Talk:Grumman F-14 Tomcat/Archive 1

Changing reality

--Wiarthurhu 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)--Wiarthurhu 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I found who and when changed history, as the F-14 article has clearly stated that the F-14 was designed to be a maneuverable air superiority fighter until this edit, which has no comments.

Revision as of 05:01, 14 March 2006 (edit) Mmx1 (Talk | contribs) (Last squadron is still in service; just finished last combat tour) ? Older edit Revision as of 05:18, 14 March 2006 (edit) Mmx1 (Talk | contribs) (?Characteristics) Newer edit ?

Deleted -

The Tomcat was intended as an uncompromising air superiority fighter and interceptor, charged with defending carrier battle groups against Soviet Navy aircraft armed with cruise missiles. It carried the Hughes AN/AWG-9 long-range radar originally developed for the F-111B, capable of detecting bomber-sized targets at ranges exceeding 160 km (100 miles), tracking 24 targets and engaging six simultaneously.

The F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation.

Added

Though designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability, the F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation. This was a consequence of the requirement for low landing speeds.

There is no way to verify the accuracy of the changed statments.

It is too bad that it took until June to correct this error. At the moment, it is impossible to correct this error since any statement to the effect that the F-14 ever was or was intended to be agile will be mysteriously be immediately erased. What does the F-14 community think that this article, which is duplicated across dozens of pages, omits air superiority or discounts agility as a design requirement? --Wiarthurhu 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you format your text or just provide the diff link? E.g. like this

Yes, I did a major rewrite on the article in March. The article before sounded like a piece of fanfiction

• "uncompromising air superiority fighter" well, it compromised in a lot of areas, including t/w ratio, turn rate, and size
• "most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation" blatantly untrue, it's the least maneuverable of the teen series.

These claims are not backed up by independent sources and in fact they say the opposite. In addition, I have talked to Naval Aviators who back up the view that the F-14 was an interceptor first and foremost that adapted (quite well, in fact) to other missions, not this fantasy that it was the king of ACM. While not a citable source (personal interviews), it confirms what the reliable sources say. Keep in mind there are lots of fan sites and they aren't considered reliable sources. --Mmx1 00:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

POV consensus

To avoid edit wars, the following POV will be enforced in this article:

• The F-14 was not, is not, and was never meant to be an Air superiority fighter
• The F-14 was not, is not, and was never meant to be a high maneuverable fighter.
• This POV will be enforced on all WP articles which contain the F-14.

--Wiarthurhu 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The F-14 was not, is not, and was never meant to be an Air superiority fighter
• The F-14 was not, is not, and was never meant to be a high maneuverable fighter.

Since it was designed for fleet defense with no emphasis on a turning visual range fight, no, it was not intended to be a highly maneuverable fighter. And no, it is in fact not a highly maneuverable fighter, but it performs pretty well for an interceptor, some of which have turn radiuses measured in kilometers. And hence it follows that it is not an Air superiority sighter.

• This POV will be enforced on all WP articles which contain the F-14.

These facts, back up with reliable sources will not be deleted in favor of some fictional fantasy that the F-14 is the king of ACM and pwns all others in a dogfight. --Mmx1 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

F-14 was not meant to be a dogfighter??

Am I the only guy that's shaking his head over the assertion that only exists in the Wikipedia that the F-14 was not designed with maneuverability as the primary design goal? We're way over the 3 reverts rule, I have provided several references, the fighter community was shocked at the dismal combat performance of american fighters (which was also the reason for Red Flag and Top Gun) the wing area was increased for agility, the Navy did a study to find the F-111 could not dogfight, and the Navy and USAF were essentially competing in creating a fighter that could be a better dogfighter than the F-4. This is not only a minor error, it negates the most important reason for creating the F-14 in the first place. He still has provided even one citation that states in so many words the F-14 was not designed to be more maneuverable than the F-4--Wiarthurhu 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the notion that "X was not a design criteria" need to be stated explicitly in the literature? Isn't its ommission in a list of "design criteria for the F-14" sufficient citation? Do I also need to find an explicit quote that the F-14 was not designed for stealth, CAS, recce, or SAR, lest you insert those as well? You have no citations for the purported notion that the F-14 was designed primarily for a subsonic, turning fight. However, I have two that discuss the design of the F-14 (MATS and globalsecurity) and glaringly omit maneuverability/agility/WVR/turning fight, or any similar term. Moreover, the Rand paper cited below, explicitly states that the F-14 was designed for the fleet air defense mission, NOT air superiority, and a careful reading of the piece indicates that it's indicating exactly the opposite of your selective quotations.

Moreover, by saying that maneuverability is the "the most important reason for creating the F-14" you demonstrate that you've bought into the Top Gun meme of the F-14 as a dogfighter. That is grossly wrong. The most important reason for creating the F-14 was to carry the AWG-9 radar and 6 AIM-54 missiles at a high speed to shoot Russian bombers before they could launch their ASM's. That was its raison d'etre, and while it's found a litany of other roles (namely recce, precision strike, and CAS) to maintain its relevance after the death of the Soviet Union, only in fiction has the F-14 become a master of the WVR realm.

The movie Top Gun is largely responsible for this unfortunate meme, which is evident today in the widespread popular lamenting of the passing of the "last true Navy fighter", while overlooking its significant deficiencies and true role in the Navy through its lifetime.

Though Top Gun (the school) corrected training deficiencies that overcame many of the aircraft's shortcomings, it remained large, underpowered (even after the D upgrades, relative to its counterparts in the teen series), and simply not as maneuverable as its teen series counterparts. It was regularly beat in aggressor training by smaller, lighter fighters with superior low-speed performance, even the Vietnam-era A-4, which had superior performance at low speeds. The F-14 was simply not designed for a turning knife fight. As a side effect of its swing-wings, it was decent and could hold its own, unlike other interceptors (e.g. the Mig-25, Tornado IDS, etc). But don't make the mistake of assuming it was either designed for the turning fight or that it excelled at it. --Mmx1 05:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I just replayed my recording of Modern Marvels "A new set of requirements: Mach 2 speed, GREAT MANEUVERABILITY, powerful radar and the ability to carry a variety of weapons". Entirely consistent with all the other sources, which indicated that the Navy need an airplane which could dogfight with a Mig-17, had better performance in air combat. You have a serious POV problem, and you are the only person in any media to claim that the absence of the word "maneuverability" on an open source web page means you can claim that it was not a design objective. If you read any book, any magazine, or any video program on the topic, they all concur. The F-111 would have been sufficient a Phoenix platform, the weight and carrier issues were just an excuse to move on to the F-14 when they realized the mistake of buying an airplane incapable of shooting down other fighters. I don't know where all the other people are, but please look at just one real book on the topic, you can't rely on that one web page, which doesn't even state what you claim it say it does. The F-14 WAS the first of the next generation of fighters that cared about maneuverability. You cannot seriously think that RAND included the F-14 in a paper on a new generation of maneuverable fighters and conclude that the F-14 was completely different from the other 3 fighters in that it was not designed to address the problem of MiG-17s downing supersonic US fighters. That would be like saying Top Gun was not set up to address the problem of dogfighting, since the F-14's mission is interception with a Phoenix, a mission that the F-14 almost never performed. The F-4, F-8, F-11, F-100, 101, 102, 104, 105, any maneuverability WAS an accident. I have read countless books and articles on the topic AS IT WAS HAPPENING, not just web surfing. I have models of the F-14 dating from 1972.--Wiarthurhu 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You say all the media says so; so why do none of the reliable online media (fan sites excluded) say ANYTHING even remotely similar? I will gladly take globalsecurity/FAS/RAND over any Popular Mechanics/Aviation Leak speculation. As a fourth source, how about aerospace web, written by aerospace engineers and scientists: [1]

Among these are variable-sweep wings that allow optimum efficiency throughout the plane's flight envelope. Minimum sweep is used during low-speed flight to reduce takeoff and landing speeds while maximum sweep reduces drag during supersonic flight. In combination with its large fuel capacity, varying the wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and endurance in its primary air patrol and escort mission.

I don't see maneuverability or any synonym thereof in there.

The RAND paper, if you bothered to read the intro, is a study of the Design Process, not of fighters. Hence, the teen series is treated together because their design processes were intricately linked due to the numerous attempts at joint programs. However, it also states explicitly In particular, the two Air Force fighters and the F/A-18 represent a substantial change from many of the trends evident in previous fighter modernization decisions. Uh, where's the F-14? Guess it doesn't represent a significant change from previous trends. --Mmx1 06:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How about asking an F-14 pilot instead of relying on 3rd party information written by people who also don't know what they're talking about? TOPGUN actually exists, it's not just a movie, and they trained F-14 pilots to dogfight. F-14s were designed to dogfight, to defeat enemy aircraft, and it was more maneuverable than its predecessors, simple as that. Everyone in the Navy knows this, the notion that the F-14 was not designed to dogfight is held only by those who have no actual experience in Naval Aviation.

Organization

The current page organization seems pretty haphazard right now. Unless there's a specific template that needs to be followed for aircraft articles, I'd suggest reorganizing the article into something like this:

   * History
         o Development
         o Operational History
               + United States Navy
               + Imperial Iranian Air Force
         o F-14 in combat
   * Decommissioning of the F-14
   * Specifications (F-14D Tomcat)
   * Characteristics
   * Operators
         o 4.1 United States Navy (USN) squadrons
         o 4.2 Iranian Air Force (IRIAF) squadrons
   * F-14 in fiction and popular culture
   * Related content
   * External links
   * References

Also, I think having the list of operators is a bit superfluous/long - perhaps it should be split off into another article like List of F-14 operators or somesuch to reduce this article's length. Virogtheconq 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. Specifications are frankly not all that import and kind of pointless as performance characteristics are vague anyway. Prose should lead the article, with the specs as some sort of appendix. Have considered spinning off the operators list. --Mmx1 04:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Good point regarding starting the article with prose - I was thinking more along the lines of putting the specs in a right-justified box (like , but that's a discussion for elsewhere. And rereading the characteristics section, history is better first. I've updated the above table to reflect these; there are still a few other shuffles that I think would make the page better. IMHO the operators aren't as interesting as the specs/characteristics, and fiction/pop culture should always go last, but that's just my opinion. I also suggest integrating the F-14s in combat section as a subsection under History, since having a single paragraph does not a section make. Comments on those? Virogtheconq 05:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The "F-14's in combat" is a section pointing to the stuff I moved off; need to pare that page down as the source for Iranian combat is sketchy and we don't need to know every time it saw combat. Moved it off rather than delete it, there should be a more comprehensive summary of the combat page. Characteristics should precede specs; I'm not too sold on their importance. Wikipedia used to have side boxes but the tables were too difficult to edit and resulted in a huge blob of bad code in the beginning. I've my own problems with the popular culture part but I'll humor minor aspects. --Mmx1 05:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I was quite shocked to read about the destruction of the F-14's tooling. I think it was highly irresponsible. If a major war broke out tomorrow and the U.S. Navy needed more F-14s what would they do?

I hope what I wrote about it in the article doesn't seem like I'm having a go at Dick Cheney. While I am pretty angry about what he did (and other things he's done), I'm trying to avoid bias. Still I thought it was worth mentioning.

It's pretty sad to see the F-14s on the way out. Our government (Australia) is talking about retiring our F-111s soon. Similar problem - when they're gone, the aircraft that will replace them won't have the range or payload. (In both cases they will probably be similar aircraft - in our case F/A-18C/Ds and eventually F-35s, in the U.S. Navy's case F/A-18E/Fs and eventually F-35s). Looking at what happened during WW2, Vietnam, etc. it makes me think that if some kind of major conflict breaks out, both parties will be sorry they ditched their longest range, most capable platform. Obviously keeping the F-14s would cost some money (they'd have to be refurbished and upgraded) but I can't imagine it would have cost more than the massive amount they're spending on the F-18E/Fs which I don't think are as capable as a modern F-14 would be. You can have the greatest electronics in the world but if you can't haul the bombs to the target what good are you... and as we well know, you can't always get carriers near the conflict zone and even if you can it might not be a good idea. Tankers are all well and good but can't replace an aircraft with good fuel reserves IMO. The F-18E/F were supposed to have much better range than the F-18A/B/C/Ds but in practice (from what I've read) it seems like it hasn't really worked out. Even on paper the range/payload was never going to be anywhere near as good.

Nicholas 3rd Jan 2005

Me personally, Dick Cheney must have shares in Boeing or something, having forced the navy to choose a modified version of the Bug over the Super Tomcat and Tomcat 21 designs. I don't believe Grumman inflated their prices up. To me its just greed greed and more greed triumphing over practicality, but hey that's my opinion. Tomcat200 May 18, 2006

Seems like putting the Characteristics after Development would be better. But a couple other articles list them in a simlar order as above. -Fnlayson 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks

I like linking to vehicles or weapons like this:

• AIM-54 "Phoenix"

as opposed to this:

• AIM-54 Phoenix

Any other opinions?

Nvinen 02:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree, because that would be a massive project, and would conflict with article titles. If you can quote the MoS section that you think is relevant, then that may support your action, but otherwise, I'm opposed. Noisy | Talk 14:39, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, with one major exception. NATO reporting names are not the OKB-assigned name for a particular Soviet product, so quotes are necessary. You may note this in many of the WARPAC weapon articles, such as Mikoyan MiG-29 'Fulcrum'. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see the military listing them with quotes. -Fnlayson 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

F-14C

I thought this was to be a version supposedly developed for the Air Force? bjelleklang 12:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No, never herd that one. USAF got F-15 A/B at the time so very irrelevant to them - never herd USAF crop up anywhere really (as a potential customer). I've herd mutterings about the UK, but nothing else. Pickle 07:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Grumman did pitch a version of the Tomcat to replace the F-106 Delta Dart but alas it never happened.

Tomcat200 May 18, 2006

F-14s in fiction

I reverted the F-14D error on Macross Zero in the F-14s in Fiction section. The Macross Zero creators coined a fictional variant since their F-14 has a non-existent ECM/engine config (essentially a F-14B but with new chinpod/ECM). Please see the F-14 note on Bandai Visual's Macross Zero DVD liner notes or Bandai Visual's official Macross Zero site:

http://www.bandaivisual.co.jp/macrosszero/story2.html Egan Loo 19:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would like to expand the section on Top Gun. That film made the Tomcat the most widely known fighter plane of its time and basically put it on the map of pop culture. One half sentence does't accurately portray its impact.

Hello!

I've see your reply about the Tomcat of United Nations. Regardless those told in official site Macross Zero,There are several factors shows that should be a D variant:

1:F-16-style tailpipe converted for only F-110-engined A+/D variant. 2:Chin TCS/IR sensor pod equipped with only F-14D,there's only one TCS camera on A and A+(later B)at the same position. 3:Considerate the background of UN-War,maintance difficulity of Tomcat in even peacetime,Nature of carrier operation...........Spare parts for A/A+'re NOT impossible to be fitted with D variant just like the GRU-7 ejection seat on F-14D Prototype and in video. 4:AIM-120 Can be fired from only D variant.

I can even tell you that's prohibited for F-110-engined Tomcat to on the AB when executing carrier take-off like those in Macross Zero. These all can be found on external links in your introduction about this big fighter.Please,just click in and compare following pictures with those shows on Macross Zero official site before revert my correction.

http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31ay.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31bg.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14d31ga.htm http://www.topedge.com/alley/images/f14d/f14dpd.htm -61.229.163.80

To address each issue above:

• In the Macross Zero's fictional story, the fictional F-14A+2 has the "tailpipe."
• In the Macross Zero's fictional story, the fictional F-14A+2 has the chin dual sensor pod.
• At the risk of repeating, Macross Zero is a fictional story set in September of 2008. In the real world, all F-14 variants will be impossible to maintain in late 2008. According to creator Shoji Kawamori, he incorporated the F-14 in the fictional world of Macross Zero because he likes the F-14 fighter, and he wanted to see some variant continuing to serve in a fictional future--even if it is a fictional variant.
• In the Macross Zero's fictional story, the fictional F-14A+2 can fire missiles like the AIM-120.

Incidentally, Macross Zero is fictional.

As to why the fictional F-14A+2 in Macross Zero is not the F-14D or an other real-life F-14 variant:

• The engine fairings are shorter than any real-life mass-production variant
• The ECM package combination is different from any real-life variant, including the F-14D.
• The gun has no vents, unlike the real-life F-14D and other variants.
• The creators say it is not a F-14D--notably in the DVD liner notes, the official web site, and in an interview with the main creator Shoji Kawamori in a 2004 book called appropriately enough, F-14 Tomcat.

-Egan Loo 22:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Macross F-14

The aircraft externally looks like an F-14D, considering the dual chinpod, the GE-style engine nozzles, lack of forward glove veins (A-only) when the jet goes beyond supersonic speed, and the AIM-120's. But, take a look inside the cockpit, not only the ejection seats, but the actual cockpit control panel. If you look at the F-14A/B configuration, it is the same. The D has two MFD's, one next to the other (center and right panel), F-15 style HUD, and the control stick does not have the weapon/flap selector on the left side, like the A or B. Indeed this is a fictional configuration, appearing to be a combination between A or B and D.

For F-14A Pilot Cockpit See: http://gra.midco.net/mlgould/Jet%20Fighters/F-14A%20Tomcat%20front.JPG

For F-14D Pilot Cockpit See: http://gra.midco.net/mlgould/Jet%20Fighters/F-14D%20Tomcat%20Front3.JPG

Error concerning AIM-54

It is commonly accepted that the F-14 was the only aircraft to carry the famous Phoenix missile. However this is only partially true. The F-14 is the only aircraft to actually see combat that carried this missile. One fighter (I think the YF-12) which was built as an interceptor, never purchased and eventually transmuted into the blackbird carried the Phoenix for interception purposes. However until I have verified the number of that protoype fighter I will not be editing the article to include this information.

Also I must dispute the information about the F-14's tracking abilities. While I am apart of the fly guys where the stick is built in, (JAG referance for those who don't get the joke) I have read multiple reports that the F-14 can track in fact up to two hundred signatures.(200?? where this info came from I don't know. The Phoenix System is able to track and fire on 12 targets simultaneously...12 sure..200?? Errr?) (Especially helpful when tracking say cruise missiles launched by massess of bombers at the fleet) Can anyone else verify or disupte this?

As far as the aircraft's retirement, I will agree that is saddening. However the F-14 is being retired for the following reasons.

1) The airframes are old, have always been maintenance heavy and grow more so with each flight.

2) The original design purpose of the F-14 is no longer a primary issue. As few nations now possess the capability to be a threat to US carriers, and the high number of phalanx CIWS present in a carrier task group are considered adequate to defend against the occasional missile that might get through.

3) The mated pair of the Phoenix and the Tomcat does not possess the advantage it once did considering the pairing of the F/A-18 and the AMRAAM, which when combined with the presence of an AWACS can provide nearly identical abilities. The F-14 was designed with the idea of carrying the Phoenix in mind, as a craft of the F-14's abilities would be needed to carry such a heavy weapon. Something less of a concern with the availability of the AMRAAM.

4) The Bombcat role of using the F-14 as a bomber has been usurped by the abilities of the F/A-18 E and F models.

Still the aircraft is an icon all over the world, I am sad to see it go.

In regards to the comments above...

The F-14 was the only operational fighter to employ the AIM-54 Phoenix and AWG-9 Weapon system. These two items it inherited from the unsuitable F-111B navalised TFX variant.

The YF-12 carried the AIM-47 and the ASG-18 Fire Control System for which the later weapons and radar systems used on the F-14 were derived. They were not the same!

