer for the Tomcat. The Iranian F-14s should counter the penetration and overflight of Soviet MiG-25 Foxbats over Iranian territory since the IIAF (Imperial Iranian Air Force) had no other match for the MiG-25. Delivery of the F-14s lasted from early 1976 to July 1978 including some 270 AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. The 80th F-14 was not delivered due to the revolution in Iran and overthrow of the Shah. From early 1979 onwards no more spare parts were delivered to the new Islamic Republic of Iran and the Navy and Grumman technicians had to be replaced by foreign technicians. A great set-back in the Iranian F-14 programm.
On 22 September 1980 Iraqi troops invaded Iran to occupy the region of the Schatt Al Arab and some strategic islands in the Persian Gulf. These areas in Iran include some rich oil fields. During the wartime the conflict escalated and both sides commited atrocities by bombing civilians with nerve and poison gas. Not war, but murder.
During the war, the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) was only able to keep a mere seven to ten F-14s operational at any time. A lack of tires and brakes kept most of the F-14s on the ground. Additionally, by 1986 Iran ran out of AIM-54 missiles and from then on the only available armament were AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. Therefore the F-14 was often used in the airborne radar warning role covered sometimes by F-4Es or F-5Es. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-combat.htm#war1


Termites do it in the dark!
(47FS Barksdale afb)

_________________
73-1664

After the Shah was deposed, the 80th, and last Tomcat to be deliverd a block 85 F-14A(GR)(BuNo 160378) was seized by our governemnt, placed in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB. It was later refurbished, brought up to USN F-14A standards and used at PMTC at Point Mugu CA.

The Iran F-14 purchase was an interesting chapter of the F-14 development. It could be argued that the loan the Iranian Bank of Melli secured for Grumman saved the program from the brink of cancelation. Grumman was in dire straights from a fiscal standpoint and and the F-14A was recieving alot of bad press for its teething problems, and cost overuns, the Iranian purchase was a much needed shot in the arm for Grumman in 1975.

Actually Hawg, not to conterdict what you said, but a VF-213 F-14D fired a AIM-54C at maximum range against an Iraqi Mig-25, while patroling the no-fly zone in 1999. It is said the evading Mig-25 burned its engines up fleeing the Phoenix, whether or not that is true, I don't know.

The post revolution Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force actually fared pretty good with the Tomcat. Though the combat record is not well documented.







Edited by - chadrewsky on Oct 21 2005 5:34 PM

Yeah ..........well tell me I'm waiting .................did he bag the bugger or did he miss ? Come on tell me.

Oh yeah.......Well I'm a tomcat guy and your a homo !

_________________
YGBSM !

I quote thee John Spocoli a.d. 1981

Those guys are fags!

Didn't Spocoli end up as a AO-3 on the Connie or something?

I cant picture Sean Penn being anything in the military but a BB stacker would be realy funny.

Oh yeah.......Well I'm a tomcat guy and your a homo !

_________________
YGBSM !

While we are on the subject...Who would have thought that Iran would be able to keep their Tomcats flying in service longer than the USN...

VF-31 & VF-213 are now on the Tomcats last USN deployment with the Teddy Roosevelt. Atleast they are going out in style, the Roosevelt deployed with two F-14 squadrons, for the first time in some time. And probably the only time that two squadrons of upgraded strike/fighter F-14D's where on the same boat, probably the most capable CVW since the A-6E was retired in the middle of the last decade.


Not only an end of an era, but an end of our CVN BG's ability to autonomously prosucte deep strike, power projection air strikes and maritime air superiority tasks. Atleast untill when/if the F-35C reaches the fleet.

Damn bugs!



Edited by - chadrewsky on Oct 22 2005 10:18 PM

Yeah Damn Bugs ! Tommies by choice Hornets by mandate !

