The dry humor you seamlessly put into your scripts makes these exceptionally well researched and presented mini documentaries as entertaining as they are informative. To wit: “… McDonnell did offer the aircraft to the Fleet Air Arm given that service’s preference for intellectual exercises over actual aircraft during this period …” 😂. Truly awesome writing, and the tone of the delivery just perfectly complements the punchline. Great work!
What I'm getting from this is that the navy wanted a long-loitering, long-ranged, missile-armed, twin-engined, two-man, dogfighting jet with good carrier handling and a small footprint on deck. Which makes a twenty-year development time seem reasonable, to be honest.
Do more reading. The F-14 is, in almost all respects, inferior to the F-111B. Except in it's ability to engage in turn-n-burn dogfighting, which is of course, a strategic failure of monumental proportions! If it has not shot down the five out of six targets the AIM-54s were meant to deal with, then the CVN is gone, along with all it's other planes. The F-111B meets all of the original mission requirements but is more of a bomb/missile truck than a fighter plane! The difference is the 7-8,000 extra pounds of fuel and the structural weight required to support it! Put enough tankage on the "Stretched" F-14 to do the original mission and all those aero-gimmicks done to the plane to make it easy meet for any and all Commy planes! The only advantage over an A-6 is it can almost outrun the AA-2 Atol fired from a MiG-17.
@@frankstewart8332I don't know man, if the navy, which accepted the a5c into service, said it was over weight, it was overweight. Also, the systems on the 14 were ten times better than the 111b's.
@frankstewart8332 F-111B proved to be too large and too heavy for carrier use. It was marginally smaller then RA-5 Vigilante. RA-5 was a high speed reconnaissance, so no more then small detachment of 3 to 5 on deployment. But fleet defense required two squadrons of aircraft during peace time deployment of airwing. F-111 was a high maintenance aircraft. Air Force wings always had availability and generation issues with F-111. On carrier F-111 would have taken up too much space on deck and hangar. At expense of strike aircraft. Which is the core mission of aircraft carrier. F-111 was best suited as theater land based strike aircraft. Which is how it served. Served as such for 20 years from 1968 to 1996/8 before being replaced by F-15E, and strategic mission transfered to B-2A. During Desert Storm , it was F-111F that delivered giant GBU-28 bunker busters on Iraq's subterranean weapon storage and firing points.
not that we'd have any idea who you mean, dark as he may yet be. I've always wondered if he clips the dead space just to make delivery even MOAR breathless.
I would love a tycoon game based around aircraft development with learning curves for new designs and the service deciding new requirements halfway through design. Developing is a tricky business, so having your research, licenses, patents, designers, and industry to match seems like a lot of fun. Now that I think about it the GearCity creator is making AreoMogul so maybe that will fill my needs
granted I think you should have the power to go to third parties as basically publicity stunts "oh my style of design is bad let's see huh" you basically have to sell at loss for the effect you'd want mind these countries are likly cheap
It had Dassault DNA, they had an agreement with Vought circa 1969. Dassault built and flew three VG prototypes, 1967-1974: one Mirage G with a TF306 turbofan; and two Mirage G8s with Atar turbojets.
@@OptimaloptimusNo, it would be another Tornado or Mig 23, due higher wing load. The pancake ( area between engine pods) solution of the Tomcat was copied in the SU-27 and Mig-29, it tells something...
Another EXCELLENT video presentation!! Since you mentioned the Grumman F11F Tiger, maybe you can do a future video on the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger and the machinations by Lockheed to out maneuver Grumman with its F-104 program. Keep up the GREAT WORK!!
I really appreciate the links to the various Secret Projects topics. Most UA-cam channels just steal content from my forum without linking, so it's refreshing to see.
Only a few minor corrections: 1.) The F14A max speed was Mach 2.34 2.) VFX2, as you call it, the original F14B, never came. What came in the 1980s would be the Navy recognizing the P&W F100 program was having problems, and the need for a new engine was weighed. The Derivative Fighter Engine was briefly tested and then Engine the GE F110. It was shelved before coming back in the mid to late 80s as the Navy recognized the need to ditch the TF30 F14A... sadly, the 500 ship Navy came in the way and sapped funding for the original Grumman F14A thru F14C (Yes C) program. That's why the F110 equipped F14 was original designated as the F14A+ and not the F14B.
Navy realized F100 was having problems and the F400, the engine the F-41 was designed round, that was based on it would have those problems and more and Navy couldn't afford to pay to fix them so they canceled that engine and settled for the TF30. The F-14A was never meant to be the production version, just the developmental version. The B was to be the first production version, but when the P&W F400 died, so did the original B. BTW, there is an original B on the Lexington in NYC. The C was to have been the B but with more powerful electronics. When the B died so did the C . The F-14D was essentially the F-14C but with even more capable avionics. The first F110 equipped F-14s were at first called A+s to avoid confusion since they were basically As with the bigger motors but not the airframe and wiring enhancements planned for the original production model, the original B. Then it was decided this was even more confusing and since the original B never got into production, they changed A+ to B. I'm not sure why they skipped C.
That confused me too. I have never heard it called anything but a Mach 2+ aircraft. Maybe they restricted it later in normal operations but it's the first I have heard of it, and it's definitely able to go faster.
The F-111B was not for one second ever intended for BFM. It was to be purely a fleet defense missileer. This is why it had to go after the Navy realized it really needed an all-around fighter rather than a missileer. If the F-111B had been intended to dogfight the Navy would never have firmly insisted on the side-by-side cockpit seating over the objections of the USAF.
@@KaoKacique And then it goes on to say the airplane lacked the BFM capabilities the Navy needed in the real world. This in conjunction with other comments can be interpreted as meaning the airplane was forced on the Navy by McNamara even though it didn't meet its needs. This is the common narrative, but it is not the case. The design did meet the stated needs of the Navy at the time, which were quite specific.
"(...) after the Navy realized it really needed an all-around fighter (...)" Yet such an argument was never made... Connolly's statement was that not even a stronger engine could power the F-111B, sufficiently - which didn't stop the Air Force to have their F-111 perform in Iraq as one of their most capable supersonic deep strike platforms... When it comes to the Navy's crucial mission of fleet interception, it is more likely that there is a major issue with Beyond Visual Range combat upon which also the F-4 Phantom had relied in Vietnam (all subsequent airframes of the F-15 and F-16/F/A-18 include a requirement of high thrust super-maneuverability while ceremonially downplaying that very design principle of late Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters)...
@@christophmahler You are misinformed on the genesis behind the fleet defense doctrine. The F-111B didn't need a stronger engine to perform the design fleet defense role, which did not require high maneuverability. Connolly's statement to Congress was made after the Navy had decided it needed to dump the F-111 in favor of a more versatile air superiority fighter that could perform other roles as well as fleet defense. This was the result of combat experience in Vietnam. Connolly had been part of the Navy leadership (their 'fighter mafia') that never wanted a Fleet Defense Fighter in the first place. He had always wanted a true air superiority fighter, but more senior leadership overruled his faction and specified the fleet defense airplane. His statement about how all the thrust in the world wouldn't make the F-111 a fighter is tossed around as a proof that the F-111 design was a failure, but he conveniently failed to mention that the F-111B had never been intended to be the fighter he now said the Navy needed. It's the politics of procurement. The Navy changed its mind about what it really needed, and for decades its PR allies in Congress and the media have aided and abetted misrepresentation of that decision as being due to deficiencies in the F-111B design.
@@gort8203 "Connolly's statement to Congress was made after the Navy had decided it needed to dump the F-111 in favor of a more versatile air superiority fighter that could perform other roles as well as fleet defense. This was the result of combat experience in Vietnam." Do You have a source on that question ? EDIT: I did find a Smithsonian article that mentioned that 'Retired Navy Captain Joe Brantuas was one of the first who returned from Vietnam to teach tactics at Naval Air Station Miramar'... In 1967, Grumman - who were originally just supposed to help General Dynamics navalization of the F-111 - did propose the F-14 to the US Navy which suddenly offered an alternative platform for the AIM-54 deployment to lobby Congress with. "It's the politics of procurement." I certainly agree on that aspect.