At present there is debate as to the usefulness of the Phalanx CWIS. It's 20mm ammunition is felt to not have the stopping power despite the high rate of fire of the Vulcan cannon from which it is fired from. Hence the system is being supplanted by the Rolling Airframe Missile System, which also has its detractors.

The AEGIS System still has flaws in it that can be exploited by knowlegeable foes. In my opinion, relying on this system alone to fill in the gaps since the retirement of the Phoenix/Tomcat combo is a big mistake. The Fleet Air Defence Mission has never been obsolete or made redundant by the end of the cold war. Aircraft Carriers are still very expensive. We shall see if the Superhornet/AMRAAM/APG-79 AESA Combo is up to par.

The AWG-9 Tracks up to 24 targets and selects the 6 most dangerous to destroy, although Tomcats in operational use only carried 4 AIM-54's plus 2 Sparrows and 2 Sidewinders, as the full 6 phoenix layout was too heavy to bring back aboard ship. The only time all 6 would be carried was if it was certain that most were expended.

Range of the AWG-9 is about 241 km. Though the system was powerful enough that it can surpass this mark it was only the size of the antenna which limited it to the figure mentioned ie. Larger antenna and large power means longer range. It had the power but the antenna was not big enough for it to be utilised.

The commanding Officer of VF-31 in the F-14's final cruise, Cdr Rick La Blanche, said emphatically that the ONLY reason the F-14 Tomcat was being retired was because it cost too much to maintain. Nothing said about the Super hornet surpassing it, though the CO of VF-2 did say something of that nature but was very guarded about what he said, which is a bit unusual. Coincidentally I saw a documentary 9 years ago. It was about the USS Carl Vinson / CVW-14 and it featured then Lt La Blanche who was an A-6E Intruder Pilot on the types last cruise before its retirement. The squadron he was with was Medium attack Squadron VA-196 "Main Battery". The Squadron was disestablished upon the aircraft's retirement. At that time VF-11 and VF-31 were part of that airwing as well, and La Blanche did mention he was to transition to the Super Tomcat. He completed his 1000th trap on the final cruise, aboard Theodore Roosevelt. He is a very distinguished man indeed!

Tomcat200 May 18 2006

Iran

The part "The Iranian Air Force used their F-14As in combat constantly against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. It is estimated that during the Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988, from reports from pilots on both sides, guncamera/TISEO films, examination of wreckage, local and foreign intelligence and other sources, that on total the IRIAF F-14As scored 130 confirmed and 23 probable aerial victories. Iran launched possibly 70 to 90 AIM-54A missiles, and 60-70 of those scored. In one instance four Iraqi fighters were shot down by a single Phoenix. Twice two Iraqi fighters were destroyed with a single missile." seems like a load of nonsense. I've never read of F-14's tallying such a high kill ratio, and a single phoenix killing 4 fighters. To top that off, most Iranian Phoenix kills are unconfirmed; the only kills confirmed are by Tom Cooper, and we all know his facts are unreliable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Substantiate your critique of Tom Cooper and Fhazhad Bishops work .... If you look at his work he goes to great lengths to reference his facts, which in the context of the subject is very challenging.... Sure you can say the Iranian F-14 kill issue is debatable and contentious but making such an outlandish attack on his work.... Pickle 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Their works are heavily footnoted but not verified - 100 people independently saying I shot down a jet doesn't constitute sufficient proof for something like this where the pilots are prone to exaggeration and the temptation is high to lie when there are no witness; it is common practice to require independent verification of kill reports, which isn't given for the most of what they cite.

secondly, looking at it objectively, it's pretty outlandish. 60-70 kills out of 70-90 shots is over 66% kill ratio, which is way above Western expectations of the AIM-54's performance. It was designed to splash slow bombers and had little terminal velocity or maneuverability and could easily be evaded by fighters at range. 66% is closer to the much more modern AMRAAM's kill ratio, and even in US on Iraq conflicts (lopsided in terms of training and C4I), the kill ratios were 70-90%. The official Iranian tally was only 35; so I have trouble seeing where the other 35 are coming from.

Secondly, a single missile splashing 4 aircraft? Outrageous. If it were verifiable it'd be much more widely known than it is.

Tom cooper's book has an incisive look at a claimed kill that didn't happen. Unfortunate that the same reasons apply to most of his instances. What happens is that you launch a missile at range at a radar contact, you see it dissapear, and you claim a kill. What actually happens most of the time is that you lost track of the target.

--Mmx1 05:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK i see where your going with some of that. IMHO by the sounds of it, a lot of the kills taken by the F-14 seam to have been set up so it couldn't fail, as opposed to general combat (whatever that may be) where such opportunities may be more rare. i mean here they have expensive planes, with expensive ammo that can't be replaced - you'd only take safe shot, ie fighting conservatively, hence ratio that high.

What i was getting at is the comment in the article and in the talk, implied that the Cooper's work was complete BS, but if the guy has got articles and several books *published*, there is some credibility, especialy when contrasted against the others involved who have not provided such a detailed case - I'm not saying he's right, just the tone here is unnecessarily dismissive. Pickle 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's on the talk page, so I wouldn't sweat it. I've seen worse (look at my Talk page for an example of bad tones). --Mmx1 05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

;) no problems Pickle 07:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to Tom Cooper's book website and a review is placed there - not saying recent edit and reverts are right or worng and Tom Cooper is right or wrong - http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_445.shtml

Tom Cooper's article for Smithsonian Air & Space "Persian Cat" (September, 2006) is a condensed version of much of his previous reports but unlike his books contains only information that the Smithsonian found to be factual and verifiable. Consequently it can be used as an accessable and factual reference for this article. Otherwise we would have to discard anything that the Smithsonian publishes. It includes reference to the downing of two MiG-23's with a single AIM-54, and lists the pilot by name (uncommon in Iranian interviews). This is far less unbelieveable than the previous report of four aircraft destroyed with a single AIM-54, and since the Smithsonian chose to accept this claim as factual who are we to dispute it?-Ken Keisel

I find it highly dubious that the Iranian purchase "saved" the Grumman corporation as claimed, and question the amount of verification done by the Smithsonian. --Mmx1 20:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to disput the validity of the Smithsonian as source material, otherwise references for information would be useless and the whole site would be full of nothing but personal opinion. We can't pick and choose to discard information when they come from trusted sources like the Smithsonian. Sorry, but if the Smithsonian publishes it as true it's true until someone can get them to retract it, and has to be accepted as factual.-Ken Keisel

First of all, the detailed kill by kill accounts should be placed on the Combat History of the F-14. Secondly, what's Cooper's wording for the claim that the Iran purchase "saved Grumman"? Given that the Iranians bought theirs after the U.S. I fail to see how that is in any way applicable. --Mmx1 20:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably best to keep some minimal references to the F-14s combat record under the "Iran" section of the F-14 page as well. I wouldn't add much more than what's there now, but it does give the reader a good overview of the F-14s service during the Iran-Iraq War. I do disbute the claims of 100+ kills, and four planes being destroyed by one AIM-54, but Smithsonian did a great job of publishing only what they were able to verify, so this time I think Tom Cooper has to be referenced. Regarding the Grumman Corporation, his text reads "The Iranian deal is credited with saving the F-14 program, which Congress had stopped funding, and by some with saving the Grumman Corporation from bankruptcy." A review of Grumman's programs and contracts in 1975 does lend some credibility to his statement.-Ken Keisel

Few questions for "Mmx1" and "Ken": In what kind of relation do you stand to the F-14? Have you ever been directly involved in any related projects (military or civilian)? How many serious books or articles about F-14 have you read? Have you ever contacted any of authors of such books or articles? How many publications by Cooper - an author you are discussing all the time - have you read? Have you ever contacted him? Have you contacted Smithsonian editors to know what of Cooper's work has been verified (or not)? In summary: how much weight anything you say about F-14s, and especially anything you say about F-14s in Iran, has? -Chris

Wiarthurhu-Nice going, you managed to take a well referenced, comprehensive chapter about the plane's history and reduce it to a worthless stub. I went to your user page and saw comment after comment you made about others deleting your referenced additions. Why don't you live by your own rules? That material was discussed here when it was added. I didn't see you participate in the discussion, and you didn't speak up before deleting it all. Very poor use of the site.--Ken keisel 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also referencing the Smithsonian September 2006 article, the Iranian patch is reported as saying 'Anytime Baby' in Farsi, not 'Tomcat' as is in this article - Dan

Found a neat video.

You guys will like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJDGmgMjAqs&search=F14 teh TK 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Paint Scheme

I personally believe that F-14's had the most interesting paint scheme's of the Cold War/Post-Cold War era, not including Tiger Squadron Schemes, and I was wondering if a section should be added to the F-14 page or if there sould be a seperate page. Any ideas?

Rate of climb???

The article lists rate of climb as 45,000+ ft/min. Is that for real or a typo? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds right for an initial rate of climb. What's your beef with it? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It just seems amazing, that's all. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's only initial rate of climb. This drops off rather rapidly with altitude. F-104 and Phantom could climb at almost 60,000 fpm. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to land?

What references (or rather, which links at the bottom) are given for the F-14's apparently "notorious" carrier landing difficulties? I asked a former pilot about it, and he disagreed wholeheartedly, saying that the F-14 was much easier to land than the F-4 it was replacing (F-4 came in 20 knots faster). Obviously this is just one pilot's opinion, but I'm still curious.

Yeah the stories go that the Tomcat has the tendency to "float". Same as what was said of the S-3 Viking. This could be due to their large wing area (including the pancakes on the Tomcat). One thing's for sure...the older model hornets had a higher landing speed aboard ship than the Tomcat!

Tomcat200 1st June 2006

I believe it is reference to the woman pilot controversy, some believed it was evidence women were either not suited, or given prefernce over better pilots. I added remark that swing wings and flaps should make it easier to land.--Wiarthurhu 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

English

Articles about American aircraft are in American English per MoS. Stop converting them to British English. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

F-14 in fiction and popular culture: crash footage

I moved the following section to the discussion because it is not encyclopedic in its current form:

* Famous crash footage of an aircraft hitting the stern of an aircraft carrier while attempting a deck landing was used in the films Midway and The Hunt for Red October, is often mistakenly identified as a F-14. However, a closer look at the fuselage of the aircraft reveals it to be a Grumman F9F Panther. In Midway it is supposed to represent the crash of a WWII SBD Dauntless piloted by Charlton Heston's character. The actual crash footage in the movie Midway is of an F6F Hellcat.

It has the following issues:

• It first implies that this footage is the same in both movies. However, it then goes on to state that the fighter actually filmed is the F9F Panther in one movie, but the F6F Hellcat in another movie. If the footage is the same, it can't be both.
• If in Midway, the actual fighter and the fighter it is supposed to represent are both not the F-14 Tomcat, then that section doesn't belong in the F-14 article at all.
• Furthermore, if it is pointing out is that the "F-14 Tomcat" in one scene of The Hunt for Red October is not a F-14 Tomcat at all, that information doesn't belong in this article either.
• WIthout a sourced citation (for example, a DVD commentary or documentary that states either conjecture), it is original research. This is particularly important since the entry apparently contradicts itself.

Egan Loo 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Hunt for the Red October, the crash scene starts off with an F-14 approaching the deck of the carrier. The camera cuts to the actors, then when it cuts back to the deck of the carrier the F9F crash footage is shown - this is -really- easy to pick out in the movie because F9F Panthers have enormous, fat forward fuselages. The rolling nosecone of the F9F doesn't look ANYthing like an F-14, and could only pass as such to someone who is wholly unfamiliar with military jet aircraft. So the Red October mention is legit. I can't speak for Midway though. teh TK 11:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What was the motivation for the swing-wing?

They generally look good, though I have a quibble:

• The assertion that the Tomcat was developed to be a maneuverable fighter following lessons from Vietnam. Do you have a source for this? As the program was initiated in 1969, I'm not sure the institution had yet absorbed the lessons from Vietnam - they certainly didn't on the ground side until much later. Fas.org is the source for the assertion that the maneuverability was a byproduct of low landing speeds, which was the prime motivator for the variable geometry wings. Moreover, the Tomcat was not a particularly effective dogfighter owing to its weak engines; and it failed to correct the other two deficiencies of the F-4 - it's size and dirty exhaust were a clear visual giveaway. Certainly its radar and planned armament indicated its usage as an interceptor vice short-range fighter.

--Mmx1 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I grew up seeing these planes being developed. USAF and USN pilots were getting hammered badly by 1966-1967 and the folly of abandoning air combat became evident. Also note that this was the first of 4 fighters, F-14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 that were all optimized for air combat. The F-14 had to replace the F-4 so retained payload and performance, and size (and then some), engine technology of the F-15's F-100 did not exist at time of VFX specification, and provision was made for growth. Modern Marvels, and a US News video of fighters explains how air combat experience shaped the teen fighters. The century series and USN supersonic fighters had no specifications regarding air combat performance, it WAS a coincidence the F-8 was a good air combat fighter, and sheer luck the massive F-4 had enough power to make up for turning capability. I provided 3 citations, (F-14 book by areo, Modern Marvels, US News video) to back me up, I have never in my years since the 1960s seen anyone claim the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable. In fact, the F-14 is the only VG plane whose VG feature was included because of maneuverability (you DO know that feature, don't you??) --Wiarthurhu 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Consider the following:
  • GlobalSecurity describes its development as a missle platform, as does FAS, and MATS, none of which mention maneuverability as a development factor - FAS and state that the swing wings were motivated by the need to mix high dash speeds with low landing speeds.
  • Both FAS and globlasecurity mention defense in layers as the Navy Air defense philosophy. The F-14 was designed for the outer air battles, in short to carry a big radar and a lot of missiles. Though the swing-wings enabled a decent turn radius, the aircraft was oversized (as the F-4 was commonly criticized for), and its trust ratio was poor, resulting in a poor turn rate. Even with the upgraded engines, its thrust-weight ratio was "almost one", pretty poor considering the rest of the teen series all had thrust-weight ratios comfortably above 1. The inner defense was initially provided by the F-8 (whose pilots take offense to the notion that the F-14 was the Navy's last "fighter"), and later by the F-18), both of which are superior at low speeds. In fact, when pitted against agressor squadrons flying smaller craft (such as the A-4), they were regularly beat in a turning fight. --Mmx1 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A coincidence the F-8 was a good fighter? You must have your fighters mixed up. The F-8 was designed with guns as its primary armament, so maneuverability in low-speed regimes was of paramount importance.
  • US News or any other news media are not a reliable source; hell, they misidentify aircraft all the time.
  • I don't see any citation for the aero book, do you mean this one?
  • It'd be a mistake to assume the teen series had identical development goals, as they were developed disparately by different services for different requirements. The 16/17/18 are only similar because they were all developed initially for the Air Force's LWF program. Nor is it accurate to say they were designed for "air combat". They're fighters, they're all designed for "air combat", but there are different mission profiles. The F-14 was designed to splash Russian bombers far away from the carrier; there was no requirement for it to operate in the WVR scheme. Conversely, the F-16/17/18 were designed for just that mission, and thus had a comparable advantage in the low-speed area. --Mmx1 15:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See last book I added, I have that book. VG was selected over fixed for maneuverability. I searched Google and found your claim - it is frm the Wikipedia VG article, and it is also incorrect, and has no citation. Every broadcast program and book on the F-14 starts with a discussion of the history of the lost art of air combat. The F-104 was a contemporary of the F-8, with abysmal turning characteristics, again because if you don't ask for turning, you might not get it. The AF turned down the F-14 because they thought they could get a lighter plane with a better engine with a 1:1 T/W ratio. I would still like to see a citation other than the Wiki article that the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable.

No, your causality is wrong. Based on the research for this page, I wrote that section into the swing-wing article: [2]. All three sources I listed did not list maeuverability among the design considerations. MATS states

"The fixed-wing version was rejected because of its weight, carrier suitability and because of its low-altitude performance".

Of course maneuverability is important on every plane (to some degree), it was just not a primary design criteria. The "F-14 as dogfighter" meme came about as a result of Top Gun; there are soooo many people lamenting the loss of the "last great Navy fighter" when in fact its most significant contributions were as a recce platform as as a bombcat in the 90's - the F-14 pilots were the first to work closely with Marine FAC's, and demonstrated the superiority of a two-seat platform in the CAS role - spurring the possible deployment of the F model Superhornet in a similar capacity. --Mmx1 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations? How about ommission:

The Navy recognized the advantages of applying the variable-sweep wing concept to multimission aircraft. One ideal application was for naval fleet defense fighters, which must be able to quickly intercept threats and yet slowly approach aircraft carriers to land. Variable-sweep wings in the fully swept (high-speed) configuration permit efficient supersonic dash and the carrier-approach requirements could be met with the wing in the unswept (low-speed) position.

From Globalsecurity. No mention of maneuverability (anywhere in the article, in fact).

What about:

"As an incentive for the contractor to fullfill the requirements, the Navy put some penalties on the project if Grumman would fail on some of the contract guarantees:

• Empty Weight: $440,000 for each 100 lbs overweight
• Acceleration: $440,000 for each second slow
• Escort Radius: $1 million for each 10 nautical miles short
• Approach Speed: $1.056 million for each knot fast
• Maintainability: $450,000 for each extra maintenance man-hour per flight hour
• Delivery to Navy Board of Inspection and Survey: $5,000 for each day late

You obviously did not follow the development of the F-14 in Popular Science, Mechanic and Aviation Week as I did in the late 60s, nor watch Modern Marvels, or have the videos. The website specifically mentions "agility" as one of the considerations. If not for agility, there would be no point in replacing the F-111B since not meeting an arbitrary weight spec is just about the only difference between the F-14 and f-111 besides the fact that the F-111 maneuvers like a city bus. Again, I'd like to see one citation other than your own, your citation is the one that pops up on a google search. Dogfighting vs an F-4 was about the 2nd test after they established it could fly straight without making a big hole in the ground. The swing wing is an integral part of the maneuvering capability, and unique among VG aircraft. The f-14 was the only one with dogfighting in mind from the start. --Wiarthurhu 18:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

from MATS I don't see any benchmarks for maneuverability among the contract guarantees.

I simply don't see any other sources backing up your claim, and the original specifications for the VFX don't, either. I'm getting a copy of the book to verify, but I intend to revert to the original wording. --Mmx1 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From MATS "Wing area increased to 565 square feet from 505 square feet. Increased combat agility. Allowed use of simple hinged single-slotted flap, rather than complex double-slotted extensible flap. As a fallout, maneuvering flap is easily achieved" As long as agility was in any way design parameter, you wording is incorrect, and you have not provided another example of your viewpoint, which you are encouraged to cite and quote.--Wiarthurhu 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a citation that the F-14 was specifically designed to fix dogfight problems with the F-4: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm These various sacrifices were rationalized by the belief that visual dogfighting was obsolete, and that in the supersonic age, air combat would be fought beyond visual range (BVR) using radar-guided missiles. This concept failed in Vietnam for two reasons: First, radar could detect and track aircraft but not identify them. Operating beyond visual range created an unacceptable risk of shooting down one's own aircraft. Pilots were therefore required to close to visually identify the target before shooting; this eliminated the theoretical range advantage of radar-guided missiles. Second, the performance of the Sparrow radar-guided missile in Vietnam was poor, generally yielding less than 10% kill per shot. Dissatisfaction with these deficiencies led to the US Air Force F-15 and US Navy F-14 designs. --Wiarthurhu 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Another one: http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm

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.