"By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a peerage or Westminster Abbey !" Nelson the Immortal Memory

_________________
YGBSM !

I was browsing on the web, and came across two websites that I have had bookmarked for some time. The first is a website by a former Imperial Iranian Air Force Major, whom was purged when the Islamic Fudementalist regime seized control from the Shah in 1979. It lends and intersting perspective towards integrating the F-14 into service durring the Shah's regime.

The second is by a gentleman from Austria named Tom Cooper. His deductions indicate a huge number of F-14 kills in the Iran/Iraq war, which seems to conterdict to some degree what the USN and US government have stated regarding the effectiveness of the F-14 in service with the post Shah regime.

It is worth noting however, that due to situations like the Iran/Contra affair, the beligerence of the Ayatolla towards western democracies, and the fact that the F-14 is such a complex weapons system, that there would be a bias on our part to discredit the ability of Iran to use their F-14A force with such effectiveness. I believe the truth may lie somwhere in between the official U.S. stance, and the latter, though Tom Coopers literature is an interesting read, nevertheless...



http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F14/f14.html





http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_212.shtml

Nice info chadrewsky<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Here is some crazzzzzzzzzzzzzy info about the tomcat.<img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>

here is a downloadable NAVAIR Manual at the following site.

It is an 90mb (approx) pdf <img src=newicons/anim_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> so broadband is desirable if not required…


http://www.patricksaviation.com/files.p ... view&id=14


yeah its big!

Thank me latter.<img src=newicons/bounce.gif border=0 align=middle>

==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Though I Fly Through the Valley of
Death ... I Shall Fear No Evil. For I
am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing!
(Sign over the entrance to the old SR-71 operating base
Kadena,
Japan).... I Shall Fear No Evil. For I
am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing!
(Sign over the entrance to the old SR-71 operating base


<img src=newicons/smiley_salute.gif border=0 align=middle>

If this is the file I'm thinking of, the U.S. Navy requested it be removed from the internet 1 or 2 years ago.
I can also say that comparing numbers between the F-14D manual and the Super Hornet manual doesnt make the 14D look very good in comparison to the SH-E single seater. F-14D squeaks out a bit more speed ( very little ) and that's about it. With missles and no external fuel the SH even beats it in range.

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

Edited by - boomer on Nov 21 2005 3:36 PM

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I don't know how much credence I would give that data...

The F-14D is a Mach 2.4 capable aircraft, and its internal fuel fraction is considerably higher than the F-18E, advances in fuel effiency notwithstanding, the GE-F-110 engines are pretty recent technology. A couple of things to consider: Variable geometry gives the F-14D a much better, best cruise speed. The F-14D carries the bulk of its ordanance drag free between the engine nacelles. The word from the fleet is that even the F-18E/F still screams for more fuel, often having to hit the tanker more times than not, with this day & age with our USN's current littoral doctrin, the F-14 rarely needs to tank.

RTFM as the saying goes.
Every source including the manual says the D tops out at Mach 1.88. That manual also apparently claims the D is limited to only 6.5 Gs.



A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

Edited by - boomer on Nov 22 2005 9:42 PM

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The Mach 1.88 airspeed, and 6.5 g limits where operational restrictions placed on the aircraft to squeeze as much service life as possiable from the airframes. I do not need to get into the reasons why, but...In wartime and high temp excercises these restrictions where obviously lifted.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The Mach 1.88 airspeed, and 6.5 g limits where operational restrictions placed on the aircraft to squeeze as much service life as possiable from the airframes. I do not need to get into the reasons why, but...In wartime and high temp excercises these restrictions where obviously lifted.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't know about the airspeed, but the g limit looks like the typical Navy requirement of the late '60s. At that time the Navy had a 6.5g limit while the AirFarce one was 7.33g. The A-10 is a 7.33g design. Of course, the astute student of aircraft design requirements might notice that I have not mentioned at what weight this requirement is enforced. It is highly likely that the weight definitions that accompany the g's make them roughly equivalent. Even if they are not equivalent, the weight saved in the airframe with a .83g reduction in strength may translate into an extra .5g sustained in the dogfight arena (e.g. 4.0g goes to 4.5g sustained @ .9 Mach, 30000 ft). I would go further on the comment that the restrictions are not a "hard deck". I don't know why, but pilots can not seem to limit the g's on their own without help from some flight contol electronics. For instance, I have seen A-10 fleet tracking data that says excursions above 10g are not uncommon at light weights. It is possible they are so busy they do not know they have exceeded g limits for a second. That is not to say that this practice should be condoned, only that it does not have catastrophic consequences. Regarding the airspeed thing, I don't think fighter tactics were making too much use of supersonic speed before the F-22, so the 2.4-1.88M difference may not be significant as far as military capability is concerned. It probably has a big effect on engine life, windscreen/radome/leading edges repairs etc. The reason is that there is a thermal "mountain" that starts getting steep at Mach 2 and is a real problem for the materials tactical fighters are made of at M=2.4 . It sounds practical to attempt to hold the speed down below 2.0 if it can help maintenence & repair. That goes for the F-18 too.