F-14 would have been fully capable rather earlier if Les Aspin had not led the crusade to kill the F401 engine in 1974. Five years later, when his cry of "The TF30 is good enough!" was proven hollow, he claimed "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!"
The F401 also had a lot of technical issues that the Navy, and Pratt & Whitney were unable to get fixed, so that, and the overall cost of the F401 Program forced the Navy to axe that engine, which in turn meant that the F-14A went from being the "Interim Model", to the only production variant built, until the creation of the F-14A+/F-14B, and F-14D.
@@johnosbourn4312 The F401 was axed by Aspin's crusade against it, trying to duplicate Sen, Proxmire's efforts and good PR. The F401 and F100 were siblings and improvements to one was fed across to the other. I admit that the F401 had some problems, two engines being hauled back from the test stands in bushel baskets in one week due to machining errors in the turbine section was not a good look, nor that the inspectors missed these errors. The basic engine was sound, though (I know, I was there). If the F401 had to be cancelled, there was a better alternative than the TF30 as Allison had demonstrated an afterburning TF41 derivative that, except for fuel economy, had as good or better performance as the F401.
@@MrCateagle At that time F100 and F401 were being developed in parallel and were being jointly funded. IIRC, part of the agreement was that when USAF accepted the F100, any further improvements to the F401 would have to be paid for by Navy alone. AF accepted the F100 at a certain point because if there was no F100, there would be no F-15 and they felt it could become a good engine. . Navy looked at its budget in the early '70s and said they just couldn't afford the fixes on their own, and they did nave an "interim" engine in the TF30, so they canceled the F401.
@tararaboomdiay7442 Thing is, ther was a better alternate engine availablebut no funding for it. Allison had demonstrated an afterburner TF41, which in dry form replaced the TF30 in the A-7, back in 1967. As for the F100 vs F401, the primary differences were in the fan and low pressure turbine modules. Granted, the F401 still had some problems, but at least some of.those were in sorting out manufacturing questions.
@@MrCateagle The afterburning TF41 would have required more time and money than the TF30 which was already in the F-14A, neither one of which the Navy had. I don't remember the afterburning thrust but I believe the afterburning TF41 had 18,000 lbs dry thrust. The key was it didn't offer enough improvement over the TF30 to "sell" itself to teh Navy. Regarding the F401, the agreement between USAF and Navy is that development costs would be shared on a percentage basis between teh two. However, one USAF accepted F100 in whatever state it was in at the time, USN would have to cover 100% of the costs to continue development and increases in reliability 100% on its own . USAF accepted the F100 arguably prematurely because it HAD to have it and Navy just didn't have the money to do a lot more work on the F401 on its own, and it Did have a working engine already in the F-14.
Thanks as always for an excellent video. These procurement deep dives are very interesting and I would love to see more of them. You are quickly setting a positive standard for coverage of these topics.
F14 was an amazing jet to watch take off from an aircraft carrier. You could never mistake the sounds of it as it lifted off the flight deck. Saw them launch several times when I was in the US Navy.
I just want to say that just on looks alone,the F-14 is,was & likely always will be the the utter zenith of a plane as art for everyone. On surface there are similar ones but all the little things plus the nose art, patches and the Vandy paint make it a joy to behold! Good vid!🥳🥰
You can speak for yourself. I don't hate the F-14 but somehow I never loved it. It has character, but I can think of a lot of better looking jets. So not "everyone".
Looks don't shoot down enemy ACs! IT is, as used in it's original mission an outstanding killer when equipped with Iranian SAMs replacing the AIM-54s. But when used as the NAVY originally wanted, a turd of monumental proportions.
I remember on wings on the Discovery channel they showed some of the proposals for a split second where if you were sneaky enough you might have been able to pause the VHS cassette of the Tomcat episode to see one or two of them and there was not enough time to go into the detail of each proposal that this channel has done In a way I do still miss the days of the old school Discovery channel but not as much as I thought because the quality of videos from this channel exceed that which I used to see on the Discovery channel before devolved into reality Keep up the good videos
It is what happens when a project spans numerous administrations from the time the services ask for proposals until entering service. If it was just the airframe and engines the time to first flight would be much shorter. Add in all of the radar and weapons systems. Along with requests to match changing needs or requirements. Then see what happens. The US Navy used to do a lot of business with Petersen Ship Building in Sturgeon Bay Wisconsin. Primarily support and auxiliary ships. Petersen finally walked away from submitting for contracts because they were sick and tired of having to tear apart partially finished vessels because the Navy changed their minds. They now build top tier pleasure craft. Much less hassle.
No F-14 was worse. They just rushed it into service before they worked out all the kinks and as a result, over 20% that the US Navy ever used were lost. So they decided not to do that again with the F-35
@@mpetersen6 "Petersen finally walked away from submitting for contracts because they were sick and tired of having to tear apart partially finished vessels because the Navy changed their minds." Interesting anecdote - would make for a good video essay.
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex "They just rushed it into service before they worked out all the kinks (...) So they decided not to do that again with the F-35 (...)" What ?...
Excellent video mate, as all your videos, really interesting. The 507 model looks like a Tornado slept RA-5 vigilante and the 507 was the result of that coupling 😄
That’s not a bad point from an airframe point of view. My understanding is that 1) the foreshortened A5 programme led to a lot of bad blood between the USN and NA/Rockwell and 2) the USN was dead-set on the next fighter being a purpose-built Swing-Wing design, presuming that any adaptation of an existing design would be compromised.
It was fast but did not have the loiter ability or load capability necessary. One thing the F-111B and the F-14 had in common was the VG wing necessary to meet those mission parameters. The A-5 wing was not capable, nor the fuselage for that matter.
@@gort8203 Also didn't have the maneuverability, visibility, maintainability, ability to carry the necessary avionics and turnaround capability. For what it was designed for, it was very good at. In fact, a three engined version was proposed to USAF as an interceptor.
While in concept the idea of common airframes across services to save money sounds great. In practice the needs of a land based versus the needs of a carrier based air force will result in vastly different versions of the same aircraft. Look at the F-35. Of course McNamara came out of the auto industry as a cost specialist. In the auto industry it is common for different models to share many common components. Amazingly though two very good aircraft did result in cross service use in the US. The F-4 and the A-7. Every other airframe used by both the USAF and the USN was a land based airframe.
@@mpetersen6 They were better off to admit that multi-role is no realistic method of keeping cost down on specialized aircraft for aerial and ground interdiction roles on one airframe if the airframe is not amenable to physical stress that comes with hard carrier landing or carrying huge munition payloads for ground strikes. The only solution to multi-role warplanes is to create two or more airframes of a similar designs for specialized roles with reinforced build areas where the stress is highest on flying and landing plus wing and body weapon rack loading for land and sea scenarios.
@@mpetersen6 "The F-4 and the A-7. Every other airframe used by both the USAF and the USN was a land based airframe." If one expands to include exports, the F/A-18 variants - especially the enlarged F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler electronic attack variant would be a reverse case (Canada and Australia as having deployed dedicated shore based wings - EDIT: Iran's import of the F-14 would be another relevant case).
@@Mythteller "They were better off to admit that multi-role is no realistic method of keeping cost down on specialized aircraft for aerial and ground interdiction roles on one airframe (...)" I tend to agree on that due to aerodynamics - but in case of a carrier navy, loosing strike craft would reduce the combat value of the entire fleet if the remaining interceptors can't fill that role. Variable-sweep wings were supposed to resolve the aerodynamic challenges of the very different roles (high speed, high altitude intercept versus high speed, low altitude interdiction or strike) - one would also have to run the numbers to see if the combination of programs would lead to a larger fleet and fire power for the same procurement costs (although minus the additionally required personnel). In the European theater that separation of roles and airframes had been largely practiced with the lightweight F-16 as an attritable point defense, the F-15 as a dominant air superiority and the Tornado variants as Beyond Visual Range interceptors or strike/interdiction bombers - the F-22A and the modernization of the F15E/EX would also reflect that procurement strategy for the US Air Force (alas not successfully due to the end of F-22 production already in 2011 after only two thirds of the already low production run).