You should stop while you're ahead. The F-14 came out of the VFX. The VFAX which the quote refers to, was a concept pioneered by Kent Lee for a lighweight strike fighter, essentially the Navy version of the F-16, designed to complement the F-111B interceptor in a hi/low mix as the F-15 and F-16 would. The VFAX is what became the F/A-18. Here's an official Navy link explaining the history of the F/A-18. --Mmx1 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any openly available sources that indicate maneuverability was the motivation behind the swing wing; I've provided two sources that discuss the motivations but glaringly do not mention agility, turning rate, or maneuverability as a reason for the design, so your claim is in doubt. I have never said maneuverability was not a concern, but that it was not a primary one nor one responsible for the swing-wing design.

You also don't seem to understand the F-111's problems. The weight limit was neither arbitrary nor minor. Landing speeds are determined by the weight; given that the F-14 couldn't return with a full load, and the F-111 was 20 tons heavier fully loaded, that was not an insignificant problem. It also lacked range, a consequence of its weight issues. Moreover, according to MATS, it was also unmaintainable and handled clumsily - initial flight tests did not go well and several of the prototypes crashed [3]. --Mmx1 18:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're posting links:

While the swing-wings provided definite improvements over its predecessor, the F-4, this weapon system's primary reason for existence was fleet defense against hordes of Soviet bombers. It was larger than many WWII medium bombers, and should be seen more as a maneuverable interceptor than a furball-winning dogfighter. Until the F-18 came along, it was the pilot skills provided by the superior Top-Gun school that netted the Navy air combat kills, not the superior ACM (Air Combat Maneuverability) of the Tomcat

From the "adios Tomcat" link you put in. It's just a blog, but even that admits that it's raison d'etre was not dogfighting. --Mmx1 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's no F-18 doesn't mean that wasn't the design goal. This should answer all your questions young padewan and mend your ways: [PDF] REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTERFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML cated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter opti- ... Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s. YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf - Similar pages--Wiarthurhu 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Way to take quotes out of context. How about reading things for a change instead of just copy - pasting the google search results? And don't call me padwan, unless you want me to start the old jokes. The entire quote in context:

Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design concepts and R&D.

While an interesting read, it doesn't address the question here. --Mmx1 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RAND Study

RAND Study Okay, I'm putting my foot down and reverting to my version. You've shown that you're reading your own bias into sources and I have lost faith in your interpretation of the sources you've cited but which only you have access to. All the openly available sources I've cited OMIT maneuverability/agility from their list of the primary design criteria of the F-14. The RAND study is a study not of fighters, but of the design process. It looks at the teen series because they were contemporaries and their programs were locked in bureaucratic struggles, NOT ONCE does it make the assertion that the F-14 was "supposed to be agile". You seem incapable of ACTUALLY READING the cited documents and instead quote a google search result that sadly takes a poor misquote of the original document. --Mmx1 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[PDF] REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTERFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML cated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter opti- ... Grumman’s F-14 and Northrop’s. YF-17 also drew heavily on earlier design ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf - Similar pages

Sure looks like the Navy was looking for something that could dogfight a Mig-17 to me. Could you pleeeeeez quote somebody that the F-14 was not designed to be a dogfighter? You only cite places that it was not the BEST dogfighter.

The F-15 was the first Air Forcefighter since the development of the North American F-86 in the late 1940s thatwas optimized for maneuverability and agility for dogfights with enemy fight-ers.

the escalation of the air war over Vietnamsoon convinced many officials in the Air Force and the Pentagon that a new,specialized air-defense fighter was needed, as antiquated North VietnameseMiG-17s began registering victories over much larger, more complex andexpensive, but less maneuverable U.S. fighters. On April 4, 1965, several NorthVietnamese Korean War vintage MiG-17s equipped only with guns shot downtwo sophisticated F-105s on a bombing run against the Than Hoa Bridge. Thisincident shocked the U.S. tactical fighter community and galvanized sentimentin the Air Force for a new air-superiority fighter.

officials still favored a joint Air Force–Navy multirole fighter(referred to as the F-X–Navy Fighter Attack Aircraft Experimental [VFAX]requirement) with significant ground-attack capabilities.

Grumman reported that the

F-111B would not be able to cope ith the new Russian fighters in a dogfight.

Moreimportantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based oncompany design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter thatcould meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.8Shortly thereafter, two otherhistoric Navy fighter developers—LTV (Vought) and McDonnell-Douglas—alsosubmitted design proposals, as did a seasoned Air Force fighter developer,North American Rockwell.

the Navy

informed General Dynamics that the F-111B did not meetits requirements and initiated a new study of alternatives. the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFXfighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet air-defense mission. --Wiarthurhu 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Mig-17 section refers to Air Force officials, and of course, the development of the F-15. Yes, Grumman reported that the F-111B could not cope with Russian fighters. It does not indicate that these concerns were addressed in the VFX proposal, and the revised Grumman design mentioned after that sentence was not the same as the ones later submitted for the VFX.
• I have several open-source documents that omit maneuverability/WVR as a primary design concern of the F-14 (I'm being generous, they don't mention it at all, vice the interceptor/missile carrier role). All you have are media reports and a book that nobody else has read, and given your flawed interpretation of the RAND report and selective quoting to draw conclusions from minor points of the paper, I'm inclined to doubt your interpretation of the Stevenson book. --Mmx1 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okey....chilll. How about reading the talk page before adding false and irrelevant material?

• The Than Hoa incident shocked the Air Force into getting a new air superiority figher. Nowhere does the article say it altered Navy thinking; especially W.R.T. fleet defense. Carriers tend not to run into short-range light fighters that often.
• Though the paper states that the fighters contributed to Navy cancellation of the F-111B (or at least gave them another excuse to - they didn't want it anyway), there's no indication that the concerns made their way into the VFX proposal - at least not along the lines of maneuverability as you're arguing --Mmx1 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, almost missed this part of your quote. the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFXfighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet air-defense mission. Fleet air defense; not escort, not air superiority - fleet defense. --Mmx1 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually reading the paper

Keep in mind the paper is primarily about the Air Force, given RAND's institutional history with that service, so treatment of the Navy is an afterthought in this piece: page 1:

The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and F/A-18—that would become the mainstays of America’s tactical fighter forces for the remainder of the century. In particular, the two Air Force fighters and the F/A-18 represent a substantial change from many of the trends evident in previous fighter modernization decisions. The F-15 was the first Air Force fighter since the development of the North American F-86 in the late 1940s that was optimized for maneuverability and agility for dogfights with enemy fighters. In an even more dramatic departure from recent experience, the F-16 and F/A-18 programs attempted to reverse the trends toward heavier, more complex

and costly fighters.

Reading between the lines, that means the F-14 was not a departure from previous thinking.

One group of dissenters, later known as the “Fighter Mafia,” led by John Boyd, Pierre Sprey, and others, began arguing with considerable effect against such a fighter within the Air Force and the DoD. This group advocated procurement of a much lighter, highly maneuverable dogfighter optimized for close-in air combat.

This was the primary impetus for the move toward more maneuverable fighters optimized for WVR - not institutional, but from a small group within the institution. Most notably, their efforts were focused within the Air Force - the similar push within the Navy came from Adm. Kent Lee via the VFAX concept (which itself grew out of remains of the Navy's dropped commitment to the AF's Lightweight Fighter Program). What happened on the Navy side was quite the opposite:

Indeed, with the unhappy experience of the TFX continuing to unfold, both Navy and Air Force resistance continued to grow to OSD’s concept of a joint F-X/VFAX program. As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.

...

The Navy campaign to cancel the F-111B and develop its own fighter gained momentum at the end of 1967 when OSD appointed the Air Force as the executive agent for the development of a single new engine for a joint F-X/VFAX. By this time, both the Navy and Air Force were fully committed to developing their own fighters uncompromised by mission requirements from the other service, and the Navy now saw the Air Force as getting the upper hand in the OSDsupported F-X/VFAX program. The Navy campaign finally succeeded six months later in July 1968 when Congress agreed to terminate the F-111B program. That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet airdefense mission. In addition to Grumman, North American, LTV, and McDonnell-Douglas, General Dynamics also submitted design proposals.

There's your citation, by the way. It was designed primarily to splash bombers threatening the fleet, not establish air superiority by splashing fighters.

So where do the new russian fighters fit in. Well, the added fuel to the Fighter Mafia's fire. But they were in the Air Force. What it did do was to cement support for killing the F-111B:

Insurmountable opposition in the Navy to continuing the F-111B finally emerged in response to the same event that crystallized Air Force support for an F-X optimized for air superiority: the revelation of new Soviet fighters at the Moscow Air Show in July 1967. The existence of new-generation Russian fighters, combined with the renewed appreciation for the importance of maneuverability and dogfighting gained from air combat experience over Vietnam, led the Navy to argue convincingly for the need for a specialized Navy fighter optimized for carrier-based fleet air defense. The Navy soon awarded a contract to Grumman for a study evaluating the F-111B’s capabilities in combat against the new Soviet fighters. In October, Grumman reported that the F-111B would not be able to cope with the new Russian fighters in a dogfight. More importantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based on company design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter that could meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.8 Shortly thereafter, two other historic Navy fighter developers—LTV (Vought) and McDonnell-Douglas—also submitted design proposals, as did a seasoned Air Force fighter developer, North American Rockwell.9 All these companies, with the exception of LTV, were also active participants in the Air Force F-X design studies. At around the same time, the Navy informed General Dynamics that the F-111B did not meet its requirements and initiated a new study of alternatives.

It was in effect, the straw that broke the camel's back. Winning over the elements of the fighter mafia within the Navy was enough to kill the F-111B, though there'd already been strong institutional oppositon, as indicated above. However, what resulted was not an RFP for an air superiority fighter. The resulting VFX RFP was for a fleet defense fighter. There is no more in the piece relevant to this article. --Mmx1 04:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Submitted for Peer Review

Development

The F-14 was developed to take the place of the General Dynamics F-111B, the navalized version of the TFX project. The F-111B was to carry six long range missles for interception, and a heavy fuel load with swing wings for long range, but the concept came before experience with close combat in Vietnam. In 1965, the fighter community was shocked when subsonic MiG-17s down F-105s on a bombing run. . The Navy ordered Grumman to study how this affected the F-111B, and they concluded that the F-111B would be unable to cope in a dogfight. With issues of weight and suitability to carrier operations, the F-111B was cancelled in 1968.

The Navy created the VFX and a lighter VFAX program. The navy needed a fighter for other roles such as escort which require more agility and performance than the F-4 or F-111B. Design changes such as increasing wing area were made to increase agility. The Air Force would choose to build its own FX air superiority fighter, the F-15 with a lighter fixed wing, single pilot, no heavy long range missles, and new technology engines. --Wiarthurhu 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're giving Undue Weight to some tangential examples in one paper. The F-111B was not dropped because it wasn't maneuverable enough; it was simply unfit for naval usage. The second paragraph is wholly irrelevant and relates to the VFAX; the "low" part of the hi/low mix. --Mmx1 03:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My view on the POV Dispute

Just to summarize my view as Wiarthurhu seems to misunderstand it and has been misrepresenting it. Maneuverability is important to every fighter - but less so than other performance characteristics, depending on the intended mission. I may have been a bit guilty of synthesis of facts when I wrote that the maneuverability was a byproduct of the dash/carrier landing mission profile, but I stand adamantly behind the factual accuracy of these points:

• As the documentation indicates, the F-14 was designed first and foremost to fill the role of fleet defense - to dash out at high speeds and launch long-range missiles to destroy enemy bombers before they could threaten the carrier group. Everything else was secondary to this aim.
• Thus, the swing wings, were a result of design considerations that required fast dash speeds and low landing speeds - not maneuverability as is believed.
• The F-14 was NOT designed primarily for a subsonic turning fight - one neither required nor expected as part of its fleet defense mission. It is mentioned nowhere with respect to the Navy's VFX RFP (request for proposals) that resulted in the F-14. Had it been, a swing wing would have only meant additional weight.
• The question of "air superiority" is hazier. There is the mission of air superiority (actually, more accurately, offensive counter-air) which the F-14 has taken. But the F-14 has taken the recce and CAS roles with success (it has had the recce mission for some time, having taken over for the RA-5 Vigilante in the 1970's), but we don't categorize it as a recon or CAS plane. Given its shortcomings in the short-range fight resulting from the fact that it wasn't designed for a short-range turning fight, it fails to qualify as a air superiority fighter. It's a fine point, but I think Wiarthurhu is trying to use it as a backdoor to insert his assertions about the F-14's maneuverability.

I have tried to treat User:Wiarthurhu with good faith given his substantive edits to the article, with which I've had only this one quibble. However, the user has demonstrated a selective reading of the facts which is worrisome and casts doubt on his recollection of sources unavailable to us. The more he argues, the less inclined I am to take his claims at face value. Apparently he has been convinced by his reading of the Rand paper that the main aim of the F-14 was to shoot down Mig-17's.

Initially, Wiarthurhu claimed that maneuverability was a design aim of the F-14 and motivated the swing-wing design (which is false but poorly sourced either way). Since then, he has gone so far as to say

• that maneuverability was a the most important design aim of the F-14 (definitely false)
• that the F-14 was designed primarily to fight Mig-17's and other small Soviet fighters (also false; its primary mission was to shoot down Soviet bombers).

Unfortunately, it appears that he as bought into the revisionist meme that the F-14 was the king of ACM, a meme borne of Top Gun. The reality is that the F-14 was an interceptor that adapted quite well to a variety of other roles, including air superiority, tactical recon, precision strike, and CAS. It was remarkably maneuverable for an interceptor, many of which are joked to have turning radiuses measured in kilometers. But it is behind even its counterparts in the "teen series" (F-15/16/18) in maneuverability and was inferior in a turning fight to even the Vietnam-era A-4. Of course, the true answer is that it's the man, not the machine, that determines the outcome. But its subsonic performance was subpar for its era, and the notion that it was an ACM king is absurd and wrong.

Furthermore, no sources have been presented supporting the maneuverability POV. Here are the reliable, publicly available sources at hand:

• Global Security Discusses design criteria as fleet defense; omits WVR/dogfight/maneuverability
• FAS doesn't really discuss design criteria
• MATS Discusses design criteria, nothing relating to maneuverability is listed among the penalties in the contract. Mentions one change (increasing wing area) that increases agility as well as simplifies a mechanical complexity. No indication that maneuverability was a primary design consideration (i.e. worth sacrificing other performance considerations for).
• Aerospaceweb Says the swing wings increased efficiency and range; OMITS any mention of maneuverability.
• RAND Study on Fighter DesignI've fully analyzed it above, but in brief:
  • It's a study conducted ABOUT the PROCESS of fighter design, as the abstract indicates quite clearly[4]. Also, as RAND has historically worked closely with the Air Force, the paper is biased (not in POV, but in quantity) towards the AF history. If you read it, it seems like the Naval history is an afterthought. Wiarthurhu harps on some details (Than Hoa incident, 1967 revelation of the Mig-23 and Mig-25) that are told from an AF perspective. Apparently, this has convinced him that the main aim of the F-14 was to shoot down Mig-17's and similarly small fighters. In reality, the Navy wanted a missile platform, got a semi-decent one in the F-4, even if the missiles weren't up to par, and didn't want to to dilute their aims in the TFX with other competing criteria, including the Air Force's air superiority mission. They were only too happy to kill it and start from scratch with a purely fleet defense fighter, which is what the F-14 is.

My recommendation for action: Even if the History Channel said EXACTLY what Wiarthurhu claims it did, it contradicts the above sources. And between a popular media source and professionals, I'll side with the professionals. By the way, the History Channel aired a special tonight where they took psychics to Waco and consulted them on what happened. No kidding. They're slipping. It's a fun pastime but not an academic resource. The Modern Marvels series is fun to watch, but I've seen experts contradict them before.

--Mmx1 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

THE quality of this article keeps getting worse

I've read this page several times for the past year (yeah I'm a geek). The english and presentation of the info keeps getting poorer. The info itself is also suffering. And now that I've read this bull about maneuverability not being a major design consideration in the comments section, I had to make my own comment. The F-14 was designed with maneuverability as a major consideration. I've seen various interviews with the designers explicitly stating the F-14 was designed with dogfighting in mind. I've read various publications stating the same thing. A huge part of the training syllabus for Tomcat pilots involves ACM. Keep in mind, the authors of a lot of publications are influenced by their preconcieved notions. "The Tomcat has a long range radar and a big missile? That means it wasn't designed to dogfight." No.

Publications? Cite them. Every design involves tradeoffs between performance in different aspects; as a result some have to take priority. The TFX was an example of a design that tried to accomodate all design considerations and failed at most of them. The RAND article (written by a PhD, not a trade publication wonk) states explicitly that the F-14 was optimized for the fleet air defense mission, not air superiority. --Mmx1 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

RAND is a pretty objective source. That doesn't mean you take everything coming from some Rand corporation writer as gospel. If you need me to cite stuff, one of the few books I still have on airplanes has a section on the F-14 written by Mike Spick, a pretty respected author of aviation. The book is "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes" published in 1987 by Portland House. Here's an excerpt from one of the F-14 Chapters describing the development of the F-14 after the failed TFX program:

....the weapon control system was to be a modified Hughes AWG-9, but contrary to popular belief, the basic weaponry was to be Sparrow rather than Phoenix. The design philosophy was to produce an air superiority fighter first and a missile carrier second. Grumman's Robert W. Kress summed it up in June 1984: "We were totally preoccupied with producing a fighter, with a basic weapons fit of 4 AIM-7s and two AIM-9s. Then we sat back and figured how to screw six AIM-54s without messing it up in its basic fighter role. That led to the palletized phoenix carriage." (Phoenix missiles are carried on external flush-mounted low-drag racks, referredto as pallets).

The Tomcat was also designed from the outset to have attack capability. Despite being a very badly put together documentary, the Modern Marvels program someone referred to had interviews with very prominent people directly involved with the development of the Tomcat. They also counter your claim that the Tomcat wasn't designed from the outset for air superiority and the WVR fight. The Navy used it for those purposes for goodness sake. Also, the TFX referred to the F-111 the Tomcat was born out of the VFX program. Here's more from the same source describing the Navy's creation of the Fighter Study Group II to examine Grumman's new proposals:

"Fighter Study Group II (VFX-1) concluded that Project 303 was potentially vastly superior to the F-111B. For a start it was carrier-compatible, and it promised to have excellent close combat capability, a quality sadly lacking in the F-111B. It could therefore be used in the escort fighter role as well as fleet defence, and would obviously possess a 'fallout' capability for ground attack."

Also, I don't give a crap what the designers had in mind when they came up with the F-14. It's what it was actually used for that matters. It was used for air superiority, CAS (later on), etc, in addition to fleet air defense. Seriously, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that those were the missions of the Tomcat. I don't know why it's so popular to diminish the Tomcat as well as Naval Aviation in general. If you're one of those people, please don't because it makes me want to cry (jk). I like belittling the Air Force whenever I can, but it isn't nice when guests are around.

Here's a thread that I think should interest you: http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=11261 It's a discussion from some actual people who fly the aircraft you like to study so much about how these aircraft operate in the real world. I think some of what they have to say will suprise you. I know one of them actually flew. I don't know about the others, but they seem legit.

