The F-14 we would still be flying today
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 гру 2021
- In the early 1990’s, Grumman proposed a new iteration of the famed Top Gun fighter that was not only modern enough to still be in service today, it would have marked a vast improvement in performance and capability over even Maverick’s highly capable F-14D.
While the F-14D took on the title “Super Tomcat,” this effort to modernize the F-14 began under the moniker “ST21,” which, appropriately enough, stood for “Super Tomcat for the 21st Century,” and make no mistake - that’s exactly what it could have been.
📱 Follow Sandboxx on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
📱Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
The F-14 was always my fav. Its big, badass, and beautiful.
Me too, but like the F-4, which was similar for me, they had their day.
@@jimdennis2451 Yes, I loved the Phantom as well.
It was also the architype for both the VF-0 (Phoenix), and VF-1 (Valkyrie) in the Macross Zero / SDF Macross Universe.
There are some fighter designs that just look right...the F-14 is one of them.
Some others I would put in that category:
Sopwith Camel
Spitfire
A6M Zero
F4U Corsair
F-86 Sabre
F-4 Phantom
A-4 Skyhawk
among others.
@@Ichijoe2112: Good catch! Yes. Toncats inspired the Macross Valkyries.
The teen series (14/15/16) was and is absolutely incredible. 3 sequentially numbered jets with sterling capabilities built in the thousands and operating for 35-50 years in a variety of blocks and upgrades. Anyone who knows the history of military jet design/competition/procurement understands how often programs are cancelled, curtailed, or repurposed as tech, economics and mission types render them unsuitable. The fact that these 3 succeeded on the highest possible level always blows my mind.
Still the best looking jet to ever grace the skies on this planet!
Besides the SR-71, of course.
@@mountnman3609 I love the Blackbird, but the Tomcat will always be the best imo.
@@mountnman3609 LOL if I had to choose one to bring to the dance, it would have been the Tom
Yes! The plane just looks amazing, better then any of the new fighters imo.
Some of us would say the 80 year old P51 Mustang takes that title.
Great episode, Alex!
It would’ve been truly amazing to see a new breed of tomcat fly along side things like the raptor. There’s not enough time in the world to describe everything I love about the F 14
The Legend himself!
I did double take when I saw ward commenting on a Tomcat video ;)
@Ward Carroll you should cover this topic! I always wondered what could have been, would be interesting to hear a more in depth discussion of this topic.
@Mooch I was about to link you this video. 😊
The US Navy F14 Tom Cat and the USAF F15 Eagle are about the same age. With the same basic capabilities. The Air Force still flies several hundred F15s. I have always thought the Navy made a huge mistake in dropping the Tom Cat.
ua-cam.com/video/JxsFz1DP5i0/v-deo.html
watch this vid, F-14 wasn't nearly as good as people think
there's a great video by ignored advice productions that demonstrates that it was a mistake to even bring the tomcat into service
@@ramonnoodles7840 do they make a video about how joe Biden is the best president in history too?
@@naisbest3020 shut.
@@uberschnilthegreat22 nein
I fully believe an intact F-14 airframe combined with modern RADAR, avionics, weapons ... and vectored thrust .... would be the envy of the world! :)
There are 2 planes that I want to be revived: These are the Super F14 Tomcat and the YF-23.
unfortunately the airforce/navy seems to hate norfolk grummand aircraft
@@kitten9416 It's Northrop and Grumman companies, and yes you are right. It's the internal politics in Air Force that has beaten the YF-23 and not because of performance. Regarding the Navy, I still have hope that they will look into Super F-14 because it is better than even the Super F-18 Hornet.
YES
@@gerrycrisostomo6571 ahh ok. i thought it was one company that had merged from two, not two aligned ones. sadly they wont bring it back for alot of reasons. most of them the same as they cant the f22, but even without that theirs the panic over iraq getting parts for there planes... way overstated, but since when does reason outweigh panic tactics in politics
There are interesting parallels between why the YF-23 and ST-21 were never awarded contracts, namely risk.