@@mpetersen6 Except for the FJ-2 Fury which was a derivative of the F-86, which itself might be argued was a derivative of the Navy FJ-1 Fury, all tactical airframes used by both the USAF and USN were derivatives of naval aircraft (A-1. A-3/B-66).
The F-14 was not a simple Fleet Defense fighter, instead it was a Maritime Air Superiority Fighter. The unbuilt F6D Missilelier was meant to be a Fleet Defense Interceptor armed with the AAM-N-10 Eagle missile, which also was never built.
Even as a kid in the 1960s I've had an odd fascination for proposed aircraft that never actually got built, so the more I watched this video the more I realized it's pure unadulterated catnip (tomcatnip?) to me.
The F6D Missilieer idea was also a victim of Mach 3 MiG fear. When Soviet M:3 fighters and bombers were considered the likely future threat, subsonic F6D's simply couldn't get close enough to the bombers or far enough away from the fighters to do their job. There were plenty saying M:3 was simply too hot, too expensive and too big to happen, but F-111B was still required to achieve M:2 to get close and get away from Soviet M:3 aircraft, which is why it had so much fuel and straight line speed. As you said the Mach 3 idea had died out by 1962, which meant the old F6D could've managed 90% of the fleet defence fighter role for a fraction of the cost, while a cheap day fighter could handle the attack / dogfighter role. Phoenix was also designed around a M:3 bomber threat and when that disappeared - replaced by cheap and simple subsonic MiGs and cruise missiles - the F-14 / AWG-9 / Phoenix struggled throughout with claims of being too expensive a solution to a problem that no longer existed. Fortunately the AWG-9 / Phoenix combo had a useful performance against cruise missiles - its just the F6D would have had just as much luck, with no need for a M:2 get-away-from-here requirement.
The F6D was canceled in 1961, six years before the US became aware of what it thought were M3 MiGs. Regarding getting close to M3 bombers, remember the bombers would be coming toward the carriers. It was canceled because the concept of a slow long endurance plane designed to do nothing but loiter around and hurl missiles at Soviet bombers simply wasn't viable. It would take a while to get back and rearm and was of no use against fighters and other craft. There really wasn't going to be enough deck space for the luxury of such a limited craft. As far as a cheap day fighter went, what if you encountered the enemy at nought or IFR weather? Again, there's only so much deck space. F-111B's speed was a byproduct of USAF requirements since McNamara directed a "one size fits all" approach.
@@tararaboomdiay7442 M:3 combat aircraft were predicted as a threat from the mid 1950s, when the science was proved doable. They were expected into service by the mid 60s. The USAF was already setting out the requirements for the XB-70, F-103 and F-108 from 1955. The A-12 and YF-12 from 1959. The Soviet's were assumed to be on the same path, hence the requirement for M:3 interceptors. There was no way an aircraft the size and complexity of the F-108 or YF-12 was going to fly from a carrier so the USN put their future in faster long ranged missiles, hence F6D eventually F-14. The M:3 threat was eliminated from military thinking prior to the discovery of MiG-25, when the maths, materials and science proved it was far cheaper to do those missions with missiles. MiG-25 and SR-71 were just leftovers from late 50s strategic thinking, found roles in reconnaissance and hot rod interception.
As a teenager, I built a model of a Tomcat...and I still have it, fifty years later. Less than ten years later, though, I joined the navy and because a plankowner of the shiny new USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), where I got to look at F-14s close up. Dunno why I didn't take more pictures of them, but then, I could only afford limited amounts of film...I had a family to support. I can't imagine a better looking fighter jet than this.
I also the F-111 Tiger wouldn't have been killed off. I do believe it could have been a serious Mig killer in Nam. I do have to admit, that Rockwell design has an elegant sexy look. You know like a runway model in combat gear.
Probably the most balanced and _circumspect_ video essay on late Cold War US Navy aviation procurement - considering all relevant factors from historically evolving requirements, to airframe design proposals to manufacturing base history. 23:45 ...the 'inspiring' influence of the already looming, advanced F-15 (commonly 'Fighter Experimental' program) as early as 1969 - arguably 'a fixed wing F-14A' - explains the fate of the F-111 ('Tactical Fighter Experimental' program - everything, but 'tactical') across the services - all based upon false CIA intelligence on the MiG-25 that had escalated the Cold War arms race to unsustainable levels with the Soviet economy collapsing in the late 1980s (with the Su-27PU/Su-35S arguably as the _sustainable_ optimum of a '4th generation' fighter) - the US economy from the 2010 onward (no procurement plan across the services ever since had fully succeeded)... It is noteworthy that also the most advanced, but somewhat rushed YF-22/F-22A ('Advanced Tactical Fighter' program of the mid-1980s) - and completely unsustainable - was once considered for carrier service, including *_a variable-sweep wing modification_** to accommodate slower landing speeds* (within the 'Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter' program - the proposal was cut short in 1991) ... It would be interesting to see a graph of defense budget spending on procurement from the F-111B until the point where there will be no alternative to 'a navalized F-15N' (once the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G production lines will be shut in 2027 -aside the F-16V - F-15EX production will be the only line, still standing...) as _a _*_stop gap_* to an unsustainable F/A-XX program - in order to realize what could have been saved in treasure and blood to get there (insightful when compared to the alternate history of modernizing a then still existing F-14B/D of the 'Naval Fighter Experimental' program via the *Advanced Strike Fighter ASF-14 Super Tomcat* proposals of the 1990s _and_ it's *energetic export as **_a main stay of NATO air forces_** in order to lower unit and spares production costs* - a hurdle that the otherwise *capable and relatively **_affordable_** , modernized Super Hornet - derived from **_a sustainable_** 'Lightweight Fighter Program'* that bore also the still persistent F-16 - couldn't best)... Considering the lack in consistence in naval aviation procurement, it may be time to question the operation of carrier fleets in general (since wings can't reach their targets ashore and depend fully on a vulnerable tanker support).
I think you did an excellent job! Only one potential disagreement: when the F-14 is BELOW the horizon, from head on it's a devilishly difficult plane to see! Around 1980 I was flying a Cessna 172 Skyhawk out of Chesapeake airport and was darn near run over by an F-14 climbing out of NAS Oceana! We were both legal to be where we were (I was actually in a published practice area for the FOB/flight school at Chesapeake and he was on climb out and under Navy control). Even though I was looking straight at him, I didn't see him until he made a turn to his port side and broke above the horizon! On a guestimate, our closest approach was maybe a mile to 1.5 miles. Once I did see him, though, it was clear we were not on a collision course and I continued descending into Chesapeake to finish my late afternoon flight with a few touch and goes. Although rattled, I wasn't shaken enough to get stupid. Unfortunately, this run at getting my commercial/instrument licenses ended unsuccessfully with the birth of my second son (severely handicapped) a few months later. In all my time in the navy, though, I never tired of seeing the F-14's!
The Vought V-505 solutions seems to be pretty close to those of the Panavia Tornado. Single tail, narrowly mounted engines, protruding inlets, low cockpit.
IIRC the F-16 was originally designed with twin vertical stabilizers. When they switched to one the structure for the horizontal control surfaces were not changed much. Of course that could be internet or aviation magazine BS. Kind of like the reason the Corsair had a full wing was to shorten the landing gear for ground clearance on the prop. Nope. The gull wing resulted from it improved the aerodynamics of the airframe.
They should have just made a carrier version of the F15. It would have been cheaper than all the other mistakes the navy made. The F14 wasn't a mistake but it wasn't in service long. They should have just made a carrier based F15 with beefed up landing gear and a tail hook meant for carrier ops..it still would have been in operation today
This is a great article, with a ton of little-known info on the development history of the F-14. The book, "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes " (Salamander Books, Mike Spick, Author) contains a volume of minutely detailed info on every aspect of this history, and of the philosophy of the Navy during the proposed Missileer project. To paraphrase a quote, 'could the Navy carriers......with limited deck and hangar space,.......afford to have a single-use aircraft.......regardless of it's capabilities....This was the problem with the Missileer vs. Phantom II. All in all, if a modern power attacks your fleet with a hoard of nuclear missile-armed supersonic jets, they're probably going to get you. Thankfully, we (or any nation, for that matter) never had to test our defenses against this threat.