I'm an aspiring naval aviator, actually (working on getting my USMC commission first), so I have no interest in tearing down the F-14 or Naval Aviation. The fanboism bugs me and is what I'm trying to tear down. I mean, seriously, before the March rewrite, the article claimed that the F-14 was among the most maneuverable fighers of its generation and that it was an "uncompromising air superiority figher", which doesn't jive with reality. Reality is that it was an interceptor that adapted well to the other roles it picked up. While we're posting forum links: [5]. The post by "heyjoe" is particularly incisive. The guys with wings under their avatars are indeed verified naval aviators - the site is run by a few officers and all claimed statuses are checked (the majority of the users are still SNA(student naval aviators) and candidates). A4sforever is (shockingly) a retired A-4 pilot and former aggressor, and heyjoe is a former Tomcat RIO. I intend to work in the latter's observations w.r.t. recon and CAS once all of this dies down (with the appropriate reliable sources, of course...but it's a good place to start). And for the nitpicky, no, I did not base my edits off those posts (the thread is from this week), but it does confirm my impression of the sources available and the research I did in March.

RAND is probably the most authoritative of the sources available as it's the most academic and least subject to bias - as compared to pop history (History Channel), pop science (pop mechanics and the ilk), and a bunch of fan sites online (in fact, I use that as a bounding argument - if MATS (a F-14 fansite but a pretty solid one) isn't hyping the maneuverability, it probably isn't that significant. FAS and globalsecurity are at least unbiased as it's an attempt to collate info by a largely disinterested party. Aircraft designers are salesmen and will pitch anything about their babies (as will pilots). But when push comes to shove, the Navy requirements dictated what went into the design and what didn't. --Mmx1 02:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, I took a similar route. Marine Corps OCS is like 70% physical. Make sure you're in top shape when you show up and you'll do fine. As far as the Tomcat is concerned, you're still wrong believing that the WVR fight was not a major concern when it was developed. I'll come back if I find some sources supporting this if I think you'd consider it reputable. I think you put way too much stock in this RAND article. Anyway, good luck with everything. :)

Recent rewrites

I had to rewrite the rewrite.

Corrected problems (excluding the copyedit):

• The "key undoing" to McNamara's TFX was not maneuverability, it couldn't do anything well as the result of the compromises it made.
• The teen series were not "bred for daylight dogfighting". Of the 4, only the F-16 was developed exclusively for the WVR fight. The F-15 was developed for air superiority - the BVR and WVR fight. The F-16 was indeed developed for daylight combat at subsonic speeds (later acquiring its multi-role reputation). The Hornet was developed as a strike fighter - WVR was only half of its mission role.
• The failure of the F-111B as a fighter is not relevant to the F-14. Did maneuverability and the new Mig-23/25 factor into its death? Yes. But this is not an article about the F-111. Did maneuverability find its way into the subsequent VFX RFP? No. It's a red herring and a devious attempt at misdirection but it simply doesn't belong here.

The F-14 was not one of the most maneuverable fighers of its generation. It was one of them most maneuverable interceptors.

P.S. I see that I got bit by the google toolbar/firefox issue in the rewrite. it's fixed. Blast it. --Mmx1 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to remove the correct and verifiable information about air combat. The F-14 was specifically designed to do what the F-111B could not do, survive and win a dogfight. See comment above from person who agrees agility was the prime reason for the F-14. That the F-14 was the first of a series of fighters is a significant ommision that you removed with no justification. --Wiarthurhu 17:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oy. That the F-14 was designed to maneuver in subsonic regimes is neither correct nor verifiable. What, so we're citing random anonymous users on wiki now? See comment from ericg, an aeronautical engineer [[6]]

You're WRONG. You have failed to produce any source claiming that the F-14 was designed for a subsonic turning fight. You've conducted Original Research in concluding that since the F-111B could not win a turning fight, the F-14 must have been designed to rectify that. It was not, and the RFP for a "fleet defense fighter" reflects that. The F-14 was the "first of a series" chronologically and in designation, but the teen series were all designed for different missions - they were not all "bred for daylight dogfighting" and it's misleading to imply otherwise. You've gone from an arguable quibble to blatant falsehoods and historical revisionism about the "rediscovery of dogfighting" as if Col. Boyd came down from the mountains with tablets inscribed "thou shalt turn and burn", and everyone bowed to his wisdom.

The reality is much more complicated than that. Yes, there was a faction pushing for the rebirth of the WVR fight. No, they neither consituted the majority of the institution or controlled acquisition, so compromises were made. --Mmx1 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The F-14 was not designed to rectify the F-111B's inability to dogfight. It was designed to rectify the F-111B's inability to take off from a carrier.

And since Boyd has already been mentioned, if it was designed as a dogfighter, after the Energy-maneuverability theory was postulated, then don't you think it would have been noticed it was less maneuverable than any Russian fighter (except possibly the MiG-23, and MiG-25.) The swing-wing was not added to increase maneuverability, just think about it, in order to make a swinging wing you have to put a lot of mechanics in the plane. These add weight, weight increases wing loading and makes the thrust-to-weight ratio worse. These make the plane less maneuverable.

Thrust/weight:0.88

Wing loading:113.4 lb/ft.sq.

vs. the F-15

Thrust/weight:1.04

Wing loading:73.1 lb/ft.sq.

And if something is designed for close in combat, why make its priciple weapon a long range missile? By the way, books written by designers can be misleading, one book written by a man from Lockheed said the P-38 was the most maneuverable fighter of WWII, yet books written by P-38 pilots consistently say that it wasn't very maneuverable, but it was fast and heavily armed. LWF 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

POV: Why is the WP the only article that omits air superiority??

Interesting that the WP is the only F-14 article on the web which omits air superiority as a role, as the US Navy lists air superiority as its primary role? I'd say this was a severe violation of POV. This has been in the article from its inception, certainly before 2004, but has just been removed. This is a serious error. This individual has a POV, that the F-14 is not, was not, and was never intended to be an air superiority fighter, which is contradicted by all references, and not stated by any other reference directly in print, broadcast, or on the web. He nevertheless insists on enforcing this POV across all related WP articles. --Wiarthurhu 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft: Grumman F-14A Tomcat ... weapon system for fleet air defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction missions (2 CREW ... , AZ. The F-14 might not be the best aircraft ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm

Navy Fact File: F-14 Tomcat Information on hardware of the U.S. Navy ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,

Grumman F-14 Tomcat - HOME ... shots of the F-14 let me first ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.angelfire.com/stars4/f14tomcat

U.S. Military Fighter Aircraft Fighter aircraft used by the various branches of the United States Military Services. ... in a military campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat. The F-14 ...usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-14 Tomcat Grumman F-14 Tomcat history, specifications, schematics, pictures, and data. ... range air superiority fighter was accepted by the US Navy. This aircraft was ultimately accepted as the F-14 Tomcat, and ... wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat is the navy's air superiority fighter. It is the plane to have if your playing ... an enemy can put in the air before they can shoot back ...members.aol.com/CIOFAM/f14.html

F-14 Tomcat ... Description: The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place ... include precision strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense ...cpf.navy.mil/.../RIMPAC2004/aircraft_pages/F-14tomcatfactpage.htm

F-14 Tomcat Aircraft The F-14 Tomcat Aircraft of the US Navy entered the fleet in 1973. ... F-14 Tomcat Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat Features: The ...inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltomcat.htm

F-14 Tomcats - Military and Civilian Aircraft All about military and civilian aircraft, airplanes, jets, transports, passenger airliners and helicopters. ... Designation: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. Contractor: Grumman ... strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense. As a ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63

F-14 Tomcat ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (specifications) is a twin engine, variable sweep wing, and air superiority fighter capable of ... simultaneously and attack six air-to-air targets with the AIM ...www.highironillustrations.com/commission_illustration/f14.html

'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Posted on 03/10/2006 9:33:43 PM PST by neverdem. ASSOCIATED PRESS. VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. ... the past 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key role in ... 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594335/posts

Now does this mean the F-14 wasn't an air superiority fighter? 'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 10, 2006 | SONJA BARISIC ASSOCIATED PRESS There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. The F-14 entered service in the early 1970s to defend aircraft carriers from Soviet bombers carrying long-range cruise missiles.

REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER (PDF) Chapter Five. REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. INTRODUCTION. The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force. fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf

http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html ... the F-14 Tomcat aircraft are supersonic, tandem-seat, twin engine, swing-wing, all-weather, air-superiority, strike ... engine, all-weather, air superiority strike fighter and ...www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html

HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft! Zuni Rocket Pod. Usually, Zuni rockets (5-in FFAR = Folding-Fin Air Rockets) are not the weapon for an air-superiority fighter like the F-14. It's more a rocket for air-to-ground attacks and close-in support strikes.www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-zuni.htm

F-14 Tomcat ... at Air Expo '01 here May 26 and 27. The F-14 Tomcat demonstration team will take the aircraft ... Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike ...www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/6_20/local_news/7302-1.html

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat today: The F-14 Tomcat continues to be a premier long-range strike-fighter as evidenced ... The F-14's critical role in maintaining air superiority and its ability ...united-states-navy.com/planes/f14.htm

Aircraft/UAVs ... Intruder air frame ... F-14 Tomcat The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.exwar.org/Htm/9000PopA.htm

Reply

Because a PhD defense analyst from the RAND corporation says otherwise: From the Rand paper you repeatedly miscite:

As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.

...

That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet airdefense mission.

This paper, written by a PhD-wielding defense analyst, would trump any other colloquial usage of the term "air superiority". Did it take the air superiority role, yes. Was it designed to? No. Google results of popularity are not an arbiter of truth and colloquial descriptions should not cloud industry terms.

There are two distinct issues at hand: The term "air superiority" is used both to describe a mission, and a type of fighter; the two are not equivalent. An air superiority fighter is a fighter developed solely to fill that mission, e.g. the F-15.

However, the air superiority role has been filled by many diverse aircraft, including interceptors (the F-14), strike fighters (F/A-18E), light strike fighters (F/A-18C and F-16 in export countries) and multi-role aircraft (Typhoon, Rafale, etc). Just because an aircraft took a role does not mean it was that type of aircraft. The F-14 took over the RA-5's recon mission with great success. Does that make the F-14 a recon bird? no. The F-14 became an excellent CAS platform due to the pilot's close interaction with Marine FAC's in the 1990's. Does that make the F-14 a CAS bird? No. --Mmx1 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And that would make you correct, and every article just listed as incorrect and unverifiable, right? --Wiarthurhu 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to use indents (preface your lines with colons (:) to indent the text. Your replies are unreadable. No, it means Mr. Lorell of RAND is correct, and everybody else is talking about the mission in a colloquial, not technical way. --Mmx1 20:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see:

this is wrong: defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm

The US Navy is wrong: Navy Fact File: The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,

usmilitary is wrong: campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter

Aerospaceweb.org is wrong: F-14 Tomcat airsuperiority fighter ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14

militaryfactory.com is wrong: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63

and this means "F-14 is definitely not an air superiority fighter" optimized for the fleet airdefense mission'

Okay, you got me. You win. Just fix all the other pages and books out there for me and the WP--Wiarthurhu 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, on what basis did you remove "air superiority" from the opening of the article? It has been there since its inception, and is easily verifiable?

I'm not even going to address the amateur lists. the U.S. Navy states that it has the mission of air superiority, not that it's classified as a air superiority fighter. It actually nowadays reclassified it as a strike fighter as that's the role it took in the 1990's. But from a historical perspective it's classification it is more accurate to describe it for the mission it was designed for and served during the cold war. I am not opposed to reintroducing language about its air superiority mission; I am opposed to classifying it as an air superiority fighter. --Mmx1 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "opposed" a POV term?--Wiarthurhu 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

VICTORY: Mxmx1 re-added the term "air superiority" role to the start of the article, after removing it for no reason other than to enforce his POV. --Wiarthurhu 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Victory? Is this a war? Do you OWN this article? Please take a step back and look at how you are communicating with other editors. Also, why would opposed be a POV term? That's like saying "isn't" is a POV term. ericg ✈ 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to insert "air superiority" into article

Wish me luck, let's see what happens...

Citation: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f014.html#RTFToC2 Consequently, even before the F-111B project was officially terminated, Grumman began work on a company-funded project known as Design 303. The basic goals of Design 303 were to combine the particular aptitudes of the F-111B with capabilities that would be superior to those of the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, particularly in the air superiority, escort fighter, and deck-launched interception role.

Who wrote that? One Joe Baugher, a physicst by training, and amateur writer of aircraft articles. So who do we believe, Joe Baugher or Mark Lorell, a Senior research fellow at the RAND Corporation. Moreover, Baugher goes on to say

The RFP issued to the industry a month later specifically mentioned a requirement for a fleet defense fighter with tandem two-seat crew accommodations, a mix of short, medium, and long-range missiles, an internal cannon, two TF-30 turbofans, and track-while-scan long-range radar. The new fighter was to be capable of patrolling 100-200 miles from its carrier, remaining on station for up to two hours. A secondary close support role was also envisaged for the aircraft, and the plane was to be capable of carrying up to 14,500 pounds of bombs. Maximum speed was to be Mach 2.2.

Range, station, speed, and strike capability were mentioned.....nothing about turning radius, nor ability to fight new Russian fighters. Guess not. --Mmx1 00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that a) his statement is true, no matter where it came from and b) that was a design requirement from Grumman even before the RFP.--Wiarthurhu 00:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Who determines if his statement is true? That's where you start comparing credentials. Keep in mind that the Grumman 303 had 6 versions [7] and the final choice was ultimately determined by the Navy's requirements, not Grumman's. --Mmx1 01:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

POV dispute on Air superiority

Let's see what everybody else thinks.--Wiarthurhu 01:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is right here. I have summarized my position above at Talk:F-14_Tomcat#My_view_on_the_POV_Dispute --Mmx1 01:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, do you realize you are the only guy on the planet that believes this position, and you cite a paper which includes the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-17 as air superiority fighters and starts out with an Mig-17 that shoots down the plane the F-111 is supposed to replace, and a study that that the F-111 would be dead meat in a dogfight as your primary source, and that both the Navy and USAF decided they needed an airplane to counter this threat??--71.112.5.20 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How about actually reading the paper? Nowhere does it say the Navy responded to this threat, nor that the 14/15/16/17 were "air superiority fighters". The Navy used the new russian fighters as a strawman argument to push the "whiz kids" to kill the TFX (which the Navy wanted no part of from the beginning). But I still have yet to see a source that indicates that the concerns over maneuverability found their way into the Navy RFP issued in 1968. The paper goes on to discusses the Air Force planning of the F-X (later the F-15) as an "air superiority figher" but goes on to say that the Navy wanted no part of it and didn't want the Air Force demands ruining their pretty new fleet defense fighter. In the intro to chapter 5, it says "In particular, the two Air Force fighters and the F/A-18 represent a substantial change from many of the trends evident in previous fighter modernization decisions." The F-14 is notably absent from that list. I am, of course, open to new sources (this one was provided by Wiarthurhu) and will alter my position if they bring new information to the table, but I will not stand for blatant misreading of sources to say what you want it to say.

Naval aviation's primary concern during the Cold war was defending against Soviet bombers - many Navy officers (as well as many throughout the military at the time) saw Vietnam as a distraction from waging a massive conventional (or nuclear) war against the Soviet Union. The Air Force recognized the Mig-17 as a potential threat because they would have been likely to run up against them over Europe or Korea, but the primary threat to carriers were not short-ranged fighters that would have trouble reaching a carrier at sea, but Bears and Badgers that could find and sink a carrier. Running escort missions was a secondary priority at the time - the military hadn't yet bought into the idea that we'd be running limited wars for the rest of the 20th century. The threat was the USSR. Even today and through the 1990's we we're still dealing with defense acquisitions that reflected an outdated threat - the Crusader artillery system, the Comanche, and most of the new surface warships in the pipeline (CGN-21) --Mmx1 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Should get rid of "air superiority" on the F-4 Article as well

The Navy requirements given to Mcdonnell Aircraft Corporation in St. Louis in April 1955 was: "a fleet defence fighter that could take off from an aircraft carrier, cruise out to a distance of 250 nautical miles, stay on patrol at that distance, intercept intruders, then return to the carrier three hours after take-off. It was to be a missile-armed-fighter and as such would not carry guns. The preferred weapon was to be the new Sparrow semi-active radar-homing missile." Those were the requirements so anything defining the F-4 as an air superiority fighter is wrong.

Well, essentially, the F-4 was designed to the same mission as the F-14. The term "air superiority" wasn't used institutionally until the F-15 and trying to backfit it to fit the doctrine of the time is WP:Original Research.--Mmx1 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So then why is that term tolerable to you on the F-4 article.

I don't WP:OWN all the wiki air articles; I apparently haven't gotten around to it yet. --Mmx1 17:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed para

The final undoing of McNamara's vision would be the one factor ommitted from the TFX specification, that had been decisive in every prior air war. What was thought to be obsolete by the missle age was maneuverability in a dogfight. In 1965, the fighter community was shocked when the F-111's forerunner, the supersonic F-105 was shot down by post-Korean war vintage Mig-17s which were slow but nimble. The Sparrow medium range missle was unreliable and ineffective at close range, but guns, deleted as excess weight from the F-4, often were effective. When the Navy ordered Grumman to study the effectivess of the F-111B in such a scenario, they concluded it was much less maneuverable than the F-4, and would not survive, much less win in a dogfight. The F-111B was cancelled in 1968, but the silver lining was that the F-111s dogfight performance was so abysmal, and the accountants approach to fighter design was so discredited, that both the Navy and USAF embarked on studies on what would become a generation of 4 new air superiority fighters. The Navy would soon start realistic air combat training that would become Top Gun, and the F-14 would be the first of the famous teen-series fighters that embraced a new philosiphy that incorporated agility as at least one of the primary design goals.

problems with this:

• much of this paragraph is irrelevant to the F-14 and is trying to draw an uncited link between the Than Hoa incident and the development of the F-14 that is not supported by the cited source.
• The RAND report actually reads

The Navy soon awarded a contract to Grumman for a study evaluating the F-111B’s capabilities in combat against the new Soviet fighters. In October, Grumman reported that the F-111B would not be able to cope with the new Russian fighters in a dogfight. More importantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based on company design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter that could meet the Navy’s fleet air-defense needs.

and the florid language "survive, much less win a dogfight" is inappropriate.

The "accountant's" approach to fighter design was not discredited by this study nor were the "accountant's" directly in opposition with the "fighter mafia". In fact, the Air Force had to scramble to prevent the consolidation of their F-X with the Navy's VFX proposal. There were three main influences on fighter design in the 1970's

• The "accountant's" view (which as a derisive title is not wholly appropriate either) was not a approach to fighter design per se, but just the idea that costs could be cut by combining requirements, championed by the "whiz kids" headed by McNamara. This was heavily opposed by most military officers, including members of both of the following:
• The institutional, BVR, "need a big radar and lots of missiles" camp, softened by the lessons of Vietnam but still strong.
• The "fighter mafia" of Boyd, Spey, et al that wanted to move away from the interceptor mentality towards ACM.

The following is a good read on the Air Force history w.r.t. the fight between the latter 2 camps. [8]. What's important to note is that the "accountant's" view was not an internal struggle between officers, but an imperiative that came from the civilian control that both camps resisted. The paragraph in question paints a simplistic picture that the failure of the F-111B to match up to the purported abilities of the Mig-23 and Mig-25 marked victory for the "fighter mafia" over the "accountants" and the institutional interceptor view and spurred everything from a shift in fighter design to an emphasis in ACM, is wrong. The reality is more complicated and nuanced than that, and this account does reality little justice. --Mmx1 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern Marvels as a Source

Well, I'm trying to get a copy of the Modern Marvels episode in question (was it a specific show or just the carrier episode?). But meanwhile I caught the M16 episode (another subject on which I am well versed), and I quote verbatim:

In April 1998, the Marine Corps announced it is spending $8.5 million to develop the Objective Individual Combat Weapon.