It ain't the heat it's the humility.

_________________
????

Even the 6.5 restriction for the F-14D is only at 50,000lb and below.
The above Mach 2+ capability apparently went out the door when the glove vanes were removed, dont know how much the engine change had to do with top speed reduction either.

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Even the 6.5 restriction for the F-14D is only at 50,000lb and below.
The above Mach 2+ capability apparently went out the door when the glove vanes were removed, dont know how much the engine change had to do with top speed reduction either. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The glove vanes were locked shut on all F-14A's in the mid 1980's, and they still retained their Mach 2.38 dash capability. The retractable glove vains were later deleted on the F-14D all together, this had no real effect on the high mach number performance of the aircraft, that is exactly why they were deleted, as were other initial design feautres that were deemed "dead weight". The mach 1.88 is striclty an operational restriction, not a capability limit, as is the 6.5 G limit. Stress can probably explain all of this much better, and if I re-read his deductions, he probably already has.

I am not sure if the DFC upgrades in the 1990's had anything to do with the high speed performance of the F-14, but have read that it made a tremendous difference in the low speed realm. Either way its all for not, the F-14 provided the fleet with maritime air supremacy for 3 decades...After the Teddy Roosevelt returns from its current deployment the Tomcat will call it a career.


<img src=newicons/smiley_salute.gif border=0 align=middle>

Here are the design specs for Tomcat A through D




http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm





Edited by - chadrewsky on Nov 23 2005 4:22 PM

The F110 engine limit was due to several issues if i am not mistaken from what a former FST told me:

1. The variable ramps were locked out the last stage when going near M2.0. For efficiency, the compressor face needs to see subsonic air. There was no need to go over M2.0 anymore. As Chad mentioned, M1.88 isn't the absolute limit of the airframe. It's NATOPS speed limit. Several times the F15 speed limit was changed and during the mid 90s it was down as low at M1.5 due to some incidents. I don't know if the current limit is still at M1.81.

2. There were delaminating issues in the intake tract hence why the debunked Poland contract was in the works.

3. GE engines in AB operation were prone to blow out when going over the Mach at long sustained periods. F-14B/D and F-16s with the GE engines have this issue.


_____________________________________________

The F14 was designed as a 7.33/7.5G airframe. Take a look at the VFX requirements.

Glove vanes have nothing to do with engine performance but it was designed to destablize the aircraft above M1.2 speeds. It could be enabled automatically or manually. If the latter the wing sweeps had to to be over 30-35 degrees.

_______________________________________


SH and Tomcat

The SH needs to hit the tanker more than the Tomcat. The SH needs more fuel to either come close, match or surpass the Tomcat's combat radius.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The F14 was designed as a 7.33/7.5G airframe. Take a look at the VFX requirements. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Look where?

It ain't the heat it's the humility.

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The F14 was designed as a 7.33/7.5G airframe. Take a look at the VFX requirements. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Look where?

It ain't the heat it's the humility.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Use a search engine or look in the library.