YF-23 had several windscreen failures during ATF DEMVALs, never could get past Mach 1.82 due to limits of the intake design, had very limited weapons bay magazine depth compared to the YF-22, had to double its control surface actuators to be able to lay them on their sides so there wouldn’t be any additional protuberances on the wings (this added complexity/failure nodes), and was quite long/limited max G. Its main advantage was really long combat radius/range without need for EFTs, so it would have made an excellent interceptor and deep penetration VLO strike platform had it been produced in the F-23A form.
My good friend was a '14 maintainer during his 26-year Navy career, and said the 14, was a great performer, but also really labor-intensive due in large part to the variable geometry wings and avionics
That seems to be the general consensus among the brass too. Would have been interesting to see how different an updated 4th-gen would have been.
Can you ask him if his squadron suffered from the spare part shortages? I’ve heard that was the real killer.
Half the airframes in a squadron ending up being parts donors for the others. But that means the spares were not on the shelf and had to be removed and then reinstalled meaning double the maintenance hours.
Yup they were dubbed bobcats... It was a maintenance nightmare. I read on a webpage ages ago. The checklist etc.
the super tomcat, defeated before it even got off the ground by the arch enemy of all fighter jets "maintenance intensity"
@@Snugggg during my tour in my squadron, we never had more than 2 "rob" birds at a time.
Keep in mind that Grumman outsourced many sub components. So if there was a supply chain issue, it wasn't entirely Grumman's fault.
The hydraulic components manufacturer for instance, made components for other military aircraft models as well as for the civilian aviation market. Later on i found out they even manufactured components for heavy construction equipment, big trucks plus other vehicles and machinery.
It's a major name player in the hydraulics industry , boggles my mind as to why they didn't dramatically increase number of manufacturing plants.
I want to hear what you think about the New 4+ Gen F15s
This would make Ward Carroll happy.
l am sure Mooch approve....!
Check the comments, it did hahaha
Good video. The F-14D was already hugely upgraded with the glass avionics, more modern HUD, APG-71 radar, DFCS and the GE-F110 engines from the F-14B with 28,200 lbs thrust per engine. It made so much thrust, vertical quadruple immelmans? No problem. There was very little that could match it overall in terms of capabilities. Can't imagine how big leap forward the AST-21 and ASF-14 were going to be.
@Le Vi Yes, last one rolled out of the factory in 1995. 37 of the total F-14D were brand new
@Le Vi Mike Rabens explains why that was. He was at Point Mugu leading integration of AIM-120 on the F-14, when they discovered that it had aerodynamic problems with the wing glove pylon stations, but not the tunnel. It was going to cost more money to develop the pylons, run all the wind tunnel modeling, then do the flight tests and separation vetting, so the Navy said since the F-14 already has a long range active seeker missile, it wasn’t worth the money to invest even more integrating AMRAAM onto it. The last Block 50 was delivered to USAF in 2005 by my former neighbor, who was chief test pilot on the F-16 CTF when we knew him. By 2005, he was a Brigadier General.
@Le Vi It’s not too big a shame the Tomcat never got the full AMRAAM integration. After all, having the Navy choose to fund the Lantirn program over the AMRAAM meant the Cat got to stay in service longer than she would’ve.
@@2ZZGE100 I read somewhere the youngest airframe SCRAPPED was only 15 years old. That's obnoxious, they murdered the Tomcat, plain and simple.
@Le Vi Yes true. That is what I have seen being said that the air-to-ground was far more valuable than the AIM-120 integration as Snort said he had been wanting to shoot AIM-54 at the enemy for 20 years and it never happened so there was no point in integrating the AIM-120 as air-to-air was so far less valuable.
Watching the growing pains of the F-14 and it's landlubber cousin the F-111 in real time was a fascinating lesson in promised performance versus actual results. So what exactly happened to the wave of the future "variable geometry wing design"? Was it Stealth? Operating/Maintenance costs? Or just the retirement of the designers who drove its development? ... Or, my favorite answer, the basic paradigm of military procurement: "After decades of development, this is exactly what we need. Buy something else."
The real answer is shrinking budgets and Delta Canards/Modifies deltas
Money, maintenance and changing times. The need for pure interceptors was dying out. The Super Hornet sharing 80% parts with the Hornet essentially killed the Tomcat. The F-18G now replaces the A-6E as well. Thats one airframe that replaces both the Tomcat and Intruder/Prowler.