Excuse me while I stop laughing. Yeah, except the OICW has been an Army project all along (OICW, read the links), and the Marine Corps has no interest in the program: [9]

At present, the Marine Corps has no plans to adopt the OICW, said Diehl. “We’re pretty much taking a wait and see attitude,” he told National Defense.

Diehl is Lt. Col. A.J. Diehl, program manager for infantry weapons at the Marine Corps Systems Command, in Quantico, Va.

So much for the Modern Marvels as a reliable source. I had other minor quibbles with the episode and didn't bother to fact-check everything, but it was essentially a one-sided circle jerk on the M-16, presenting all the positives and no criticisms. It closed with a quote from James K. Dunningan:

The bottom line is, everybody tried it, everybody without exception liked it. Everybody uses it. The only people who use Ak-47's, which are basically, you know, surplus on the market, are revolutionaries who can't afford an M-16

which goes unchallenged. Everybody, eh? Except the Australian_Army, and British Army, to name two. I don't intend to start a fight over which gun is superior, and hell, I like the M-16. But (and this is one thing that Wiki has taught me) I know bias when I see it, and Modern Marvels is reeking of it. Not an academic source, definitely not an unbiased source.

What do you expect from a series titled "Modern Marvels" whose whole purpose is to hype the subject. --Mmx1 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention whether the information was essentially correct. If you'd like to dispute, I'll write a letter to the producer, and see if his research was correct.

I'd be happy to send you a dvd of my capture file. Here another person:

From: Kevin Brooks - view profile Date: Mon, Feb 9 2004 8:45 am Email: "Kevin Brooks" <brooks...@notyahoo.com> Groups: sci.military.naval Not yet ratedRating: show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

"Anthony Acres" <tony.acr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:nlIVb.238$Sz3.33379@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...

> Ladies and Gents, > I am interested in discovering the relevant merits of the F14 and F15 > aircraft. This is in relation to each other, and to their probable > opponents. To my very untrained eye these two aircraft look remarkably > similar;

Their similarity is pretty much limited to both having twin engines, dual vert stabilizers, and side mounted engine inlets.

> were they designed by the same people,

No. Grumman handled the F-14, McDonnel Douglas the F-15.

> what is their history,

F-14 stems from the failed F-111B program, which was finally cancelled in 1968 after it proved to be unsuitable for carrier operations and lacked any real close-in air-to-air fighting capability . Largely built around its AWG-9 fire control system and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, with primary mission of intercepting the hordes of Soviet cruise missile carrying bombers which could threaten a USN carrier group 9the objective being to strike the bombers if at all possible before they could unleash their ASM's). Still maintained a pretty good ability to mix it up in the close fight. First flight in 1970 (Grumman and the USN had already seen the writing on the wall as to F-111B unsuitability as early as 1966).

F-15 was developed to get the USAF back into a dedicated air superiority platform. Early intel on the Mig-25 had given an incorrect impression of its capabilities and intended mission (it was an interceptor with no real close-in fighting ability, but the intel folks thought it was going to be a world class dogfighter), so the USAF wanted to counter that threat. First flight in 1972. In the dogfighting arena it has been the acknowledged king for years, but it never had the very long-range AAM capability that the F-14 had with its Phoenix.

and

> is their percieved similarity just coincidence?

Yep, if you find them all that similar.

How do their performances

> rate in a one on one situation?

I suspect the pilots of each would likely be a bit biased. There is reference to one F-15 pilot acknowledging that he found the F-14 to be a handful to deal with in the low speed fight. In the end the two aircraft were designed for somewhat different missions, though the F-14 by default had to also be able to handle the close in fight in addition to its BVR intercept role. The original F-14A's had some significant engine problems to deal with, and IIRC they never did get around to reengining the entire force. Comparing the F-14 of today versus the F-15 of today against each other would be a bit unfair--the USN sort of stopped (or minimized) modernization efforts on the Tomcat when they decided to expedite its retirement, hence the fact that the AIM-120 AMRAAM was not integrated into its weapons sytem, while the F-15's continue to undergo modernization efforts in an ongoing manner. There is no doubt that the F-15 has been the more successful program overall; it has yielded, and continues to yield, more foreign export orders, and it has undeniably racked up a higher score of air-to-air victories. The F-14 saw a late-life transformation into a multi-role strike platform as the "Bombcat", but it does not come close to the strike capabilities of the F-15E.

FYI, the two aircraft competed against each other at one point when the USAF was seeking a new interceptor to replace the F-106. In the end the USAF stuck with the F-15 in that role, passing down F-15A's to air defense squadrons as the newer F-15C's came into service with the tactical fighter units.

Brooks

I hope you get the general idea.

There are things generally not considered acceptable for citation as sources: forum/usenet posts (because identity and hence credibility of the poster is unknown), and emails, because both are not available for independent verification. That's why I've been reluctant to incorporate things I've read on aviation forums, though it makes a useful place to start further research.

Essentially correct according to who? That's why we're discussing the credibility of sources! The M-16 piece quoted authoritative people (mostly). But it achieved its bias through omission of alternate POV, of which there are many, and there is a heated AK vs AR debate (hell, we even have an article Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 ).--Mmx1 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

F-14 Pilot says F-14 was designed to be a maneuverable dogfighter

--Wiarthurhu 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Submitted for your approval:

The maneuvering air superiority requirement

In 1967, seeing the writing on the wall for the F-111B, Grumman began preparing an advanced design, the G-303. The basic goals were to make a plane superior to the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, "particularly in the air superiority, escort fighter, and deck-launched interception role". In 2006, many questioned whether the F-14 had originally been intended to be a dogfighting air superiority fighter in view of its primary fleet defence mission. In an interview on the 2006 television program "Modern Marvels" on the retirement of the F-14, F-14 test pilot Charlie Brown stated "we needed air superiority, which required an air combat maneuverable fighter, capable of being a nimble and agile, a dogfighter". . Grumman had design a wing which could fly at Mach 2, and "maneuver spryly" in combat, the swing wing was "first priority". . Lowering the weight to just half the 80,000 lb weight of the F-111B also raised its thrust to weight ratio higher than the less capable F-4. The wing area of the F-14 was also increased for the main purpose of agility.

When the Navy decided for cost and time reasons to keep the AN/AWG-9 radar, AIM-54 Phoenix missile, and the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines from the failed F-111B, this biased the competition heavily in favor of Grumman, which had been working closely with General Dynamics on the F-111B. Grumman's swing-wing design was selected in 1969.

Grumman was given the contract for the F-14 in January 1969. Upon being granted the contract for the F-14, Grumman greatly expanded its Calverton, Long Island, New York facility to test and evaluate the new swing-wing interceptor. Much of the testing was in the air of the Long Island sound as well as the first few in-flight accidents including the first of many compressor stalls and ejections.

The Tomcat is said to be named for the late Vice Admiral Thomas Connolly, whose testimony before the Senate, "Gentlemen, there isn't enough thrust in Christen-dom to make that F-111 into a [agile] fighter" basically killed the F-111B. Connolly's call sign was "Tomcat," hence the popular name which also conformed with the Navy's tradition of giving feline names to Grumman fighters. In addition, "Tomcat" was first suggested for the Grumman F7F Tigercat in 1943, but it was rejected by the Navy as being inappropriately suggestive.

Development

To facilitate the rapid entry of the F-14 into service and lower development costs, the Navy planned to recycle the engine and avionics from the F-111B for the initial version, and progressively introduce new avionics and weapons systems into the airframe. The designation F-14A was assigned to the airframe equipped with updated TF-30 engines and the AN/AWG-9 weapons system from the F-111B. It first took flight December 21, 1970. The original plan was to only build a few F-14As, as the TF30 was known to be a troublesome engine. In addition, the engine was not designed for rapid thrust changes or a wide flight envelope and only supplied 74% of the intended thrust for the F-14. An F-14B would follow in November 1987 using the engine from the advanced technology engine competition. The F-14C was intended to denote a variant implementing a replacement for the AN/AWG-9. However, it was delayed, and this variant was never produced. When it finally arrived as the AN/APG-71, the designation assigned to the new aircraft was F-14D, which first flew November 24, 1987. Though the Marine Corps initially sent instructors to VF-124 to train as instructors, the Corps pulled out of the program in 1976, after deciding the F-14 was too expensive for their needs.[10], similar to decisions to keep the AH-1 Cobra and delay adoption of the M-1 Abrams tank.

Response - making shit up again

So you're a software engineer that can't close tags properly. And that's something you are purportedly a professional in. Let's dissect this.

• First of all, and most egregiously, you're putting words in Admiral's mouths. You wrote:

Gentlemen, there isn't enough thrust in Christen-dom to make that F-111 into a [agile] fighter

Now, I'm not sure if it's you or Mr. Tillman (your source) who put in the "[agile]", but either way, Connolly definitely didn't say "agile". He has variously been quoted as saying "...make a [carrier] fighter" or "...make a fighter"[11], but google turns up no version of the quote where agile is used. So having done that, how am I supposed to believe the rest of your assertions and that they weren't taken out of context? Funny, because Connolly contradicts you. He doesn't say "there isn't enough wing area", he doesn't say "there isn't enough lift", he says "there isn't enough thrust". Clearly his conception of a fighter involved something other than turning really tightly.

• Even if I assume good faith and presume that Mr. Brown spoke exactly as quoted, is he a reliable source? He was not just a test pilot for Grumman, he was later a VP for Grumman. That's like asking Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer about MS-DOS. Sure...they were there....can you trust them to give an unbiased picture? Um...no. I've already established above the Modern Marvels is nothing less than a circle-jerk about technology and hardly an unbiased (nor unflawed) source.
• You're daring editors to revert you? "I dare you to revert that, unless you believe you are a more reliable source than Grumman's original test pilot" You know what, I'll take you up on it. I wouldn't have originally, but putting words in Adm. Connolly's mouth is so egregious that I can't assume good faith about other sources that so far only you've seen.
• Moreover, the analogy to AH-1 and M-1 are

• original research
• flawed. Since you're talking about the decision to "keep" the AH-1, I assume you're talking about the 2000's acquisition of the AH-1Y upgrade, which was motivated primarily by the ability to keep a common logistical train between the AH-1 and the UH-1 - they're 70-80% common in parts, particularly the drivetrain and tail assembly. It also involved simply rebuilding existing airframes as opposed to buying new....so money was indirectly a factor, but it was not as simple as (X is cheaper than Y).

p.s. according to tv.com[12], the program misidentified Mig-25's as Mig-23's, which is about par with the Marine Corps/Army switch they did in the M-16 episode. Okay...27's as 23's I can understand - same airframe, different nose. Mistaking a fixed wing plane for a swing-wing? These are the people you're using as a source????!??!? p.p.s. watching Modern Marvels:Aircraft carrier now.....let's see what other fun stuff I can find. --Mmx1 04:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

calm. down.

I propose the involved parties take a one week break from editing this article or commenting in the talk space. ericg ✈ 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Holiday weekend makes for a great wikibreak.--Mmx1 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the numbers

Agile dogfighters have low wing loading.

• F-16: wing loading 88 lb/sqft
• JAS 39 Grippen: 70 lb/sqft
• Mirage F1: 91 lb/sqft
• F-14: 113 lb/sqft
• F-4: 78 lb/sqft

One of these is not like the others...

All the books on the F-14's development indicate that it was first and foremost a Phoenix AAM carrier, and that designing to carry 4-6 Phoenix caused the aircraft to deviate significantly from what was optimal for air to air combat dogfighting capability. Gunston's "Great book of Modern Warplanes" describes all the design variants which were considered, as a high level overview. Georgewilliamherbert 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They can also pull alot of g's

• F-16: 9
• F-15: 9
• Su-27: 9
• MiG-29: 9
• F-14: 6.5

And let's not forget Thrust to weight ratio

• F-16: 1.095
• F-15:1.04
• MiG-29: 1.05
• Su-27: 1.09
• F-14: .88

Now hopefully this will resolve the dispute. The F-14 was designed to gain Air superiority over carrier groups by destroying bombers before they could get within cruise missile range of the carrier group. It was not designed as a dogfighter as is often stated. I cannot provide a source for this but many pilots of the USAF have said that the F-14 cannot win a dogfight because when put into a hard turn it loses all energy (see Energy-Maneuverability theory) and becomes an easy target. They also make the statement that it telegraphs its energy state while in flight based on position of the wings, making it easy to guess the intentions of the pilot.

Also, when the F-14 was coming into service, a vast number of articles began showing up in the press, stating that the F-14 was unmaneuverable, and the F-15 too expensive. These articles called for the development of a light weight fighter, which became the LWF competition, which resulted in the F-16. This will seem biased, but Top Gun was responsible for much of the belief in the F-14's dogfighting skill. It is also quite possible that some of those behind all of this could be misunderstanding their sources and each other. Also some of the sources might be misinformed or slightly biased. For example, in the book Skunk Works, by Ben Rich, a former president of Skunk Works, he makes the statement that the P-38 was the most maneuverable fighter of WWII, when pilots of the P-38 attest that it was not well suited to a turning fight, and that it was best employed by sneaking up upon an enemy, and destroying him before being seen, or to dive at an enemy using the P-38's high diving speed, or use this same method to escape.

This mistake is probably not the mistake of Ben Rich, he was probably just misinformed. But it shows that presidents of corporations are not necessarily the best informed about their products. LWF 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that it can't win a dogfight. As with the F-4 Phantom II during the Vietnam War, proper tactics and better pilots will give F-14 pilots an advantage even if it's a less agile aircraft. But it's at a dogfight disadvantage. Georgewilliamherbert 18:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That isn't going to resolve anything. The Tomcat had a lot of critics since before it even entered service and they'd state things that weren't entirely true. As for showing the G's and stuff, higher Gs don't always mean superior turning. I can be in a bi-plane pulling 2g while you're in your F-16 pulling 9 and I can still turn inside of you because I have a much smaller radius of turn. The Tomcat handles well at lower speeds and as a result can have a good radius of turn. The Tomcat's real min radius is actually classified. The Tomcat Demo announcer says it's 1500 ft if you've ever seen the show, which still isn't bad. Back in the day the g-limit for F-14s was higher, like over 7. It was lowered to 6.5 in the 90s when no more Tomcats were being made. That doesn't mean it couldn't go any higher if need be. I don't think this issue will ever be resolved. Too many haters out there.

I'm trying to sidestep the whole "was it maneuverable vice other aircraft" which is difficult to answer based on imperfect statistical evidence and biased analyst commentary. I'm trying to get at historical facts about institutional decisions. Nothing in the Navy design history indicates it was designed to. The literature is full of half-truths about aircraft. Many people (myself included) believed the F-16 was the first aircraft to have a bubble canopy, an oft-stated fact. Actually, they were used back in WWII, on the P51, among other planes. When that was pointed out to me, I removed it from the F-16 page. There's a lot of self-aggrandizing crap out there. But the sources do not back up the assertion that WVR was a strong motivation for either killing the TFX or building the F-14, and the sources don't back up any assertion along the lines of "the Tomcat was one of the most maneuverable fighters of its time". among Interceptors? very likely and probably indisputable. Among fighters? Evidence doesn't support it.

Trying to represent the truth doesn't mean I'm "hating". If you read the amateur sources for each aircraft online (F-14/15/16/18/Su-27/Mig-29), they'll all independently say that it was the best aircraft, turned the tightest, whatnot. They can't all be true, and this encyclopedia shouldn't mimic such self-aggrandization.--Mmx1 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you're trying to do. I agree it's important to get a good historical perspective. But to say that dogfighting was not a factor in the design of the Tomcat period would be a lie. People do hype things up a lot. People can also downplay things a lot. I can definitely recognize amateur/fan literature and how it's all self-aggrandizing crap as you put it. Much of my impression and knowledge I have of the Tomcat is from a couple individuals who have flown it. They don't do a lot of aggrandizing, and they're honest that the Tomcat wasn't the best suited aircraft for dogfighting in the world when compared especially to what's out there now. Dogfighting might not have been the single most pressing issue in creating the Tomcat, but it was still important. There's no way the Navy would have been satisfied with an aircraft that was not suited at all for close in combat. If you couldn't already tell, I really like the F-14, I wouldn't be here otherwise. But I'm not doing this to make the F-14 seem like it was the super unstoppable bestest plane in the world. When I read that dogfighting was not an issue in the development of the Tomcat, I decided to make an attempt to correct that.

Previous F-14 Article "uncompromised air superiority" and "most maneuverable"

Here is the content of the article before MMx substantially changed the tone and nature of the article. Notice that prior to that no one else had ever challenged these assertions:

The Tomcat was intended as an uncompromised air superiority fighter and interceptor, charged with defending carrier battle group

The F-14 is perhaps the most maneuverable and agile of all swing-wing [No reference to uncited assertion "although it was not designed to be maneuverable" as inserted by Mmx, and since impossible to fix due to his diligence]

The real issue is that should one editor, with zero credentials and questionable ability to discrminate between valid citations and sources that support or contradict arguments who believes he is god's appointed final arbiter of truth be permitted to rudely defend this article against all attempts to state the F-14 was designed to be a dogfighter??

Nothing wrong with writing a wiki paper, backing it up with proof, and putting a citation to it and adding a controversy section to the article. But in the presence of at least one conflicting authorative opinion, a Grumman VP, he cannot stand that his is the only allowable point of view in the article since even if he is correct, the point is disputed at best. --131.107.0.81 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(going back into my self-imposed wikibreak from this article and talk page). The talk page speaks for it self. But I will say this about the attacks on my credentials. At least I don't claim that building model airplanes or SAT scores are "credential"s.--Mmx1 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for even *ONE* credential. Something must give the right to proclaim that you are a more reliable expert than I, so how do you convince others, other than you can clearly yell louder than I can. You have not been able to show one reason to believe you are a more expert source, other than being able to conclude that a paper that includes the F-14 as one of 4 air superiority fighters contain proof that it isn't one. You can't really know the F-14 until you've built a model of one. Go to ebay and get the Revell 1:144 mini-kit, it's only $10 and takes about 5 min to put together. Then we'll talk. --matador300 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh.... I've had the detailed tour of one on the ground, talked design with some of its designers, and people I know have flown F-14s both operationally and as test pilots. Everyone agreed that the F-14 was much less agile than the F-18, F-16, F-15, or A-4 (though it had more power than the A-4 and thus better sustained turning capability, if you ended up in a sustained turning fight... which was a horrible idea as the A-4 was usually turning inside you...).

Any mention of a F-14 model as any sort of authoratative source is bizarre and unsupportable. Such a mention automatically raises suspicions of unreasonable sources.

Start with the current edition of The Great Book of Modern Warplanes ISBN: 0760308934 edited by Mike Spick, or the older edition from the mid-80s. The chapter on the Tomcat goes into the various conceptual design variants which traded off size, AIM-54 load, what would it look like without any AIM-54s / only Sparrow AAMs, single and dual tails, different range requirements, etc etc.

Follow up with Tomcat: The F-14 Story by Gillcrist ISBN: 0887406645.