Wonderful explanation of several prototypes from several companies competitors ...in USA 🇺🇸..for designing suitable aircraft for US navel forces responded to Soviet Mig 25 ....what was notable .1- F-14 tomcat Iranian airforces 2- exoset French designed missiles were not showed their's remarkable capabilities during Iran-Iraq wars....
The Missileer wasn't really a bad concept. The airframe almost looks like an up dated Skyknight. The big problem is the overall slow speed of the airframe. Just no dash capability at all. Of course if the launch aircraft could hand off the misdile to a guidance aircraft then you are just dealing with a missile truck.
The issue, really was shifting requirements from Beyond Visual Range combat toward maneuverable air superiority combat due to the tactical success e.g. of the supersonic, yet agile MiG-21 in Vietnam - which by the way would still be an unforgiving (high risk of stall and engine flame out), yet capable point defense, today (see the Indian MiG-21UPG upgrades of 2008) for a fraction of the cost of any Western aircraft (the lightweight, supermaneuverable F-16 with 20 million USD as the cheapest option, compared to mere 6 million USD for producing and upgrading a 1960s MiG-21).
I’d say the big issues were 1) that by 1966 the DoD would’ve known how ineffective missiles were in actual combat vs the manufacturers testing results, and 2) that BVR engagement (which the Missiller and F111B were tailored to) was only politically viable in the unlikely scenario of an open war with the USSR.
@@neilturner6749 "(...) by 1966 the DoD would’ve known how ineffective missiles were in actual combat vs the manufacturers testing results (...)" To be fair, very long range missiles were only ever intended to combat large, nuclear tipped, guided missile armed bombers like the 'transonic' Tupolev Tu-16 and the subsonic Tu-95. In general, the topic of Beyond Visual Range combat (including powerful RADARs, very long range guided missiles and electronic warfare and 'low observability' measures) and the later Super-maneuverability (aside leading edges and high angles of attacks and thrust vectoring, including infra-red sensors and agile, short range, heat seeking missiles as well as bubble canopies and Helmet Mounted Displays) deserves a thorough treatment by channels like this - under realistic combat conditions that include RADAR jamming - as each respective advocate/activist idealizes their preferred feature A LOT...
@@neilturner6749 "(...) by 1966 the DoD would’ve known how ineffective missiles were in actual combat vs the manufacturers testing results (...)" To be fair, very long range missiles were only ever intended to combat large, nuclear tipped, guided missile armed bombers like the 'transonic' Tupolev Tu-16 and the subsonic Tu-95. In general, the topic of Beyond Visual Range combat (including powerful RADARs, very long range guided missiles and electronic warfare and 'low observability' measures) and the later Super-maneuverability (aside leading edges and high angles of attacks and thrust vectoring, including infra-red sensors and agile, short range, heat seeking missiles as well as bubble canopies and Helmet Mounted Displays) deserves a thorough treatment by channels like this - under realistic combat conditions that include RADAR jamming - as each respective advocate/activist idealizes their preferred feature A LOT...
@neilturner6749 "(...) by 1966 the DoD would’ve known how ineffective missiles were in actual combat vs the manufacturers testing results (...)" To be fair, very long range missiles were only ever intended to combat large, nuclear tipped, guided missile armed bombers like the 'transonic' Tupolev Tu-16 and the subsonic Tu-95. In general, the topic of Beyond Visual Range combat (including powerful RADARs, very long range guided missiles and electronic warfare and 'low observability' measures) and the later Super-maneuverability (aside leading edges and high angles of attacks and thrust vectoring, including infra-red sensors and agile, short range, heat seeking missiles as well as bubble canopies and Helmet Mounted Displays) deserves a thorough treatment by channels like this - under realistic combat conditions that include RADAR jamming - as each respective advocate/activist idealizes their preferred feature A LOT...
People who played F-15 Strike Eagle in the 1980s know they operated from aircraft carriers. Not sure where the game developers got that idea but ... ???
@@IsaacKuo oh I played that game for thousands of hours. I never played the third one. I was branded on f-15 strike eagle 2 by micropros Central Europe, North Cape, aircraft carriers? Oh hey! By the way, if you played at two, did you ever get to land on that secret airstrip in North Cape? It was described in the book as prepared by secret agents for emergency landings but I always crashed on it
We've been resting on our laurels too long. Development competitions like this one gave rise to iconic jets like the F-14 and F15. Of course, the field has been narrowed down to mainly Lockheed, Boeing, and Northrup-Grumman, so there's not so much competition any more. A shame, that.
The North American Rockwell jet is interesting ... no swing wing, but that would have ultimately been a plus. The intake looks like XB-70 Valkyrie's little brother.
I think F-18 with AMRAAM is a better fleet defender. The Tomcat was a hangar queen. Can't do much defending while you're undergoing maintenance. Simply by being in the air more of the time, Hornet could do a better job.
No, that was the a model. The D model had new engines, avionics, digital radar, data link, infra red search and track, etc, easy to maintain compared to the a model.
@@IsaacKuo The reason AMRAMM wasn't on tomcat was a conscious decision to use the money that was planned for its integration to instead integrate LANTIRN. it was felt that there would be a greater demand for more strike capability than air-to-air for the remainder of the Tomcat's life.
The dry humor you seamlessly put into your scripts makes these exceptionally well researched and presented mini documentaries as entertaining as they are informative. To wit: “… McDonnell did offer the aircraft to the Fleet Air Arm given that service’s preference for intellectual exercises over actual aircraft during this period …”
😂. Truly awesome writing, and the tone of the delivery just perfectly complements the punchline. Great work!
What I'm getting from this is that the navy wanted a long-loitering, long-ranged, missile-armed, twin-engined, two-man, dogfighting jet with good carrier handling and a small footprint on deck. Which makes a twenty-year development time seem reasonable, to be honest.
Do more reading. The F-14 is, in almost all respects, inferior to the F-111B. Except in it's ability to engage in turn-n-burn dogfighting, which is of course, a strategic failure of monumental proportions! If it has not shot down the five out of six targets the AIM-54s were meant to deal with, then the CVN is gone, along with all it's other planes. The F-111B meets all of the original mission requirements but is more of a bomb/missile truck than a fighter plane! The difference is the 7-8,000 extra pounds of fuel and the structural weight required to support it! Put enough tankage on the "Stretched" F-14 to do the original mission and all those aero-gimmicks done to the plane to make it easy meet for any and all Commy planes! The only advantage over an A-6 is it can almost outrun the AA-2 Atol fired from a MiG-17.
@@frankstewart8332I don't know man, if the navy, which accepted the a5c into service, said it was over weight, it was overweight. Also, the systems on the 14 were ten times better than the 111b's.
@frankstewart8332 F-111B proved to be too large and too heavy for carrier use. It was marginally smaller then RA-5 Vigilante. RA-5 was a high speed reconnaissance, so no more then small detachment of 3 to 5 on deployment. But fleet defense required two squadrons of aircraft during peace time deployment of airwing. F-111 was a high maintenance aircraft. Air Force wings always had availability and generation issues with F-111. On carrier F-111 would have taken up too much space on deck and hangar. At expense of strike aircraft. Which is the core mission of aircraft carrier. F-111 was best suited as theater land based strike aircraft. Which is how it served. Served as such for 20 years from 1968 to 1996/8 before being replaced by F-15E, and strategic mission transfered to B-2A. During Desert Storm , it was F-111F that delivered giant GBU-28 bunker busters on Iraq's subterranean weapon storage and firing points.
It is a hell of a spec list when you think about it.😁
Throw in 10 years of TF-30 problems....that added to it also
That Phantom looks like the forbidden love child of a Phantom and MiG-23/37
The foster parents probably made them stay in the attic.
"We must deploy you to a neutral, second-world nation, my son. You cannot live in East or West."
🎯
Cursed image.
You said Phantom twice
I so appreciate that you speak at a good pace and not rattle things down.
not that we'd have any idea who you mean, dark as he may yet be. I've always wondered if he clips the dead space just to make delivery even MOAR breathless.