@@curtisjordan5303 and S-3 as well
I was under the impression that developments in aerodynamics + FBW systems make the need for the aero trickery of variable geometry wings redundant, plus the operating costs. Stealth might be a factor, but the Bone is at least low observable, so that might not be such a huge issue.
@@WolfpackOne I don’t think the S3 has been replaced yet but will likely be replaced by a combination of F35s and drones
I thought that retiring the F-14 was premature. The navy should have saved the airframes and gut the old hardware and hydraulics.
They should of then updated with new up to date electronics and hydraulics. Along with the new GE-F110-129IPE engines would have greatly increased performance and reduced the maintenance time problems the old F-14 had. I was cad designer at GE and worked on the -129 used on the D model and did a little work on the -129 IPE ( Increased Performance Engine). The -129IPE would have allowed the airframe be used to its max ability. F-18 is a great airplane but can not do things the Tomcat could.
Not premature at all. Almost all of the D models were minor touch ups of the original A model. Which by the time of 2006 were heavily corroded because of its Sea Faring nature. Finally the Phoenix Missile had been retired years ago since the Soviet Bombers simply weren’t there to challenge the US Navy anymore. In terms of weapon carriage the F-14 was also inefficient compared to the Legacy and Super Hornet
If you look at the average life of carrier aviation jet platforms, the F-14 series had a nice long run of 32 years, which was pretty normal compared to the F-4B/J/N, A-4, A-6, A-7A/E, and even the F/A-18A-D. All the A model airframes were trashed/timing out by the 1990s. The flight control system problems still remained in the D until it dealt with them with the DLFCS upgrade, but the mechanical architecture still had all the same issues.
Wing sweep mechanism box was Titanium, and required electron beam welding. The Navy spent $369 million on development of a new engine for the F-14 in the early 1970s (1970-1973), the Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400, which was an F100 variant to share commonality with USAF engines in the F-15 for better management from an industrial perspective. That engine never got put into the planned F-14B, and all that money was basically blown very early in the program, leaving the Tomcat with the temporary stop-gap TF30 engine from the F-111 program. The costs seem to have robbed the F-14 of additional upgrades that all the other teen fighters got.
AWG-9 was a nightmare too, with disconnection issues, tubes, antiquated display for the RIO that burned images into the screen, and the system suffered from lag and drag when offsetting for better angles at BVR.
F/A-18s regular out-performed F-14s even in the BVR fight, and that was before the Super Hornet. F/A-18 had a Radar that could look-down/shoot-down over land and sea, whereas AWG-9 only worked over the ocean (when it did work). There wasn’t enough processor memory to handle ocean and land background clutter when the F-14 and E-2 Hawkeye were developed. That changed in the mid-late 1970s with the solid state electronics and digital revolution, which hit at just the right time for the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. F-14 just barely missed the boat on that one, and had its whole combat avionics architecture built on the AWG-9.
@@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass Really? From what read of Naval Aviation to include some books and pilot discussions, the F/A-18 was a joke. Test pilots spoke about running the 18s (Both legacy and new) into the ground during mock combat tests. The Super Hornet actually does what the original 18 claimed to do but failed to achieve. Also, the F-14s ability to carry large loads for long distances made it the plane of choice for FAC(A), deep strike/interdiction missions and CAS in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan (was instrumental to the success of SOF units early on in OEF). The only thing the 18s really had over the 14s, maintenance issues or the lack of them. The Navy brass never liked the 14 because they were afraid, regardless of its capabilities and potential, that it would take money away from having a larger fleet of ships. It would have resulted to the loss of a single new ship. Most of the Navy Brass were ship guys and not aviators, and they looked down on Naval aviators. They also tried to cancel the 14 on many occasions. This is why the 14 never got the engines it was supposed to have, or the upgrades it needed over the years which lead to many of the maintenance issues and deaths throughout its career. The senior aviators had to make do with the crumbs that the brass gave them and they made the best of it and still produced a product that was a class act that and at its retirement, the 14 emptied some big shoes that even to this day Naval Aviation cannot fill. Naval Aviation today is in crisis with 2 platforms that do not have the range or capabilities to do the missions that the 14 did, and you can also blame the former VP and SECDEF Dick Cheney for that as well. A good book to read that helps explain the politics behind the scenes of the navy in the early 80s to mid 90s and Navy brass corruption is “Fall from Glory: The Men Who Sank the US Navy” by Gregory Vistica. Even though the book is not about Naval Aviation in general, it does give the reader some insight on how Navy Aviation got screwed in the long run. I highly recommend it.