If you don't understand air combat maneuvering, energy management, aircraft design, test and combat flying, etc... you are not in a position to be lecturing me at least about the F-14's role. Georgewilliamherbert 21:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, you still haven't explained when and how God told you that the F-14 wasn't an air superiority fighter and appointed you carrier of this gospel ?? --matador300 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So suddenly all of those people who've flown the F-14 and all those other planes don't really know them because they haven't built a model of them? And I find it interesting how you hide behind the name matador300 instead of just coming right out with your real user name Wiarthurhu. LWF 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm transitioning my ID. I certainly consider flying or maintaining an F-14 equivalent to building a model. Point is, I'd like any reason at all to believe MMx is better qualified to be the arbiter of truth about the F-14 than the original test pilot. (oh, forgot, he's not biased like the Grumman guy). From what we know, we have no evidence he has never read even one printed or broadcast piece on the topic, relying solely on a contructed interpretation of data from the internet. Didn't your english teacher teach you something about sources and constructing a research paper? Oh, I forgot, I can't assume MMx has completed a pre-college high school curriculum, since he's given me no evidence of that either. You know that's one of the primary criticims of the WP, that people who know absolutely next to nothing about the topic can muscle in their POV just by doing exactly what MMx has being doing since March, and credentials don't count for squat, just who can leave the most surviving edits. Don't you think there is too much of people who don't know squat chasing away people with credentials. Heck I was a high school student that got articles published Aviation Week about the F-14 and f-18. If he's right, that's not a problem. If he's wrong, and tossing out every citation and source, and reverting every edit in christendom, then that's a problem!! --131.107.0.81 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You write:

I certainly consider flying or maintaining an F-14 equivalent to building a model.

People who fly or maintain F-14s are certainly much better sources than people who build models. People who build models have no special encyclopedic knowledge about F-14s at all.

People who fly F-14s, that I know, all agree that it's not as agile as F-18s, F-16s, F-15s, A-4s, which many of them have also flown. Some of these in operational squadrons, some as test pilots, who are being trained to explore and categorize and numerically report on things like agility, handling qualities, etc.

I had a business shirt ruined by F-14 landing gear grease. It was worth the new shirt. I suspect I have more hands-on experience with an F-14 than a modelmaker, though not as much as anyone who flew or maintained them for real.

Over the weekend I would be happy to enter quotes from the first edition "Great book of modern warplanes" in-depth chapter on F-14 development.

Georgewilliamherbert 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on it all

All right, since my opinion was asked for, here it is.

The F-14 was designed to intercept missile-carrying bombers before they could launch missiles on carrier groups. To do so, it required speed, altitude, and range. It was not designed to dogfight, but was designed to gain air superiority by using long range missiles to destroy anything coming within range of the carrier group.

The F-14 may have been designed to be maneuverable, but the maneuverability is of a different type than that of the dogfight, and compared to its contemporaries, it is not an effective dogfighter as that is not what it was designed for.

Perhaps the dispute in F-14 can be resolved by this: If the article states that it was designed to gain air superiority by intercepting aircraft carrying long-range missiles, and designed with low speed maneuverability in mind, to aid in carrier landings, but was not pricipally designed as a dogfighter. Dogfighting being a last resort. Therefore it is an air superiority aircraft though it is not the best dogfighter.

References:

• Boyd The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram
• Attack and Interceptor Jets by Michael Sharpe
• The Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft by David Donald and Jon Lake
• How to Make War by James F. Dunnigan

LWF 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I was just reading the Rand Report, and it says "As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.6" So I'm afraid I must retract my statement that the F-14 was designed for air superiority. LWF 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ughh.uncompromised by air superiority means that the Phoenix stays. Grumman test pilot states in an interview that the F-14 was designed for air superiority, agility and dogfigting. These statements are not contradictory. Retaining AWG-9 and Phoenix satisfies the fleet air defence requirement. Building an agile dogfighter in no way compromised that requirement. If it was not stated in VFX (can anybody find this document someplace???) It was stated by Grummans intent of the 303 to build a better fighter than the F-4, at the time the Navy's premier air superiority fighter. There is no place on the web or print other than MMx's modification of the Wiki article that states the F-14 in so many words was NOT designed with agility as a consideration. Look at my new edit, backed by verifiable sources. The article, I must point out, is about the development of 4 new air superiority fighters, including, not excluding the F-14. By its inclusion, the F-14 is, at least in the scope of the paper, defined as A, if not the most optimized air superiority fighter. The problem is when MMx insists on erasing any attempt rectify this ommision and deliberate deletion.

To recap:

1. Building a dogfighter did not compromise the fleet defence requirement. Adopting the F-15 would violate this requirement. Thus "they Navy did not want to compromise for the USAF air superiority requirement" The USAF compromised itself by insisting on a superset of the F-4 which resulted in a heavy fighter. Navy F-4 Phantom pilots were already shooting down Migs by 1965, about the time the Navy realized they needed some way out of the F-111B contract which never said a word about agility.

2. If an FAS article states that the F-14 was built to shoot down bombers with Phoenix, that in no way contradicts Grumman's design intention to build an agile fighter. It must be observed that in the current universe, it is entirely possible for both the FAS and Modern Marvels to be correct on this matter.

3. If a former Grumman test pilot and Grumman VP testifies on Modern Marvels, watched by thousands, that the F-14 had to be agile, that contradicts the notion that there is a consensus that there was no agility design goal for the F-14. The fact that at its introduction, the F-14 was, without question the best dogfighter in the world until the introduction of the similar F-15 tends to cast question on the probability that mere adoption of a swing wing to meet F-111B specs would produce this result. F-14 pilots themselves would dispute the notion of F-15 superiority, especially the F-14D. One unsourced comment in these notes says that at speeds approaching landing speeds, the F-14 handles much better than the F-15 due to wings that can be optimized for this regime, which is logical if difficult to verify an original source.

This is a bizarre set of inferrences.

One, nobody is stating that there was no agility design goal for the F-14. It was intended to be as agile as possible, given the overriding requirement to carry 4 (routinely) to 6 (overload) thousand-pound AIM-54 missiles out to a couple of hundred NM from the carrier in a hurry. That's why the Navy didn't just hang them off a Phantom, which can clearly carry that much load in a ground attack mission... the Phantom was not going to be an agility improvement.

Your statement The fact that at its introduction, the F-14 was, without question the best dogfighter in the world is not a fact, it is an opinion. And it is not an opinion that survives even the briefest encounter with actual pilot reports and engineering analysis. Just within the US Navy airfleet, the A-4 (a then-16 year old attack plane) and F-8 Crusader were both superior dogfighters to the F-14 at its introduction. And that is just in US Navy service. There were many, many other more agile and maneuverable and higher turning G and higher sustained turn rate fighters in existence when the F-14 entered service. None of which could carry a AIM-54 and AWG-9. And all of which a Tomcat with good crew could beat in an air to air engagement, given typical opponent pilot quality. But those are different issues.

At speeds approaching landing speed, your maneuver energy is so low that you have lost just about any chance of winning a dogfight. Low speed controlability does not equal maneuverability or agility in air combat.

Please stop making these ridiculous assertions of opinion, masquerading as fact. Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Mmx must cease and desist being the sole arbiter, and severely mutilating the #1 open source and oft replicated reference on this topic. If a group of individuals wants to construct a minority opinion, and back it up with verifiable sources, they should put a note in the main F-14 story as a controversy, not verifiable fact. --matador300 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop conflating air superiority fighter and dogfighter. They are not the same thing. Georgewilliamherbert 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See air superiority fighter To be a sucessful AS after 1965, you would have to also be a dogfighter. The F-100 and F-104 were also built for AS, but did not have as stringent an agility requirement. --matador300 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oy. stepping out of wikibreak for a bit to correct some things.

• The F-15 was never considered by the Navy....as it'd already selected the F-14. The "compromised by air superiority and strike" was in relation to the TFX and melding 3 requirements in one plane.
• Does the tail wag the dog? If Grumman and the Navy have different intentions, whose intentions take precedence? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the Navy buying these planes from Grumman, not vice versa
• "without question the best dogfighter in the world until the introduction of the similar F-15" Whoa. F-8 and A-4 pilots would question that statement. I've linked to the statements of a retired A-4 aggressor pilot whose said he regularly beat F-14's. Now, of course, he's biased...but no more than a Grumman test pilot and VP.

• In what way are the F-15 and the F-14 similar?

• The Navy did not want to back out of the TFX contract in 1965 because of some agility concern, it wanted to back out in 1961...when McNamara announced it.
• "handling qualities" as commonly interpreted as stability and response to control input, is largely irrelevant to aerial combat - in dogfighting you do NOT want predictable behavior. It is quite relevant to CAS and low-level bombing with iron sights, but that's out of the scope of this discussion.

So....judge for yourself. --Mmx1 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself. Please stop conflating air superiority fighter and dogfighter. They are not the same thing.

An air superiority fighter balances beyond visual range (radar missile) and visual range (dogfight and medium range engagements) requirements, with high standards in both.

Pure dogfighters are far better close-in combat aircraft than a common air superiority fighter. Thought it's not even really a fighter, see for example what the A-4 Skyhawk can do in the hands of Top Gun instructors. The F-16 has better T/W, wing loading, drag at lift, and visibility than a F-15, and in particular can do pitch maneuvers like there's no tomorrow. F-15 pilots loathe getting that close to F-16's. Until the advent of the most modern radars and AMRAAM, though, F-16s were in serious trouble past Sidewinder range.

The F-14's requirements included balancing 3 missions: Dogfight, BVR, and heavy AAM missile carrier. The result was about a 50% dilution in pure dogfight performance (see wingloading and T/W) and an oversized and slow airframe for mid-range BVR fights (where it's really not much better than a Phantom or F-15 with equivalent Sparrow versions).

Georgewilliamherbert 01:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

VFX vs FX

The VFX and FX are virtual twins spec and philosiphy wise except for Phoenix. If the FX was built for dogfighting, then the VFX was .... not??

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/atf-1.htm

The USAF initiated its FX program, while the USN discarded its troubled F-111B bomber turned interceptor in favour of the new VFX. Both the VFX and FX exploited new propulsion technology, discarding afterburning turbojets in favour of afterburning turbofans which offered much better specific fuel consumption in dry thrust and a higher ratio of afterburning thrust to dry thrust. Experience in Vietnam clearly indicated that the endurance/combat radius of the 400 NM class F-4 was inadequate and hence the VFX and FX were designed to a 1000 NM class combat radius. Climb and turn performance dictated low wing loading and good AoA performance this in turn shaping the wing and inlet designs.

First to fly was Grumman's VFX, designated the F-14A, a large twin with swing wings and a pair of TF-30 fans. The F-14A had a large bubble canopy for good visibility during dogfights, a Head Up Display (HUD) gunsight, computer controlled automatic wing sweep and glove vane positioning, a massive AWG-9 pulse Doppler air intercept/fire control radar system capable of tracking multiple targets in ground clutter and an internal M-61 gun. It was bigger, more complex and more expensive than the F-4, but it also offered agility and manoeuvrability without precedent. The first of the teen series fighters had thus made its mark. --matador300 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

More Contraband material that can't be put into F-14 article under current POV engagement rules =

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_14.html

Unfortunately, the early F-14 aircraft also included another late developing preproduction concept—deployable wing leading-edge maneuver slats for

• • • improved maneuverability. ***

Early Grumman flight tests revealed that the F-14 modified with both the ARI system and the maneuver slats displayed unsatisfactory air combat maneuvering characteristics because the ARI rudder inputs aggravated lightly damped rolling oscillations (wing rock) induced by the slats during maneuvers. Because of this incompatibility, the Navy deactivated the ARI systems on all fleet F-14 aircraft.

On January 14, 1969, the Navy announced the award of the contract for the VFX fighter, now designated F-14, to Grumman. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy requested that NASA make a timely independent assessment of the technical development of the F-14. A NASA F-14 Study Team of over 40 Langley personnel led by Langley researcher William J. Alford, Jr. was organized. A briefing of the study results was given in August 1969 at the Naval Air Systems Command by a team led by Laurence K. Loftin, Jr., Mark R. Nichols, and William Alford. This briefing (which covered results in cruise and

• • • maneuvering performance, ***

aeroelasticity and flutter, propulsion integration, stability, and control) identified several areas where further research would enhance the F-14’s capabilities. Following the briefing, Dr. John Foster, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, requested the support of Langley in the development of the F-14.

Here is one to add to the article - wing placement from NASA

One result of the LFAX-4 study that the Langley team emphasized was the critical location of the pivot for the movable wing panels. To minimize drag during transonic maneuvers typical of air-to-air combat, the pivots must be located in a relatively outboard position. Langley’s experience with the test and analysis of the F-111 revealed that large penalties in trim drag occurred if this key design factor was not adequately appreciated. Although the F-111 incorporated the variable-sweep concept, the full advantages of the concept were not realized because the pivot locations were relatively inboard. As a result, the F-111 suffered excessive trim drag at transonic and supersonic conditions. The designers of the F-14 were made aware of the significance of pivot locations by NASA briefings. Comparison of the NASA results for the LFAX-4 to those of the F-111 helped convince Grumman to locate the F-14 pivots in a more favorable outboard position.

VFAX was to be better fighter than F-4, replaced by VFX

http://www.georgespangenberg.com/a13.htm Exhibit A-13. A Retype of a paper by GAS published by the Association of Naval Aviation, The Gold Book of Naval Aviation - 1985 Naval Aviation Planning A Retrospective View (and some lessons for 1995)

This 1960's VFAX concept was a two place, twin-engined, variable sweep design which

• • bettered in all respects the characteristics of the F-4 as a fighter **

and the A-7 as an attack airplane. New technology engines and a new weapon system were required to meet these goals in a design about the size and weight of the F-4. VFAX became part of the Navy's plan for the future, until the F-111B proved itself unusable, eliminating the constraint which had justified it.

The final step in the developments of the F-111B period was what proved to be a real solution to the carrier fighter problem. In essence, this was done by adding Phoenix and AWG-9 to VFAX, thereby completing the circle, nearly returning to where we had been in 1961 with the "Navy TFX". Still another "Fighter Study" was completed showing that

• • • VFX, as it was called, was more effective and more cost

effective than the F-111B plus F-4, VFAX, *****

or other alternatives. After a competition, VFX became the F-14 Tomcat when a contract was awarded to Grumman in early 1970.

• • • • • • The F-14's design mission was in the air superiority role

carrying four Sparrows on a fighter escort mission. *****

A radius of 565 miles using internal fuel was estimated by the Navy. The FAD mission was treated as an overload, carrying six Phoenix missiles and external fuel. An attack capability carrying a wide variety of conventional stores with a visual delivery accuracy equal to the A-7E was also provided for in the basic design.

http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm

• • VFAX was designed to complement F-111B, F-14 would replace both **

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. The first definitive studies were completed by Grumman and provided the information by which the Navy convinced itself and the Congress, if not OSD, that a new fighter, VFX, could be produced which was more effective and less costly than continuing the F-111B and providing an adequate complementary fighter.

• • • The F-14, the only fighter designed to counter the full spectrum

of the projected threat against the fleet, was finally on its way. *** --matador300 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop flooding the talk page

Please stop flooding the talk page with large chunks of material. Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I will say is....read the sources....in full. Particularly the NASA one. --Mmx1 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop flooding with sources with I arrive at one that MMx will accept You do agree that these are all sources that contradict the position that Mmx makes it impossible to put on the F-14 article, right? ==matador300 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your current behaviour is against wikipedia rules, antisocial, and abusive. You are throwing masses of cut and paste comment from other sources here, in what may be a copyright violation (yes, that applies here in talk pages, too). You are not following a polite standard of discourse and summarizing sources with minimal quotes, and then providing a link.

You can choose to stop flooding the talk page, and remain here engaging in reasonable and non-abusive discussion. There are other choices you can make, but they likely will preclude your continuing to participate. If you want to participate, please do so politely and within wikipedia policy. Georgewilliamherbert 06:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note Julian Data's table that puts air superiority (that's manuverability folks..) as #1 over fleet air defence. VFX/VFAX is the F-14. --matador300 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm

* Wing area increased to 565 square feet from 505 square feet. Increased

combat agility. Allowed use of simple hinged single-slotted flap, rather than complex double-slotted extensible flap. As a fallout, maneuvering flap is easily achieved.

• Incorporation of glove vane. Superior supersonic maneuverability.

Reduced supersonic trim drag.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-variants.htm A completely new fighter system was designed around these with emphasis on close-in fighting "claws" along with standoff missile fighting. From its first flight on 21 December 1970, the F-14A went through five years of development, evaluation, squadron training and initial carrier deployments to become the carrier air wings' most potent fighter.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avtomcat.html The wings feature spoilers to improve maneuverability, plus full-span trailing-edge flaps and leading-edge slats to improve low-speed handling. The inboard flaps are of course disabled when wing sweep blocks their operation.

http://www.defencetalk.com/air_systems/fighters/f-14_tomcat.html F-14 Tomcat Air Systems - Fighters After failure of the F-111 as a fleet defender, Grumman immediately began a new design on a clean sheet of paper of a new lightweight fighter, bodily transfer from the F-111B includes the TF-30 engine, Hughes AWG-9 radar and Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix long range AAM. The F-14 was a totally new and un-compromised fighter. The selection process out of five submissions from Grumman, General Dynamics, Ling-Temco-Vought, McDonnel Douglas and North America Rockwell (4 of the 5 design involved sweep wings), Grumman's design was announced as the winner over McDonnel Douglas of the hastily contrived VFX program. The first of the 6 R&D F-14 prototype flew on 21 December 1970. The maiden flight was flow by Veteran Bob Smythe and Bill Miller. Unlike the F-111B, no attempt was made to achieve commonality with any aircraft and the need of the fighter sweep/escort; CAP (combat air patrol) and DLI (deck launch intercept) mission was given priority.

This is MMx's defect that needs to be corrected:

Reference Encyclopedia - F-14 F-14 edit Web www ...The Navy issued an RFP for the VFX in July 1968, resulting in the selection ... an designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability , the F - 14 ... www.referenceencyclopedia.com/?title=F-14 - 58k - Supplemental Result

Here's one for the other side: Mary is an engineer, but she's still wrong, we do see where the viewpoint comes from.

The F-14 wasn't

designed for knife fights with agile aircraft, because they weren't the threat. Bears and Bisons were.

Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. or

Two articles that show Grumman built 303/F-14 to be maneuverable, then tacked on Phoenix, thus also satisfying fleet defence.

Julian Data

posted July 27, 2005 09:24

---

The AIM54 was from an USAF design missile. The shear size is due to the requirement of it in which range was a major concern. You need a lot of propellant - rocket fuel - to carry a missile a long distance back in those days.

As the F-14, the AIM54 addition was thought afterwards to the aircraft's airframe design since Grumman concentrated on a proposal which encompassed air superiority first thus it had four AIM7 recession in the tunnel. Grumman was designing the F14 during the F-111B fiasco in which they were trying to lower the weight of the current TFX aircraft. When they knew that the USN no longer wanted the F-111B, Grumman and other aero manufacturers had VFX designs waiting in the wings.

Grumman figured a way to implement the AWG-9 design into the F14 by modifying it - lighter - and implementing the AIM54.

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=73;t=004225 More from Julian Data

Posted by Julian Data (Member # 6271) on April 21, 2002 00:53:

I thought the Phoenix died because of the threat of bombers weren't a threat anymore? Which was when the break up of the USSR? The F14 entered service in the mid 70s and IIRC, the USSR was still intact.