I would love a tycoon game based around aircraft development with learning curves for new designs and the service deciding new requirements halfway through design. Developing is a tricky business, so having your research, licenses, patents, designers, and industry to match seems like a lot of fun. Now that I think about it the GearCity creator is making AreoMogul so maybe that will fill my needs
granted I think you should have the power to go to third parties as basically publicity stunts "oh my style of design is bad let's see huh" you basically have to sell at loss for the effect you'd want mind these countries are likly cheap
The LTV entry is absolutely gorgeous
You said it! Lifelong fighter fan here, and I've never heard of it before!
Looks like a Mirage F1.
I am of the educated opinion it is entirely superior to the Tomcat based on its design specifications.
It had Dassault DNA, they had an agreement with Vought circa 1969. Dassault built and flew three VG prototypes, 1967-1974: one Mirage G with a TF306 turbofan; and two Mirage G8s with Atar turbojets.
@@OptimaloptimusNo, it would be another Tornado or Mig 23, due higher wing load. The pancake ( area between engine pods) solution of the Tomcat was copied in the SU-27 and Mig-29, it tells something...
Such great scripts and you keep producing the videos fast. Thank you for the deep information.
Wow! the swing-wing Phantom looks awesome.
Did you mean the F-(1)4 PhanTomcat?
Another EXCELLENT video presentation!! Since you mentioned the Grumman F11F Tiger, maybe you can do a future video on the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger and the machinations by Lockheed to out maneuver Grumman with its F-104 program. Keep up the GREAT WORK!!
Excellent video. That Vought V505 looks a lot like what became the Panavia Tornado.
The Vought V505 gives off Tornado vibes.
Good shout, I was looking and was wondering what was giving me double takes 😮😅
My first thought as well!
"The Vought V505 gives off Tornado vibes."
Indeed.
Not gonna I called it that myself as it was a good point of reference
"If we can't sell in America, we can give it to the Brits"
Thank you my friend, they keep getting better and better!
Having lunch and enjoying your videos have become a very pleasant friday routine.
I really appreciate the links to the various Secret Projects topics. Most UA-cam channels just steal content from my forum without linking, so it's refreshing to see.
Your content is absolutely amazing. One of the best UA-cam channels available. Thank you for the hard work and diligence on these videos.
So many really good looking proposals...
Knowledge that this video provide is in another level
The quality and effort put into these videos astonishes me, absolutely keep it up your minidoc style videos are awesome.
This video should have been called "driveway to the the highway to the dangerzone" ;)
Only a few minor corrections:
1.) The F14A max speed was Mach 2.34
2.) VFX2, as you call it, the original F14B, never came. What came in the 1980s would be the Navy recognizing the P&W F100 program was having problems, and the need for a new engine was weighed. The Derivative Fighter Engine was briefly tested and then Engine the GE F110. It was shelved before coming back in the mid to late 80s as the Navy recognized the need to ditch the TF30 F14A... sadly, the 500 ship Navy came in the way and sapped funding for the original Grumman F14A thru F14C (Yes C) program. That's why the F110 equipped F14 was original designated as the F14A+ and not the F14B.
Navy realized F100 was having problems and the F400, the engine the F-41 was designed round, that was based on it would have those problems and more and Navy couldn't afford to pay to fix them so they canceled that engine and settled for the TF30. The F-14A was never meant to be the production version, just the developmental version. The B was to be the first production version, but when the P&W F400 died, so did the original B. BTW, there is an original B on the Lexington in NYC. The C was to have been the B but with more powerful electronics. When the B died so did the C . The F-14D was essentially the F-14C but with even more capable avionics. The first F110 equipped F-14s were at first called A+s to avoid confusion since they were basically As with the bigger motors but not the airframe and wiring enhancements planned for the original production model, the original B. Then it was decided this was even more confusing and since the original B never got into production, they changed A+ to B. I'm not sure why they skipped C.
That confused me too. I have never heard it called anything but a Mach 2+ aircraft. Maybe they restricted it later in normal operations but it's the first I have heard of it, and it's definitely able to go faster.
My son was just asking me yesterday about the competition that led to the F-14. Great timing, and great video!
Would love to see a video on early British air to air missiles like the fireflash, firestreak and red top
The F-111B was not for one second ever intended for BFM. It was to be purely a fleet defense missileer. This is why it had to go after the Navy realized it really needed an all-around fighter rather than a missileer. If the F-111B had been intended to dogfight the Navy would never have firmly insisted on the side-by-side cockpit seating over the objections of the USAF.
It is mentioned in the video at 1:47
@@KaoKacique And then it goes on to say the airplane lacked the BFM capabilities the Navy needed in the real world. This in conjunction with other comments can be interpreted as meaning the airplane was forced on the Navy by McNamara even though it didn't meet its needs. This is the common narrative, but it is not the case. The design did meet the stated needs of the Navy at the time, which were quite specific.
"(...) after the Navy realized it really needed an all-around fighter (...)"
Yet such an argument was never made...
Connolly's statement was that not even a stronger engine could power the F-111B, sufficiently - which didn't stop the Air Force to have their F-111 perform in Iraq as one of their most capable supersonic deep strike platforms...
When it comes to the Navy's crucial mission of fleet interception, it is more likely that there is a major issue with Beyond Visual Range combat upon which also the F-4 Phantom had relied in Vietnam (all subsequent airframes of the F-15 and F-16/F/A-18 include a requirement of high thrust super-maneuverability while ceremonially downplaying that very design principle of late Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters)...
@@christophmahler You are misinformed on the genesis behind the fleet defense doctrine. The F-111B didn't need a stronger engine to perform the design fleet defense role, which did not require high maneuverability. Connolly's statement to Congress was made after the Navy had decided it needed to dump the F-111 in favor of a more versatile air superiority fighter that could perform other roles as well as fleet defense. This was the result of combat experience in Vietnam.
Connolly had been part of the Navy leadership (their 'fighter mafia') that never wanted a Fleet Defense Fighter in the first place. He had always wanted a true air superiority fighter, but more senior leadership overruled his faction and specified the fleet defense airplane. His statement about how all the thrust in the world wouldn't make the F-111 a fighter is tossed around as a proof that the F-111 design was a failure, but he conveniently failed to mention that the F-111B had never been intended to be the fighter he now said the Navy needed. It's the politics of procurement.
The Navy changed its mind about what it really needed, and for decades its PR allies in Congress and the media have aided and abetted misrepresentation of that decision as being due to deficiencies in the F-111B design.
@@gort8203
"Connolly's statement to Congress was made after the Navy had decided it needed to dump the F-111 in favor of a more versatile air superiority fighter that could perform other roles as well as fleet defense. This was the result of combat experience in Vietnam."
Do You have a source on that question ?
EDIT: I did find a Smithsonian article that mentioned that 'Retired Navy Captain Joe Brantuas was one of the first who returned from Vietnam to teach tactics at Naval Air Station Miramar'...
In 1967, Grumman - who were originally just supposed to help General Dynamics navalization of the F-111 - did propose the F-14 to the US Navy which suddenly offered an alternative platform for the AIM-54 deployment to lobby Congress with.
"It's the politics of procurement."
I certainly agree on that aspect.
Both the F14 and F111 were both amazing ❤
What an adventure! Thank you for the time you put into these.
F-14 would have been fully capable rather earlier if Les Aspin had not led the crusade to kill the F401 engine in 1974. Five years later, when his cry of "The TF30 is good enough!" was proven hollow, he claimed "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!"
The F401 also had a lot of technical issues that the Navy, and Pratt & Whitney were unable to get fixed, so that, and the overall cost of the F401 Program forced the Navy to axe that engine, which in turn meant that the F-14A went from being the "Interim Model", to the only production variant built, until the creation of the F-14A+/F-14B, and F-14D.
@@johnosbourn4312 The F401 was axed by Aspin's crusade against it, trying to duplicate Sen, Proxmire's efforts and good PR. The F401 and F100 were siblings and improvements to one was fed across to the other. I admit that the F401 had some problems, two engines being hauled back from the test stands in bushel baskets in one week due to machining errors in the turbine section was not a good look, nor that the inspectors missed these errors. The basic engine was sound, though (I know, I was there). If the F401 had to be cancelled, there was a better alternative than the TF30 as Allison had demonstrated an afterburning TF41 derivative that, except for fuel economy, had as good or better performance as the F401.