@@LRRPFco52 The Delta variants were far from “touch ups” of the of Alphas. Please don’t confuse the Bravos, which were a touch up of the Alphas with the new engines being the major component difference between the two. Btw, please provide sources of this BVR engagement analysis, because books written by Guardia and Baranek (former RIO), don’t mention this at all. Actually, there are a lot of other sources that say the opposite of the 18. Yes it could carry the 120, unlike the 14, but it’s radar range is crap compared to the 14s when both were in service together. Also, the AWG-9 were not in the Deltas, but they also weren’t as bad as you make them out to be, especially over land. That radar was top notch for its day, but it was a mechanically scan array radar which made it maintenance intensive, but overall a reliable radar considering its size, complexity for its day, and the conditions that it had to operate in. The Iranians are still using that radar, even made some modifications to them, and granted it does not produce the fear that it once did, it still has some capabilities that some of our flyers worry about when in the Persian Gulf. The 14 wasn’t perfect, but the 18s and 35s were the wrong platforms to replace them. Neither can perform deep strike/interdiction missions or long range fleet defense. They just don’t have the legs, muscle or speed needed to conduct these missions. The situation Navy Air find themselves in today has a lot to do with poor leadership, lack of foresight and corrupt politics.
@@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass I appreciate your comments. Where I disagree is the D was more than a minor upgrade in the propulsion dept. The F110 -GE-400 of the A+ & D models had 29000 thousand pounds of thrust, 8 thousand pounds of extra thrust compared to Pratt. The 16000 pounds of extra thrust would have allowed the pilot to maximize the capability of the airframe. GE was working on an upgrade that was going to up the thrust to 31000 pounds of thrust. With the Ge engine the pilots could fly the airplane not fly the engines like the Pratt. The Ge could be throttled up from idle to max thrust without stopping & stalling unlike the Pratt which had to be throttled up in steps because of engine stalls. I agree the mechanical, electronics and radar needed upgrading. I still believe the airframe with the new engines and digital upgrades would of had meet the fleet defense role better than the F-17.
The F17E/F tried to address the short range issue but that would still not to be able to beat the Improved F14 without extra drop tanks. This then would have reduced its weapons load.
After working with Grumann mechanics at Point Mugu they were excited about Tomcat 21. The problem was the ratio of Maintenance manhours to Flight hours. There are twice many moving parts and components compared to the Hornet. The Tomcat averaged 90 Maint. Manhours to each flight hour, compared to 10 Maint. Manhours to each flighthour. Some of cool fixes was a AMAD which is gear box that handles hydralic, and fuel pumps and generator and air start turbine, which would have simplified some maintenance tasks.
But could it halved Man hours? The mainatence and price was bigest hurdle.
In the end it still seems like making an already incredibly complex fighter even more complex...
@@serfnuts well some new stuff is actually simpler to maintain. Modern fly by Optics could reduce maintenance. Instead of hydraulic lines you could use electric servos.
@@serfnuts modern electronics are far more reliable than what was in the Tomcat
@@JMiskovsky What's the price of wasting new SuperBugs as tankers ?
The price of putting a carrier BG too close for comfort to enemy shores ?
My dad was a structural mechanic on the tomcats, he always likes to talk about how one from his squadron had a kill on mig
My dad was also a structural engineer on Tomcat! He also worked on the LEM for Apollo. I actually worked on the line for one summer in 1983 building parts of 2 airframes (underwing nacelles).
@@alliejr thats cool, im only 16 lol but rn im going to a tech school for aviation maintenance stuff
@@amoron6435 Haha. Yes. My dad was probably retiring when you dad started. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
@@amoron6435 Cool! My grandfather was a n engineer for the SR-71, F-16, and various others. He always has cool stories to tell about the F-16
@@alliejr i think my dad said he was on the independence?