During the design of the F-14, during VFX, it was to carry out the USN's plan for a Fleet Air Defense Fighter, FADF for shortly but during the Vietnam War with the F-4N, the FADF became "secondary" as the primary objective was to design an air superiority fighter first. When the final classifications of the VAFX/VFX came out it composed of the following:

1. Air superiority<--------- Maneuver is 1st 2. FADF 3. escort 4. A/G 5. Long loiter time 6. distance 7. Approach speed to the carrier

I do recall the 14D carries the APG-71, which is basically a hybrid of the 15C's APG-70 mixed with the AWG-9.

I believe the heaviest aircraft to be ever used on a carrier was the Vilgilante. Wasn't it's MAXTO around 85000lbs or more?

The ability for the F-14 to take off with a lot of weight is attributed to the Coefficient of lift. Since aircraft really doesn't possess a fuelsage, the pancake section between the nacelles and the area where the wing boxes are located create more lift than the wings. The actual lift area is higher than the quoted specifiction of 565sqft. This design is also mimicked with the Mig29 and SU-27.

Having this much lift area with a high aspect ratio you don't need as much Alpha to land or take off.

Dispute, and changes to article

I have made changes to the article that will hopefully resolve dispute, and I am posting a list here:

• lowercase "j" in jets
• cut "much less win" from sentence "survive, much less win a dogfight." if it won't survive then it's obvious it won't win, extra phrase is redundant
• added ' to indicate possessive
• rm hopefully unneeded hidden message
• rm widely spaced engines adding hardpoints, F-14 doesn't make use of extra space

What do you mean, doesn't make use of the extra space? The center four AIM-54 racks go between the engine pods, or the center four Sparrows in semi-recessed mounts (in a different arrangement). And please sign your posts. Georgewilliamherbert 06:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• rm word much, isn't particularly needed
• rm hidden message
• rm part about F-14 being most maneuverable at introduction, uncited
• rm sentence about skilled F-14 pilots, it is common sense that they could
• tightened sentence about swing wings and low speed maneuverability
• rm sentence about maneuverability, no hard proof it compares well
• rm part about F-14 being first use TF30, F-111 was already using it operationally
• rm portion saying AMRAAM being shorter ranged than Sparrow, it's not
• mentioned F-14 never carried AMRAAM operationally
• changed air superiority to fleet defence, fleet defence includes air superiority
• added A in F/A-18
• changed AWAC to AWACS LWF 15:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that mistake, I was thinking of the F-15 there. Although I've looked at it since then, and that particular part isn't necessary, because that information is stated elsewhere. And I mean to sign my posts but I have a tendency to forget. LWF 15:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

Okay, I'm open to compromise and I recognize I've taken a hardline stance. But I remain adamant that maneuverability was neither a primary design consideration for the Tomcat nor a primary reason for the cancellation of the TFX. The Navy didn't like the TFX from the day they were ordered to cooperate with the Air Force.

Now regarding the first edits by LWF, I feel they are fine, but there are some serious issues that still need to be addressed:

• it would be the F-4 Phantom, the plane that the F-111 was intended to replace, that would be the last US fighter to fly in all three American air arms using fast jets, excelling in all fighter and bomber roles.

• well, I don't know what "using fast jets" is supposed to mean, and "excelling in all fighter and bomber roles is a stretch given its Vietnam era criticisms.

• The final undoing of McNamara's vision would be the one factor omitted from the TFX specification, that had been decisive in every prior air war. What was thought to be obsolete by the missile age was maneuverability in a dogfight.

Should be deleted from everywhere it appears in wiki, including the F-111. Maneuverability was not decisive in "every prior air war". And any statement to the effect of "decisive in every ___ war" ought to be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. It should read: "What finally convinced civilian oversight to accede to military demands to cancel the TFX were its dismal performance as compared to the (now known to be overestimated) abilities of the newly revealed Mig-23 and Mig-25" This whole paragraph needs to be heavily rewritten to strike the POV (accountant's view was so thoroughly discredited? This is another area where Wiarthurhu's bias shows. While joint programmes lost steam, systems analysis essentially took over weapons acquisitions and is now present at every level of it. Hell, just a few years later the AF/Navy did another joint program in the LWF, which the Navy pulled out of. And now we're at it again with the JSF.

Discussion of the development should foil developer(Grumman) claims against Navy requirements.

• If you're to compare Sparrows and guns.....where's the Sidewinder?
• A lighter airframe gave a better thrust to weight ratio than the smaller Phantom,

• This makes no sense. The Tomcat has a higher empty weight than the F-4. It's the increased thrust that improved t/w....not by much though.

• It also handily beat A-4 Skyhawk aggressors simulating the Mig-17 which had caused so many problems over Vietnam, and sealed the fate of the F-111B.

• Uncited and goes against all anecdotal evidence. Also "sealed the fate"? The F-111B was already dead.

What should be included is a comparison of the Tomcat against other interceptors and swing-wing planes, because it is unique in that it's computer-assisted variable swing makes it probably the most maneuverable in either class.

• "tradition of retaining less expensive but still effective weapons like the AH-1 and M-60"

• OR statement that oversimplifies reality. The Corps tends to turn down expensive purchases, as it did the AH-64. But the Corps then went to purchase an upgraded AH-1W after rejecting the AH-64, and is currently rebuilding the AH-1. The Corps did also eventually purchase the M-1. You could also say that the Corps has a "tradition of retaining less complex but still effective weapons". I just think this questionable judgement call should be nuked altogether.

--Mmx1 03:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oversimplification

My main problem with Wiarthurhu's edits is that they grossly oversimplify the issue. He takes something true, like "maneuverability is important to fighters" and twists it into "maneuverability was decisive in every previous air war". Similarly, regarding the VFAX:

The VFAX was a lightweight aircraft designed to mix short-range aerial combat with a strike ability to complement the F-111B. The VFX could not have been as simple as VFAX + Phoenix (and AWG-9), because the VFX had no strike capacity. Hell, if they wanted fleet defense + short-range aerial combat + strike....that was the TFX. --Mmx1 03:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's worse than that. "The F-14 was optimized to improve its maneuverability with XYZ features" true. Conclusion that the F-14 has maximum possible maneuverability false. An F-14 designed to not have to carry 4-6 AIM-54 and the big radar would have been smaller (F-15 sized) and much more nimble, as the 303G and navalized F-15 designs showed. The Navy went with 303E and Phoenix, and got a bigger, less-agile, higher wing loading, lower T/W, lower max G bird in the Tomcat. The Tomcat had as much maneuverability as it could consistent with the Phoenix mission, but that doesn't mean it was as agile an aircraft as it could have been. Georgewilliamherbert 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The danger of selective quotation

Well, I have spent quite a bit of my Friday night reading these sources. I'd found Mr. Spangenberg's recollections [13] interesting, and as he was part of NAVAIR he seemed to be an unbiased source. Bad assumption. He was a supporter of the F-14 against the hi/low mix and efforts to buy the F-18.

It seems clear that those who advocate high/low mixes in the fighter field should provide a rationale to support the concept. At the moment, the net result will be a lower capability at a higher cost -- hardly the goal being sought. [14]

For the Navy, the F-18 fighters are costing much more than an equal number of F-14s would have cost.[15]

Gee, he'd have no reason to hype the capabilities or history of the F-14!

Let that be a warning to you. History is a difficult nut to crack and biases are rampant. --Mmx1 05:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on latest F-14 revision

I've updated further the many innovations that made the F-14 agile, incorporating the latest sweep of the internet and my reference books that I could find. I also pulled the long history out of the main page. The F-14 page is probably now the most extensive network of articles of any WP aircraft, and I only have Mmx1 to thank to get me angry enough amass such a huge pile of research. Enjoy, and please I need wingmen to help keep Mmx1 off of my tail, though he may succeed in shooting down a couple of other innocent WP articles in the melee. --matador300 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

For reasons of verifiability and copyright, it is customary to add references to material added to articles. Though you may have a stack of books, other wikipedia editors have no idea if you have directly copied the information or misrepresented it somehow. Though I assume good faith this seems to be a controversial issue and it might be best to cite your sources for the statements. {{cite book}} can be useful, but I find that m:Cite/Cite.php is most useful. It makes nice footnotes that are easy to follow and easy to cite multiple statements with the same source. This article has some references at the bottom, but having general references can be misleading and its better to cite through-out the article. This article will never be a "good article" or a featured article until it is cited properly. I sure someone could help cite if you have problems. --Dual Freq 17:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with first and most section

Several uses of the word operational in the list despite being non-operational. I'm not sure how to fix those, several wouldn't be true if it was simply changed to formerly operational. I would also think the entire section belongs at the end of the article. No point in having a list right up front, but I'm not sure where it should go towards the end. I didn't change the section due to the mediation issue. --Dual Freq 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it should be dropped. This article is filling up with trivia and only peripherally related topics. How is the Plymouth Superbird relevant? The section "Hi Lo" is not about the F-14; it's about a related naval aviation tactic and really doesn't belong in an F-14 article. It's also in the wrong location, embedded in the USN operational history section. And what's the obsession with the F/A-18? Isn't it sufficient to say that the F-14 was replaced by the F/A-18E/F? Is it really necessary to mention is fourteen different times? I'm in favor of a top-to-bottom edit of the article to streamline and re-focus it. Dabarkey 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the list. I agree with the drop list argument, I also think there were several problems with the list besides that none of it is sourced. If it should be in the article, it shouldn't be at the top. I also agree with the Superbird comment, and concur that this article needs to be cleaned up hopefully during this mediation process. --Dual Freq 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have many problems with the current text as expressed in my request for mediation:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat. You are all invited to participate to hash out the content in light of a recent edit war over the article between myself and Wiarthruhu (who signs as matador300). --Mmx1 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright! I was There!

This isn't just Tomcat chauvinism on my part. I was a member of a elite F-14 squadron, (VF-211,'79 to '83), I worked in the Avionics and Fire Control Shop and we used to kick the Airforce's backside so hard and so often that I had lost all respect for them up until the first Gulf War. 80% of our pilots were Topgun grads, and a third were former instructors there, which was unusual at the time. We would "kill" state-side Airforce birds during wargames on average at a ratio of 7 to 1 to as bad as 12 to 1.

A-4s, F-4s, F-5s, F-15s, F-16s and even F-18s were all lunch. (The Vietnam era birds were flown against because they had the same flight characteristics as several Soviet Migs then in the inventory) Even the Airforce elite outfits flying out of Japan only got as good as 4 to 1. A Tomcat flown by a skilled and aggressive pilot is a truely formidable opponent. I used to observe the dogfights at Nellis AFB through the TACTs station at our base in Mirimar, Calif.

The best fighter pilot I ever met was my Skipper, Commander Ernst. I saw him and his wingman take on and destroy a flight of 4 F-15s. And he did this AFTER his wingman was shot down. (He was ordered to break left, messed up and broke right) Commander Ernst then went nose up into the sun so they couldn't lock up 'winders on him and accellarated away from them in a climb, when he got far enough away he spun the bird, dived down on them with the sun still behind him and fed the lead element a sidewinder apiece. (The 9L version was very good for head on attacks) The remaining element broke in different directions and were brought down one at a time. And that was just one example.

C'mon folks! We could see and lock up on targets as small as an F-5 at a 110 nauticals miles out! And against ground clutter! We would often lock them up at that range as soon as they had wieght off wheels. No other fighter had even a third of that radar range, and nowhere near the discrimination. The good ones maybe got to maybe 25 miles. The majority were around 12 to 15 NM. How much warning does a good fighter pilot need? Add to that the fact that the belly acts like an extra wing, giving an extra 40% more lift than its wing surfaces alone. I've seen them do snap rolls, pitch their noses up and turn within a quarter mile at just under mach.

The main draw back? EXPENSIVE. Expensive to buy, expensive to maintain. Thats why the F-18 replaced it. My Squadron had 14 birds, (12 active, 2 spares) at 45 million (1980)dollars apiece. Thats well over half a billion dollars for just one squadron. For perspective the carrier I was on only cost 4 billion. The f-18 cost less than half that. After the Soviets folded we had no worthy opponents for it to be cost effective.

And who came up with that 6 g nonsense? After one particularly ferocious exercise where we were practising brigade tactics (12 on 12) Then Lt, now Adm. Stufflebeam bent his plane so hard the wings drooped, and couldn't fold back in, and it was pissing fuel at the wing roots. The Airframes boys and engineers said that that took close to 11g's to do. But thats a onetime, extreme example. They didn't like the pilots to do more than 9. (The powers that be were really miffed at him. I'm glad to see it didn't hurt his career. They did manage to fix the bird.) BigDon 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Adds credence to what the former Commander of the Tomcatters said about the Tomcat: that it was only being retired because it was old and expensive to maintain. From reading the intensive dogfight of a talk page here I think some people here need to act a little more mature. One persistent poster in particular seems to think, IMHO, judging by his wording of his comments, to know everything from what he reads and what references he can cite. The person here thinking of becoming a Marine should bare in mind that nobody likes a know-it-all arrogant attitude, especially in the corps. My advice to him is that if he is to survive in a military environment he should do his best to practice some humility or else it will be forced down his throat.-Caracal1 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I know my place. And when up against individuals who claim that maneuverability was "the deciding factor in all previous aerial warfare", that all "all subsequent (aerial)combat has been like Vietnam", that aircraft models are a valuable source for information about aircraft, or yourself, who believes that the Phoenix missile gives you "first look first kill" ability, I have no problem summarily dismissing your opinions as amateur, uninformed, and just plain wrong. My opinions are based on academic research as well as the compiled opinions of Naval Aviators and individuals in the American and British defense industries. I'll take that over the opinions of random internet armchair Generals any day. Oh, and I'm not the one flashing my diplomas and test scores, so I'm not really sure who's the arrogant one here.

You also seem to believe that in wartime mission rates will just magically rise "regardless of how easy or hard it is to maintain in the first place". Under the stressors of combat, performance decreases from training. Sure, once in a while people rise to the occasion, but as a general rule the reverse is true. Friction and the fog of war are extremely strong forces, and their influence is stronger on processes that are complex to begin with.

And finally, you regard "low-observable measures" as "Hilarious!" because of external stores. You might want to drop the Europeans a memo. The Typhoon and Rafale both have low-observable features and no internal stores. So Boeing, BAe, and Dassault are all just a bunch of fools, right? --Mmx1 19:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)--Mmx1 19:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unswept image?

There aren't any images in the article clearly showing it unswept. How about including Image:Wing.tomcat.unswept.750pix.jpg? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-16t20:19z

Um, other than the one at top? --Mmx1 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup.

Suggested points of cleanup:

Intro

• Nix the replacement of F-111B; "replacement of" typically connotates replacing an airframe in service, not an aborted development type. We don't say the F/A-18 replaced the A-12.
• Nix mentions of the VFAX as the aircraft was developed under VFX with VFAX as only a distinct predecessor.
• Nix *However, the F-14 by many measures of speed and range / payload was the most capable carrier-based multirole fighter bomber ever produced, with the largest radar and farthest range missile capabilities exceeding that of any contemporary western fighter of this century.* as unverified hype.

Origins

• Again, make it clear that the VFAX was a predecessor, from which specifications were added/dropped, not a trivial bolt-on.
• Rm *The Tomcat was the most powerful and maneuverable fighter at its introduction* as OR
• Rm. "and would be retired primarily for maintenance costs rather than any deficiencies in combat capability." Technically, it was retired because the airframes were wearing out. It was not purchased again for a litany of reasons including maintenance.

Operational history

Needs sourced expansion on acquired strike capabilities and CAS integration in its later years.

Hi-Lo

• Rm OR about Marine Corps weapons priorities.
• Rm OR about Blue angels motivations to switch to the A=-4
• Rewrite into an on-topic paragraph discussing its role in the hi/low mix. I don't think this warrants a separate section, just join into the "Operational History" section.

Decommissioning

Complete rewrite of the reasons to cut out OR ("fashions of the time"?). Notable problems (that should not be kept):

• Kress in fact quotes a ~40% range advantage (500 vs 350), not "double"www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/595147/posts. Would prefer a more neutral source but this is not grossly in excess of the figures I've heard. Would definitely require neutral source for payload comparison.
• Rm OR car comparison

Characteristics

• Needs sourced expansion on the addition of strike abilities.
• rm unsourced "It also handily beat A-4 Skyhawk aggressors" which is in direct opposition to primary sources.
• rm history; move as necessary to history section but this is largely duplication.
• rm "This capability filled by the now-retired Phoenix missile sets the F-14 apart and has not been incorporated in any other subsequent US fighter design, even the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet which replaces the F-14, or the F-22 Raptor which is replacing the F-15 Eagle." as OR

Pop Culture

Nix the plastic kits. Most military aircraft have many kits made; and they hardly count as "popular culture". Noting the properties of particular models is irrelevant to the aircraft. --Mmx1 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The F-14 is the subject of a disproportionate number of models kits by all manufacturers, this is worth noting, as well as the extensive network of F-14 articles that has sprung up on WP. Compare with the size of the Super Hornet article. The F-14 is a cultural phenomenon that the Super Hornet never will be.--matador300 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another exclusionist, and toy/hobby bigot, characteristic of the mob that's attacking me from the automobile side. Thankfully this fellow appears to be only representative of this flavor of WP editor on the plane side. British Aviation magazines routinely include an article devoted exclusively to models of airplanes described in the history sections. Maybe you should go to the library and cut that section out, and see how many people agree with you that the magazine has not been mutilated or lowered in quality. --matador300 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about me, you can call me whatever you want, toy bigot, whatever. All that the pop culture section encourages is the addition of numerous bullet points of mostly useless trivia. Everyone sees the section and has to add their favorite "whatever" to the article. These sections are mostly un-encyclopedic and basically a waste of time. This discussion is perfect evidence of the wasted time. I'd say keep the toy cruft and trivia to a minimum, if thats makes me a toy bigot, so be it. Dual Freq 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of fiction sections in general. Is there any guidance for this section elsewhere on wikipedia? Anime/manga etc and 20+ year old video games don't seem noteworthy, neither do the model kits. Dual Freq 01:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an often sysphian task. It has been entered into the Wikiproject Air guideline on contentWikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, and was discussed earlier this year.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft_Archive_9#Popular_Culture. Generally, I give a bye to any flight sim; though most 20-year old games are pretty poor sims. I am not convinced about Area 88, but apparently supposedly the writer of Macross cited the F-14 as inspiration; so I'm willing to let that slide.....provided the proper citation gets put it. I could have sworn I saw it somewhere.... --Mmx1 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll let it sort itself out, although I'm thinking about adding F-15 Strike Eagle (computer game) to the F-15 Eagle page. Just kidding. Dual Freq 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The recent Ace Combat addition / subtraction is a perfect example of what I dislike about pop culture sections. Everyone has a favorite game/tv show or whatever. I guess someone needs to go around to all 20+ a/c pages and Add Air Combat series to the pop culture section. Actually, that was sarcasm. AC5 is an arcade game, not a simulation. Weapons noted on the AC5 page include the XLAA missile, also used by the MiG-31 in the game. What company makes that missile and its cousin the popular and well known SAAM? Of the current pop culture section, I'd say the arcade game and manga one seater can be removed. Don't ask me what to do about Fleet defender, I suppose it counts as a sim, but I have no problem with ditching it too and simply saying a bunch of games include the F-14. No need to list every single game that has an F-14 or Pseudo-F-14 in it. I'm sure this will create an argument, which will prove that the pop culture section is only useful for starting problems with no real purpose. Dual Freq 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Ace Combat series is a best selling game, one of the core licenses for Sony platforms, and has gone through nearly 10 different incarnations on at least 4 different platforms. Your arguement about the missiles is irrelevant: Namco was only able to get the licensing for the planes, not for the missiles used in the planes. It's certainly more worthy of inclusion than some time-travel movie from the 80s that nobody ever saw. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, nix the Fleet Defender as well. Taking an arcade game and slapping an F-14 skin on the flight models does not qualify as "notable". It is not about the F-14. It is about a game with something that looks like the F-14. Movies, particularly movies featuring actual aircraft and squadrons, are more relevant than random video games.