@@MrCateagle At that time F100 and F401 were being developed in parallel and were being jointly funded. IIRC, part of the agreement was that when USAF accepted the F100, any further improvements to the F401 would have to be paid for by Navy alone. AF accepted the F100 at a certain point because if there was no F100, there would be no F-15 and they felt it could become a good engine. . Navy looked at its budget in the early '70s and said they just couldn't afford the fixes on their own, and they did nave an "interim" engine in the TF30, so they canceled the F401.
@tararaboomdiay7442 Thing is, ther was a better alternate engine availablebut no funding for it. Allison had demonstrated an afterburner TF41, which in dry form replaced the TF30 in the A-7, back in 1967. As for the F100 vs F401, the primary differences were in the fan and low pressure turbine modules. Granted, the F401 still had some problems, but at least some of.those were in sorting out manufacturing questions.
@@MrCateagle The afterburning TF41 would have required more time and money than the TF30 which was already in the F-14A, neither one of which the Navy had. I don't remember the afterburning thrust but I believe the afterburning TF41 had 18,000 lbs dry thrust. The key was it didn't offer enough improvement over the TF30 to "sell" itself to teh Navy.
Regarding the F401, the agreement between USAF and Navy is that development costs would be shared on a percentage basis between teh two. However, one USAF accepted F100 in whatever state it was in at the time, USN would have to cover 100% of the costs to continue development and increases in reliability 100% on its own . USAF accepted the F100 arguably prematurely because it HAD to have it and Navy just didn't have the money to do a lot more work on the F401 on its own, and it Did have a working engine already in the F-14.
Great mini documentary on the F-14 Tomcat along with/ the AWG-9 radar and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile.
Great video as always. Would love to see something about the F3H in the future.
Excellent!! Love the work you put into how we got to the final product.
Luv'd every second and every photo. I never saw or heard any of this.🤯 The F-14 is the most beautiful angel of death ever made by man! 😶👍
Great video! It would have been very interesting to have seen what might have developed from the 323 design.
Your historic accounts are incredible interesting. Much appreciated !!
another great deep dive into aircraft history. Excellent video. Keep up the good work.
Thanks as always for an excellent video. These procurement deep dives are very interesting and I would love to see more of them. You are quickly setting a positive standard for coverage of these topics.
F14 was an amazing jet to watch take off from an aircraft carrier. You could never mistake the sounds of it as it lifted off the flight deck. Saw them launch several times when I was in the US Navy.
I just want to say that just on looks alone,the F-14 is,was & likely always will be the the utter zenith of a plane as art for everyone. On surface there are similar ones but all the little things plus the nose art, patches and the Vandy paint make it a joy to behold! Good vid!🥳🥰
You can speak for yourself. I don't hate the F-14 but somehow I never loved it. It has character, but I can think of a lot of better looking jets. So not "everyone".
I think it’s a beautiful looking aircraft.
Looks don't shoot down enemy ACs! IT is, as used in it's original mission an outstanding killer when equipped with Iranian SAMs replacing the AIM-54s. But when used as the NAVY originally wanted, a turd of monumental proportions.
This was awesome I love looking at all the different designs
This history is fascinating.
Will a deep dive like this into the other Teen-series fighters be forthcoming in the near future? This one is utterly fascinating!
beautiful prototypes, excellent research as usual!
I remember on wings on the Discovery channel they showed some of the proposals for a split second where if you were sneaky enough you might have been able to pause the VHS cassette of the Tomcat episode to see one or two of them and there was not enough time to go into the detail of each proposal that this channel has done
In a way I do still miss the days of the old school Discovery channel but not as much as I thought because the quality of videos from this channel exceed that which I used to see on the Discovery channel before devolved into reality
Keep up the good videos
That image of a navalized F-15 with Phoenix missiles...as if the swing-wing Phantom variant wasn't disorienting enough already.
That North American/Rockwell NA323 design is gorgeous
I am very much enjoying your content and your narration.
Thank you for covering this 😊
Interesting and brilliantly presented. Thank you.
Wow that F-4 + F-14 love child thing looked.... kind of cool. Would like to see that in a video game or some kind of digital render.
Some of those Concepts look a lot like the CFA 44. Very neat video as always!
Immensely helpful.
The F-14 was the most torturous procurement program...
F-35: HOLD MY FUCKING BEER.
It is what happens when a project spans numerous administrations from the time the services ask for proposals until entering service. If it was just the airframe and engines the time to first flight would be much shorter. Add in all of the radar and weapons systems. Along with requests to match changing needs or requirements. Then see what happens.
The US Navy used to do a lot of business with Petersen Ship Building in Sturgeon Bay Wisconsin. Primarily support and auxiliary ships. Petersen finally walked away from submitting for contracts because they were sick and tired of having to tear apart partially finished vessels because the Navy changed their minds. They now build top tier pleasure craft. Much less hassle.
No F-14 was worse. They just rushed it into service before they worked out all the kinks and as a result, over 20% that the US Navy ever used were lost. So they decided not to do that again with the F-35
@@mpetersen6
"Petersen finally walked away from submitting for contracts because they were sick and tired of having to tear apart partially finished vessels because the Navy changed their minds."
Interesting anecdote - would make for a good video essay.
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex
"They just rushed it into service before they worked out all the kinks (...) So they decided not to do that again with the F-35 (...)"
What ?...
@@christophmahler They learned their lesson with the F-14 and took their time to make sure they got it right with the F-35
Excellent video mate, as all your videos, really interesting. The 507 model looks like a Tornado slept RA-5 vigilante and the 507 was the result of that coupling 😄
Very informative video
I always wondered why the A5/RA5 Vigilante wasn't adapted for these requirements. It certainly had the outright performance and range.
That’s not a bad point from an airframe point of view. My understanding is that 1) the foreshortened A5 programme led to a lot of bad blood between the USN and NA/Rockwell and 2) the USN was dead-set on the next fighter being a purpose-built Swing-Wing design, presuming that any adaptation of an existing design would be compromised.
It was fast but did not have the loiter ability or load capability necessary. One thing the F-111B and the F-14 had in common was the VG wing necessary to meet those mission parameters. The A-5 wing was not capable, nor the fuselage for that matter.
@@gort8203 Also didn't have the maneuverability, visibility, maintainability, ability to carry the necessary avionics and turnaround capability. For what it was designed for, it was very good at. In fact, a three engined version was proposed to USAF as an interceptor.
Good followup to your TFX/ F-111B video.
While in concept the idea of common airframes across services to save money sounds great. In practice the needs of a land based versus the needs of a carrier based air force will result in vastly different versions of the same aircraft. Look at the F-35. Of course McNamara came out of the auto industry as a cost specialist. In the auto industry it is common for different models to share many common components. Amazingly though two very good aircraft did result in cross service use in the US. The F-4 and the A-7. Every other airframe used by both the USAF and the USN was a land based airframe.
@@mpetersen6 They were better off to admit that multi-role is no realistic method of keeping cost down on specialized aircraft for aerial and ground interdiction roles on one airframe if the airframe is not amenable to physical stress that comes with hard carrier landing or carrying huge munition payloads for ground strikes. The only solution to multi-role warplanes is to create two or more airframes of a similar designs for specialized roles with reinforced build areas where the stress is highest on flying and landing plus wing and body weapon rack loading for land and sea scenarios.
@@mpetersen6
"The F-4 and the A-7. Every other airframe used by both the USAF and the USN was a land based airframe."
If one expands to include exports, the F/A-18 variants - especially the enlarged F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler electronic attack variant would be a reverse case (Canada and Australia as having deployed dedicated shore based wings - EDIT: Iran's import of the F-14 would be another relevant case).
@@Mythteller
"They were better off to admit that multi-role is no realistic method of keeping cost down on specialized aircraft for aerial and ground interdiction roles on one airframe (...)"
I tend to agree on that due to aerodynamics - but in case of a carrier navy, loosing strike craft would reduce the combat value of the entire fleet if the remaining interceptors can't fill that role.
Variable-sweep wings were supposed to resolve the aerodynamic challenges of the very different roles (high speed, high altitude intercept versus high speed, low altitude interdiction or strike) - one would also have to run the numbers to see if the combination of programs would lead to a larger fleet and fire power for the same procurement costs (although minus the additionally required personnel).
In the European theater that separation of roles and airframes had been largely practiced with the lightweight F-16 as an attritable point defense, the F-15 as a dominant air superiority and the Tornado variants as Beyond Visual Range interceptors or strike/interdiction bombers - the F-22A and the modernization of the F15E/EX would also reflect that procurement strategy for the US Air Force (alas not successfully due to the end of F-22 production already in 2011 after only two thirds of the already low production run).
@@mpetersen6 Except for the FJ-2 Fury which was a derivative of the F-86, which itself might be argued was a derivative of the Navy FJ-1 Fury, all tactical airframes used by both the USAF and USN were derivatives of naval aircraft (A-1. A-3/B-66).
Great video. Thanks!
The F-14 was not a simple Fleet Defense fighter, instead it was a Maritime Air Superiority Fighter. The unbuilt F6D Missilelier was meant to be a Fleet Defense Interceptor armed with the AAM-N-10 Eagle missile, which also was never built.
Even as a kid in the 1960s I've had an odd fascination for proposed aircraft that never actually got built, so the more I watched this video the more I realized it's pure unadulterated catnip (tomcatnip?) to me.
Outstanding video, 👌Bravo 👏👏👏
The F6D Missilieer idea was also a victim of Mach 3 MiG fear. When Soviet M:3 fighters and bombers were considered the likely future threat, subsonic F6D's simply couldn't get close enough to the bombers or far enough away from the fighters to do their job.
There were plenty saying M:3 was simply too hot, too expensive and too big to happen, but F-111B was still required to achieve M:2 to get close and get away from Soviet M:3 aircraft, which is why it had so much fuel and straight line speed.
As you said the Mach 3 idea had died out by 1962, which meant the old F6D could've managed 90% of the fleet defence fighter role for a fraction of the cost, while a cheap day fighter could handle the attack / dogfighter role.
Phoenix was also designed around a M:3 bomber threat and when that disappeared - replaced by cheap and simple subsonic MiGs and cruise missiles - the F-14 / AWG-9 / Phoenix struggled throughout with claims of being too expensive a solution to a problem that no longer existed.
Fortunately the AWG-9 / Phoenix combo had a useful performance against cruise missiles - its just the F6D would have had just as much luck, with no need for a M:2 get-away-from-here requirement.
The F6D was canceled in 1961, six years before the US became aware of what it thought were M3 MiGs. Regarding getting close to M3 bombers, remember the bombers would be coming toward the carriers. It was canceled because the concept of a slow long endurance plane designed to do nothing but loiter around and hurl missiles at Soviet bombers simply wasn't viable. It would take a while to get back and rearm and was of no use against fighters and other craft. There really wasn't going to be enough deck space for the luxury of such a limited craft. As far as a cheap day fighter went, what if you encountered the enemy at nought or IFR weather? Again, there's only so much deck space.
F-111B's speed was a byproduct of USAF requirements since McNamara directed a "one size fits all" approach.
@@tararaboomdiay7442 M:3 combat aircraft were predicted as a threat from the mid 1950s, when the science was proved doable. They were expected into service by the mid 60s.
The USAF was already setting out the requirements for the XB-70, F-103 and F-108 from 1955. The A-12 and YF-12 from 1959. The Soviet's were assumed to be on the same path, hence the requirement for M:3 interceptors.
There was no way an aircraft the size and complexity of the F-108 or YF-12 was going to fly from a carrier so the USN put their future in faster long ranged missiles, hence F6D eventually F-14.
The M:3 threat was eliminated from military thinking prior to the discovery of MiG-25, when the maths, materials and science proved it was far cheaper to do those missions with missiles.
MiG-25 and SR-71 were just leftovers from late 50s strategic thinking, found roles in reconnaissance and hot rod interception.
As a teenager, I built a model of a Tomcat...and I still have it, fifty years later. Less than ten years later, though, I joined the navy and because a plankowner of the shiny new USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), where I got to look at F-14s close up. Dunno why I didn't take more pictures of them, but then, I could only afford limited amounts of film...I had a family to support. I can't imagine a better looking fighter jet than this.
I think they should bring back the f-14, this time with thrust vectors.
I also the F-111 Tiger wouldn't have been killed off. I do believe it could have been a serious Mig killer in Nam. I do have to admit, that Rockwell design has an elegant sexy look. You know like a runway model in combat gear.
Some beautiful designs. I subbed to your channel 👍
Thank you for this video!
Great video
6:00 OUCH. Now THAT is a burn.
That 323 looks good!
Probably the most balanced and _circumspect_ video essay on late Cold War US Navy aviation procurement - considering all relevant factors from historically evolving requirements, to airframe design proposals to manufacturing base history.
23:45 ...the 'inspiring' influence of the already looming, advanced F-15 (commonly 'Fighter Experimental' program) as early as 1969 - arguably 'a fixed wing F-14A' - explains the fate of the F-111 ('Tactical Fighter Experimental' program - everything, but 'tactical') across the services - all based upon false CIA intelligence on the MiG-25 that had escalated the Cold War arms race to unsustainable levels with the Soviet economy collapsing in the late 1980s (with the Su-27PU/Su-35S arguably as the _sustainable_ optimum of a '4th generation' fighter) - the US economy from the 2010 onward (no procurement plan across the services ever since had fully succeeded)...
It is noteworthy that also the most advanced, but somewhat rushed YF-22/F-22A ('Advanced Tactical Fighter' program of the mid-1980s) - and completely unsustainable - was once considered for carrier service, including *_a variable-sweep wing modification_** to accommodate slower landing speeds* (within the 'Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter' program - the proposal was cut short in 1991) ...
It would be interesting to see a graph of defense budget spending on procurement from the F-111B until the point where there will be no alternative to 'a navalized F-15N' (once the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G production lines will be shut in 2027 -aside the F-16V - F-15EX production will be the only line, still standing...) as _a _*_stop gap_* to an unsustainable F/A-XX program - in order to realize what could have been saved in treasure and blood to get there (insightful when compared to the alternate history of modernizing a then still existing F-14B/D of the 'Naval Fighter Experimental' program via the *Advanced Strike Fighter ASF-14 Super Tomcat* proposals of the 1990s _and_ it's *energetic export as **_a main stay of NATO air forces_** in order to lower unit and spares production costs* - a hurdle that the otherwise *capable and relatively **_affordable_** , modernized Super Hornet - derived from **_a sustainable_** 'Lightweight Fighter Program'* that bore also the still persistent F-16 - couldn't best)...
Considering the lack in consistence in naval aviation procurement, it may be time to question the operation of carrier fleets in general (since wings can't reach their targets ashore and depend fully on a vulnerable tanker support).
I think you did an excellent job! Only one potential disagreement: when the F-14 is BELOW the horizon, from head on it's a devilishly difficult plane to see! Around 1980 I was flying a Cessna 172 Skyhawk out of Chesapeake airport and was darn near run over by an F-14 climbing out of NAS Oceana! We were both legal to be where we were (I was actually in a published practice area for the FOB/flight school at Chesapeake and he was on climb out and under Navy control). Even though I was looking straight at him, I didn't see him until he made a turn to his port side and broke above the horizon! On a guestimate, our closest approach was maybe a mile to 1.5 miles. Once I did see him, though, it was clear we were not on a collision course and I continued descending into Chesapeake to finish my late afternoon flight with a few touch and goes. Although rattled, I wasn't shaken enough to get stupid. Unfortunately, this run at getting my commercial/instrument licenses ended unsuccessfully with the birth of my second son (severely handicapped) a few months later. In all my time in the navy, though, I never tired of seeing the F-14's!
The Vought V-505 solutions seems to be pretty close to those of the Panavia Tornado. Single tail, narrowly mounted engines, protruding inlets, low cockpit.
Wooo earliest I have ever been to a video
Excellent production! You broke it down to a level of that most have never had access to.
Damn... that North American /Rockwell bird was sexy.
17:16 the E had front little wing. Nice
Imagine if the F-14 were still in service and how formidable the latest generation would be.