I would nix the section completely or retitle it to Simulations as has been done on other articles but Top Gun pretty much nixes that possibility --Mmx1 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does the section say anything about simulations? It says Popular culture. Hey guess what kids, the playstation 2 is pretty popular culture, and a best selling game for it is pretty pop culture as well! Wikipedia is not paper, we don't have to trim this out. See notable example [M16 rifle]: most of the references in the popular culture section are not accurate simulations, but they're still added. Will someone point me to the section that says "You cannot add a game as popular culture if it's not a simulation?"⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point that Ace Combat is irrelevant to the F-14. As for the M-16, do you mean M16_rifle#Popular_culture? The crufty list of games was first spun off to an independent page and then deleted. Seems like consensus is against you. --Mmx1 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that it had changed and spun off to a different page. I retract my objection. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

At some point, all the uncited material is going to have to be removed from this article. This article is large to have so few citations. It's also in the top 5 on a google search using F-14 and the uncited material could be misleading to people looking for accurate information. Please add verifiable and reliable citations for any material that you have added. --Dual Freq 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sec Def comment in decommissioning is a bit hard to believe. I suppose Cheney and some jack-booted thugs broke into a Grumman facility and destroyed all the F-14 parts and tools they had. It must have been on the authority of the Illuminati and the Hornet mafia. (One would think that it wouldn't be necessary to explain that this is sarcasm) Dual Freq 11:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Google hits on the matter say that Cheney did order the tooling to be destroyed. It is also unusual to scrap, rather than store aircraft which are more capable than their replacements I think I'm allowed to state on this page, it looks like somebody wanted to make sure these planes were gone for good, rather than be kept for later upgrades. Heck, they even kept the battleships, and the F-14 had a much longer service life than most battleships. --matador300 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice citation, an article written by the ex-vp of Grumman certainly has no biases. Show me the executive order that says, Grumman, destroy the tools and molds and I'll be satisfied. I'll believe the cancellation of the F-14 with the encouragement coming from the Navy, via the SecDef as evidenced by his testimony. The Cold war was ending, the public was clamoring for defense cuts, makes sense to cut an expensive 35 year old aircraft. I don't believe the spin placed on his endorsement of the cut of the F-14D and I think the molds and tooling may be a long perpetuated urban legend. Dual Freq 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This batty amateur diagnosis is driving me up a wall. Armchair aircraft designers that think they know something professional aircraft designers don't (there's a reason nobody's put a swing-wing in production since the 1970's). Ah, but it's such a superior design that Cheney had to hide the evidence and destroy the tooling. Well, the Russians haven't built a swing-wing fighter since the Mig-23 (which was a dog). Ah, but the hornet mafia has Russian members, too! Sigh....

Oh, by the way, since the "hornet mafia" did turn up hits on a Naval aviation forum I frequent(airwarriors.com), I checked the identities of the posters. Three hits, two from nobodies, one from a student aviator who wants to fly the Tomcat (too bad for him, I suppose). The site is frequented by Naval Aviators. Not a one used the word. --Mmx1 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hornet Mafia, Article Deletion Nomination

Hell, this term even appears on the F-14 Tomcat Wikipedia discussion page.

An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia --matador300 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal

I have a proposal and I'm seeking input on it in the hopes of reaching a consensus among those taking an interest in the F-14 article. A considerable amount of space is now being taken up by the discussion of the F-14 replacement by the F/A-18. I'd like to strip this discussion out of the article. By its very nature, it is subjective and almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid advocacy. Any discussion of which aircraft is "best" and the motivations (either political or military) for the replacement will be opinions, not facts. Quoting sources that are themselves opinions will not resolve the issue, since sources can be found to support virtually any position. As such, this discussion has no place in a Wikipedia article. I think simply saying that the F-14 has been retired and its role is now filled by the F/A-18 should be sufficient. Please indicate your views on this proposal. Dabarkey 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think other users may want to continue arguing (and providing sourced claims as such), so it may be better to move that section to a new article and let them duke it out there - it may eventually be deleted, but at least it'll be separated from the main article. Virogtheconq 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

-Agreed. Stick to the basics of the ariplane here. Move the F-14 vs. F/A-18E/F to seperate article. -Fnlayson 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go further and state

• Tomcat was retired near end of service life
• Both Tomcat and Hornet derivatives were evaluated as possible replacements.

but am willing to go with Dabarkey's statement if that's the hardline stance that has to be taken. --Mmx1 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since a week has now passed and all three responses to date have been in agreement, I'll implement the change in the near future.Dabarkey 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, bring back the Hornet Mafia article!!! People are much more outraged over the Super Hornet than they ever were over the F-111 debacle. At least that story had a happy ending, the F-14.--matador300 18:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again removed non-NPOV material comaring F-14 to F/A-18, consistent with consensus above. Why the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels are assigned different aircraft is completely irrelevant to the F-14. If soemone wants to add it to F/A-18, A-4, T-38, and F-16 articles, knock yourselve out. Dabarkey 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NavyTimes.com Final Flight Video

• Didn't know how best to include at least the dates of the final traps into the article, but thought I would pass it along to the group for input. Also added it to the external links. — MrDolomite | Talk 18:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of !@#$% verification tags

To satisfy a certain editor who insisted on scattering useless tags all over the article challenging obvious facts I already showed him before, I've supplied references. Sheesh, and I don't get any thanks for the work I do. --matador300 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a consensus on moving the Iranian service to a seperate article

-Wiarthurhu, before creating a seperate page for the F-14s Iranian service history I think we need a general consensus weather it should be incorporated into the text of the F-14s general history, or really deserves its own seperate article. Aircraft articles must be comprehensive and stand on their own. All the other aircraft articles I've written and edited have included the service history of the plane for all of its users. In other words we don't have one article about the Spitfire in RAF service, another for its U.S. service history, and another for Australian operations, and so on. I believe that the plane's Iranian operations belong in the body of the text on the F-14s overall history to be consistant with aviation articles on this site.--Ken keisel 17:10 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, please note the citations used, (11) is not acceptable. Please use the Citation tags that I have added. Second, this 2 kills with 1 AIM-54 sounds ridiculous and in my opinion casts doubt on the entire reference. Since this reference seems unreliable, I wouldn't mind if the whole section was deleted. Yeah, I read the bit above that it was in the Smithsonian mag, but it still comes down to some pilot saying, I saw two blips, shot 1 missile and the two blips went away. More likely is the targets detected the launch with a radar warning receiver and they went low flying in different directions resulting in losing both targets. Depending on the range the phoenix flew, it would have lost a lot of inertia / maneuverability and wouldn't likely hit 1 fighter let alone 2. (Or 4 as this author originally asserted) Has there ever been a 2 kills, 1 missile incident outside Iran? If not, I bet this story is not true. Dual Freq 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We can debate endlessly on the validity of Tom Cooper's writings. He's certainly not the best writer in the world (he has a tendency to cite quotes before introducing the reader to the speaker), and he's offered such ridiculous statements as four kills with one AIM-54, unfortunately he's really the only author who's gotten anywhere trying to document the use of the F-14 in Iran. In fairness to him, what he's reporting is no different than what was being published in England and the U.S. about the kills during the "Battle of Britian" which were generally exaggerated by roughly 600%. Aerial combat is confusing and very difficult to document, and far more so when it's occuring in a secretive country like Iran during a war that we could only watch through the eyes of AWACS, and then only occassionally. Since the Smithsonian felt it worthy to publish a downplayed version of his accounts I'd say we have to go along with their decision until something better comes along.-Ken keisel 10:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

F-14 Totals and attrition

F-14 Bureau Numbers and F-14 Losses basically says 712 F-14s built 141+ lost for various reasons. That's F-14A 557(that includes the 12 experimental) US / 79 Iran, 38 F-14B and 37 F-14D. That only adds up to 711 but maybe 712 is the 80th one not delivered to Iran. I'd like to add this info to the variants section, but I'm not sure of the sources. FAS and a book I have both say 557 F-14A, so that's fairly clear as is the 79 to Iran. FAS also agrees with the 37 F-14D. The rest relies on the M.A.T.S. page. Anyone out there have anything more concrete? With 712 total and 141 lost, thats almost 20% attrition, and 11% of the total F-14s that went to Iran. Dual Freq 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way there are only 30-35 paragraphs in this article, 10 paragraphs just for Iran. I'd bet over 20% of this article is about a user with only 11% of the aircraft. Just pointing that out. Dual Freq 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

True they only had 11% of the aircraft, but their aircraft account for at least 75% of the F-14's combat record, so giving them 20% of the article doesn't seem too unfair. Like many cold war aircraft, the F-14 doesn't have much combat history with U.S. forces.-Ken keisel 10:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If 75% of that combat record is made up or grossly exaggerated, then what? If this is supposed to turn into an article about combat history and operational usage than we need to add 90 paragraphs of US usage since they had 90% of the operational aircraft. The bulk of this Iranian AF material needs to either find an article of its own or just be deleted. It overweights the article toward a minor user. A user with less than 20 operational aircraft and a user that used the aircraft as a mini-AWACS (per FAS), not as a fighter. Dual Freq 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "weighting" an article based on the percentage of aircraft owned is the best way to go about this. If we did that then the F-104 page would be all about the Luftwaffe. The article need not be "weighted" at all. Just cover all the necessairy information, and it falls as it falls. The "mini-AWACS" comment is a perfect example of why the Iranian F-14s need as much information as they are given. There's too much misinformation in circulation that needs cleared up. By 1980 there were almost no radar intercept officers in the IIAF, and most of the F-14s radar systems needed servicing. The missions flown by the F-14 in the first two years of the Iran-Iraq War were flown mostly with ground control assistance. No way it was being used as an AWACS because the plane was flying blind. That's also why the AIM-54s wern't being used until around 1982. Also remember that if we "weighted" an article based solely on the number of operational aircraft then today this article would only be about the Iranian F-14s.-Kei keisel 20:30, 24 August 2006

My analysis of the situation:

• There are really three POV's

• "Conventional wisdom" as expressed by FAS, Globalsecurity, and aerospaceweb, indicating the western view of 4-5 kills[16]
• The official Iranian claim of 35-45 kills
• Tom Cooper's work which claims 150+ kills, AFAIK, based only on first-person interviews.

In that light, I have a hard time believing ANYTHING Tom Cooper says. It is a minority view, and undue weight should not be assigned to it as per WP:NPOV. Sure, a few sentences about what Tom Cooper claims. But not 10 paragraphs, and not enough to warrant a separate article. --Mmx1 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem you run into is that the Iranian use of the F-14 is probably the meatest part of the plane's history. Having one paragraph devoted to it would be like trying to write an article about the MiG-15 and only devoting one paragraph to the North Korean MiGs. In the U.S. all you get is development, operational squadrons, accidents, scattered use in the Gulf Wars, and a bunch of movie and anime appearences. What's in the article now doesn't include any of Cooper's exaggerated stories (like four kills with one AIM-54), and if the Smithsonian's publishing of two kills with one missial is that disturbing than we may just have to remove it to keep the peace. The rest of the material, the F-14/F-15 flyoff, the F-14's airbase, the persecution of U.S. trained F-14 crews, the sabotaging of AIM-54s by U.S. contractors, the number of operational aircraft, and even the patch, is all fairly well well established information, lacking any exaggeration. These are important aspects of the F-14s history, and probably the stuff that the average reader is least likely to know when looking up the F-14.-Ken keisel 11:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Too bad Mig-15 has only 1 paragraph about North Korean usage. All that information is intriguing, but this is not a book about alleged combat usage by Iran, it is an encyclopedia article about the Grumman F-14. I seriously doubt Britannica would have all of this information in? The Great Book of Modern Warplanes ISBN 0517633671 has 6 pages of combat and deployment in its F-14 section only 2 paragraphs of that are about Iran. It says Iran used it like an AWACS/AEW plane with very few flyable. Dual Freq 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that "TGBoMW" did little research on the use of the Iranian F-14s. At the time it was published (if you're using the 1999 edition) there was little information avilable, but in any case ommission is not the same as explanation. Today we know that the Iranian F-14s had virtually no radar intercept officers at the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War, and most of their radar systems were down for service. They were relying on ground control for target interception, and would have benn useless as AWACS.-Ken keisel 20:40, 24 August 2006

The Iranian section is overweighted in this article. The source is extremely questionable as discussed above. There are so many holes in that story that I can not believe anything that is from that source. It needs to be reduced or moved to another article. This article says the radar was so intimidating that Iraqi a/c ran when radiated and now you say the radar didn't work at all? This material is borderline propaganda, 150+ kills? 2 to 4 kills with a single missile? Lets be serious here. Dual Freq 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the Iraquis ran from the F-14s radar emissions, and I don't see any mention of that in the article. The only reference I find in the article to 150+ kills states that it is rumored, not fact, and I'm not sure why that's even in the article. If the Smithsonian is willing to publish that a certain Lt. got two MiG-23's with a single AIM-54 on a certain date I see no reason to question the Smithsonian.-Ken keisel 10:20, 25 August 2006

I am against moving it to a separate article, for the reason that it is a minority opinion that should not be given undue weight in any article. That would constitute a POV fork and while an easy solution, not ideal. As per WP:NPOV, no undue weight should be assigned to Tom Cooper's views. Mentioned, yes. More than a paragraph? no.--Mmx1 02:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Definately against moving it to a seperate article. I wouldn't add any more, but wouldn't remove anything at this point. There seems to be a lot of personal bias against Tom Cooper's articles, but that doesn't change the fact that they've been checked independently and published repeatably, including by the Smithsonian, so they are hardly "opinion." They also constitute a description of the vast majority of actual combat history of the F-14, so the article is not "weighted."-Ken keisel 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can independently verify the information too. I could call up the Iranian pilot/rio and they could tell me the same lie they told Cooper and the Smithsonian. Just because a lie is repeated to two or more people doesn't mean its independently verified. It still comes down to one or two sources embellishing on the truth or outright lying. I'm sure you could find hundreds of pilots who have stories to tell, and the stories get better every time they are told. Yeah, I shot down 1 plane, no it was 2, no it 4. Maybe next year it will be 6. Please. This section is overweighting this article, it needs to be trimmed/removed. Is there anyone else who is willing to step in here and remove this nonsense? I'd suggest putting the F-14 Tomcat in Iranian Service article up for AfD if this stuff is going to stay here. ONE of them has to go. I'd prefer they both go. Dual Freq 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were more of an expert than the Smithsonian. You seem to have a real problem with the fact that the Iranians used this plane more in combat than the U.S. You're exaggeration of attempts to use legitimate sources for this article is biased, and nothing more than vandalism. There's nothing left in the article now to confirm that they ever used the plane in combat at all.-Ken keisel

Unless the Smithsonian states they verified the content, their input is unverified. Unless a journal is peer reviewed journal, they are not responsible for verifying content that they publish. What we do know, from the source, is that it is based on primary interviews that are considered unreliable for this purpose.

You've been told repeatedly that combat histories belong in a separate article. I'm in the process of doing so in a NPOV way but was interrupted by some real life items.

And further, you've been repeatedly told that "updating entry" is an unacceptable and unhelpful edit summary, particularly for the talk page. --Mmx1 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem as I see it. After reviewing your contributions to the F-14 page for the last year I have found only one time that you provided any reference material for your contributions, and that was "Aerospaceweb.org," which is nothing more than a chat page. What you're doing is picking and choosing the informationn you want on this page, regardless of weather it's been researched or not. You've previously deleted information that others have added with references, and you've added your own material without references.

Who is telling me that combat history belongs in a seperate article? You previously stated that making it a seperate article would be a POV fork, and wouldn't be acceptable to you. I haven't had any WP moderators tell me it belongs in a seperate article. I've written many articles on combat aircraft and have never seen combat history moved to a seperate article. Is this something you've made up? I'm getting the impression you just don't want to see any reference to the Iranians using the F-14 in combat on this page. Why is that?

Again, who is telling me "updating entry: is unacceptable? I've used it for over a year and have never had a problem. Are you saying that this is a WP policy, or just something you've made up?-Ken keisel 10:20, August 26 2006 (UTC)

Dual Freq has already pointed you to the appropriate page: Help:Edit summary; your edit summary is useless; you may as well put in no edit summary if they're all identical.

I don't you know what you've been reading but my contributions have been referenced with FAS, GlobalSecurity, RAND, NASA, as well as Coram's Boyd and a few general aircraft books. Aerospaceweb is authored by engineers in the aerospace industry[17], much like FAS, except we know the authorship of each article and have their resume. It is published, verifiable information from a reliable source. Moreover, it very conveniently lays out the panapoly of claims from the smallest to the highest; as does the new text.

The Combat history for the U.S. has long since been moved off to Combat_history_of_the_F-14, as you'd see if you'd read the article. It is not a separate article to describe one POV (i.e. Tom Cooper's), it is a separate article to describe a large body of information from multiple POV's. Kill by kill accounts are simply too long to discuss in the main article; most articles don't include each instance where the aircraft saw combat; but if you had that available it would usually be too long for inclusion in the main article. That's where I've put Cooper's kill claims. The article still contains info about the acquisition of the Iranian F-14 and the controversy after the overthrow of the Shah, it's just not horribly biased towards Cooper's dubious POV. --Mmx1 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Reversions and AerospaceWeb

Thank you for using more informative edit summaries; that is much more helpful, and thank you for catching the typo. As you can verify for yourself, the source does state "Mig-25"[18]. The current text cites both Cooper and other sources and makes it clear which claim comes from where. AerospaceWeb is a publication of qualified experts, not a "chat room", and is in agreement with FAS, Globalsecurity, as well as paper sources provided by Dual Freq above; it is a preferred source because it lays out multiple POV's and is easily verifiable. --Mmx1 18:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look carefully you'll find that aerospaceweb.org articles generally reference each other. I stopped using them for reference when I discovered the "source" for one author's research was an article that referenced as a "source" an article by the first author. That's a cheap way for several authors to try to give their research validity, they simply get together and decide how to reference each others research. GlobalSecurity is better, and updates its information more quickly, but I've noticed that it adds information too quickly and corrects itself so often that using it for reference too often makes the reference bad when they discover their information was wrong to start with, and they correct themselves. I am curious how you can reference NASA and RAND and still discount Smithsonian. They often cross publish the same articles. I have no problem with moving the "combat history" to a seperate page as long as there are links to it at key points in the article, and as long as the "combat history" article contains examples of all the research done on the subject without bias, including Tom Cooper's research.-Ken keisel 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide such an example. They link to each other, but they do not use each other as references. For example: [19] lists a comprehensive list of sources, none of them a self-reference. GlobalSecurity is a bad reference because it frequently updates? I haven't noticed its updates but that makes it a better source, not worse.

Excuse me for assuming that you're familiar with the article you're extensively editing. Below the list of squadrons is a section titled F-14 in Combat (#6 on the ToC). It has been there for several months and contains a link to and brief summary of the main article, the same link I provided above. As you can see, all mentions of American F-14 Tomcat combat engagements is discussed in detail there, as are the entries you put in from Cooper's article, properly attributed. --Mmx1 21:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Attrition

What about the attrition and numbers, anyone have any better source for that information so I can add it to the variants section? Dual Freq 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4