19:00 so unusual to see f-14 with only one vertical stabilizer
IIRC the F-16 was originally designed with twin vertical stabilizers. When they switched to one the structure for the horizontal control surfaces were not changed much. Of course that could be internet or aviation magazine BS. Kind of like the reason the Corsair had a full wing was to shorten the landing gear for ground clearance on the prop. Nope. The gull wing resulted from it improved the aerodynamics of the airframe.
I wish the would have went forward with the F-16XL. You kinda like McDonald's Super Size Me deal. 🤣🤣🤣
Vough V-404 at 8:55 looks nearly identical to Mig-23 in top plan view.
They should have just made a carrier version of the F15. It would have been cheaper than all the other mistakes the navy made. The F14 wasn't a mistake but it wasn't in service long. They should have just made a carrier based F15 with beefed up landing gear and a tail hook meant for carrier ops..it still would have been in operation today
LTV-Dassault's design was pretty cool looking
You should do a special about the TFX proposals.
He covered that 3 weeks ago in his F-111B video
This is a great article, with a ton of little-known info on the development history of the F-14. The book, "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes " (Salamander Books, Mike Spick, Author) contains a volume of minutely detailed info on every aspect of this history, and of the philosophy of the Navy during the proposed Missileer project. To paraphrase a quote, 'could the Navy carriers......with limited deck and hangar space,.......afford to have a single-use aircraft.......regardless of it's capabilities....This was the problem with the Missileer vs. Phantom II. All in all, if a modern power attacks your fleet with a hoard of nuclear missile-armed supersonic jets, they're probably going to get you. Thankfully, we (or any nation, for that matter) never had to test our defenses against this threat.
21:35 Intakes look taken straight off the side of a Star Fighter. 😮
Yeah. It seems that, with the agreement with Lockheed, the first thing that came had been F104 inlets.
Later on, the failure of the A12 program resulted in the F14 and A6 being retired early without any equivalent replacements.
Vought V-505 almost the same as the Panavia Tornado.
Ling-Temco-Vought? weird that I never heard of it before now. Vought survived, in a form
@WardCarrol would likely enjoy this since the results shaped his Navy years.
You should do the proposed super-tomcat variants! Like the ST-21 with super cruise and thrust vectoring
Did the F-4 VSS still have J79s?
18:31 thats the jet grom the Gi Joe cartoon. An f14 with only one vert. Stabilizing tail fin
Wonderful explanation of several prototypes from several companies competitors ...in USA 🇺🇸..for designing suitable aircraft for US navel forces responded to Soviet Mig 25 ....what was notable .1- F-14 tomcat Iranian airforces 2- exoset French designed missiles were not showed their's remarkable capabilities during Iran-Iraq wars....
Vought's design was supported by Dassault drawing on their Mirage G experience.
Looks like you put alot of effort into this videos research!
French at 20:30
Warthunder, when?
Thanks for the warning
Single tailed Tomcat looks cursed.
The Missileer wasn't really a bad concept. The airframe almost looks like an up dated Skyknight. The big problem is the overall slow speed of the airframe. Just no dash capability at all. Of course if the launch aircraft could hand off the misdile to a guidance aircraft then you are just dealing with a missile truck.
The issue, really was shifting requirements from Beyond Visual Range combat toward maneuverable air superiority combat due to the tactical success e.g. of the supersonic, yet agile MiG-21 in Vietnam - which by the way would still be an unforgiving (high risk of stall and engine flame out), yet capable point defense, today (see the Indian MiG-21UPG upgrades of 2008) for a fraction of the cost of any Western aircraft (the lightweight, supermaneuverable F-16 with 20 million USD as the cheapest option, compared to mere 6 million USD for producing and upgrading a 1960s MiG-21).
I’d say the big issues were 1) that by 1966 the DoD would’ve known how ineffective missiles were in actual combat vs the manufacturers testing results, and 2) that BVR engagement (which the Missiller and F111B were tailored to) was only politically viable in the unlikely scenario of an open war with the USSR.
@@neilturner6749
"(...) by 1966 the DoD would’ve known how ineffective missiles were in actual combat vs the manufacturers testing results (...)"
To be fair, very long range missiles were only ever intended to combat large, nuclear tipped, guided missile armed bombers like the 'transonic' Tupolev Tu-16 and the subsonic Tu-95.
In general, the topic of Beyond Visual Range combat (including powerful RADARs, very long range guided missiles and electronic warfare and 'low observability' measures) and the later Super-maneuverability (aside leading edges and high angles of attacks and thrust vectoring, including infra-red sensors and agile, short range, heat seeking missiles as well as bubble canopies and Helmet Mounted Displays) deserves a thorough treatment by channels like this - under realistic combat conditions that include RADAR jamming - as each respective advocate/activist idealizes their preferred feature A LOT...
@@neilturner6749
"(...) by 1966 the DoD would’ve known how ineffective missiles were in actual combat vs the manufacturers testing results (...)"
To be fair, very long range missiles were only ever intended to combat large, nuclear tipped, guided missile armed bombers like the 'transonic' Tupolev Tu-16 and the subsonic Tu-95.
In general, the topic of Beyond Visual Range combat (including powerful RADARs, very long range guided missiles and electronic warfare and 'low observability' measures) and the later Super-maneuverability (aside leading edges and high angles of attacks and thrust vectoring, including infra-red sensors and agile, short range, heat seeking missiles as well as bubble canopies and Helmet Mounted Displays) deserves a thorough treatment by channels like this - under realistic combat conditions that include RADAR jamming - as each respective advocate/activist idealizes their preferred feature A LOT...
@neilturner6749
"(...) by 1966 the DoD would’ve known how ineffective missiles were in actual combat vs the manufacturers testing results (...)"
To be fair, very long range missiles were only ever intended to combat large, nuclear tipped, guided missile armed bombers like the 'transonic' Tupolev Tu-16 and the subsonic Tu-95.
In general, the topic of Beyond Visual Range combat (including powerful RADARs, very long range guided missiles and electronic warfare and 'low observability' measures) and the later Super-maneuverability (aside leading edges and high angles of attacks and thrust vectoring, including infra-red sensors and agile, short range, heat seeking missiles as well as bubble canopies and Helmet Mounted Displays) deserves a thorough treatment by channels like this - under realistic combat conditions that include RADAR jamming - as each respective advocate/activist idealizes their preferred feature A LOT...
23:48 mcdonald Douglas wanted to make an f-15 carrier version now. That's fascinating. Tell me more
People who played F-15 Strike Eagle in the 1980s know they operated from aircraft carriers. Not sure where the game developers got that idea but ... ???
@@IsaacKuo oh I played that game for thousands of hours. I never played the third one. I was branded on f-15 strike eagle 2 by micropros Central Europe, North Cape, aircraft carriers? Oh hey! By the way, if you played at two, did you ever get to land on that secret airstrip in North Cape? It was described in the book as prepared by secret agents for emergency landings but I always crashed on it
6:30 is there anywhere one can se all those 100s of concepts? A site, report or book even?
We've been resting on our laurels too long. Development competitions like this one gave rise to iconic jets like the F-14 and F15. Of course, the field has been narrowed down to mainly Lockheed, Boeing, and Northrup-Grumman, so there's not so much competition any more. A shame, that.
25:25 - Sort of a Spitfire in jet form.
Never knew the Mirage G1 has an american cousin !
Damn V-507 Vagabond looked sexy !
The North American Rockwell jet is interesting ... no swing wing, but that would have ultimately been a plus. The intake looks like XB-70 Valkyrie's little brother.
They got it right, eventually. Hard to imagine there'll ever be a better "fleet defender" than the Tomcat.
I think F-18 with AMRAAM is a better fleet defender. The Tomcat was a hangar queen. Can't do much defending while you're undergoing maintenance. Simply by being in the air more of the time, Hornet could do a better job.
No, that was the a model. The D model had new engines, avionics, digital radar, data link, infra red search and track, etc,
easy to maintain compared to the a model.
@@IsaacKuo The reason AMRAMM wasn't on tomcat was a conscious decision to use the money that was planned for its integration to instead integrate LANTIRN. it was felt that there would be a greater demand for more strike capability than air-to-air for the remainder of the Tomcat's life.