The movie Top Gun came out in 1986 when I was in the first grade…..well, actually, if I remember correctly, it was THE summer blockbuster of the year, and hit theaters during my summer vacation just BEFORE I started the first grade. The point is, I remember going to see it in theaters with my dad, who was in the Navy at the time, and my older brothers. We all LOVED it, and the F-14 Tomcat stole my heart. It has been my favorite aircraft ever since that day, and always will be.
While in the Navy, I got to see the F-14 in action on several occasions and it was a glorious aircraft. But God bless those maintenance crews (especially the enlisted guys) that kept her flying. Many guys I knew would much prefer to take care of the hornets instead of the tomcats.
First, thank you for your service! Vets do not receive enough credit.
Second. I have heard that the maintenance personnel hated to work on the F-14. It has very tight spaces and my friend said an engine change was something that you had to see to believe.
I miss the F-14. I believe it was taken out far too soon and as the video points out, it had room to grow. One thing we lost was the use of our only BVR missile in our inventory, the Phoenix AIM-54. That was our only BVR missile then and we do not have one now.
@@prof2yousmithe444 You're correct. I watched an engine change on an F-14 and the plane looked like it had exploded by the time they got the motor out. However, I can't help but imagine a modernized and completely new design/build could mitigate most of those issues. I could be wrong, but I'd like to hear from someone in the know if it would have been possible.
Those were all a non-issue in the next gen 4.5 Super Tomcats especially in the ASF-14 that were going to have all digital electronics replacing most of the hydraulics. It was also going to have lots of carbon fiber to replace the aluminum and steel. Having said that, ALL of the maintainers I have spoken to, absolutely love the Tomcat and the experience of watching the Tomcat perform made it all worth it to them. There have been many on podcasts. Also, the complexity was the price for such enormous capabilities. Nothing Navy ever got could compare to the sheer performance, speed, thrust, loiter time, range, combat radius, radar, weapon systems and payload capacity that Tomcat offered.
Changing out an F-14 engine or engines, was an 8 hour job for the maintenance crew in the hanger of an aircraft carrier, that is a lot of wrenching. The F/A- 18 had less wrenching, because it has quick disconnects in the engines compartments. I was in the Navy, assigned to a anti-submarine helicopter squadron in the early 1980's and I wished the Navy would have been allowed to keep the F-14, just like the Air Force was able to keep the F15 and the F-16, by allowing (Northrop/ Grumman ) Grumman up grading the Tomcat, like they wanted too.
@@2ZZGE100 Electronics don’t replace hydraulics. You’re talking about the difference between signal and power. Hydraulics is used to actuate the control surfaces, while signals to the hydraulic actuators is sent via fly-by-wire vs the older mechanical control augmentation system. You can’t say that all of the many problems with the F-14 design would be non-issues in the ASF-14 because it was never developed.
I met one Tomcat maintainer who had nothing but horror stories to tell about the F-14. A common problem was loss of the nose wheel steering and brakes, and that was on their best jets even. Some of them miss it now because it was a unique thing to have been a part of, but if you put them back in the jets, they would be cursing around the clock. They would slave away on those airframes into the night, get a bird back up into flyable/FMC status, only to have the AWG-9 crap the bed on launch.
the F-22 is a sleek sexy plane, but the F-14 was the coolest looking badass in the sky. if i was rich i would go to Iran and buy one, just to put it in my yard and look at.
The old bitty from the HOA is at your door, stomping her foot. "Your F-14 can ONLY be painted in THESE colors!"
@@jimdennis2451 The bright yellow is to let you know the AIM-54 is live.
I wonder if you could find a decommissioned one in the US somewhere
@@jondavis5481 Most "intact" F-14's you'll see are in a museum. Whatever that's left that wasn't shredded are sitting out in the Arizona desert at Davis-Monthan boneyard.
l often wonder if l had a F-14 instead of my F-4 over Nam....What that would have been like,awesome l am sure....Thanks Alex...!
Those early Toms had real temperamental engines and didn't have the multi-role utility of the old Lead Sled. You would've been limited to mostly fleet cover but they might've tried some CAP. The old Toms still would've made mincemeat out of the MiG-19s and MiG-21s though! You could've picked them off with the Phoenix far away from MiG Alley; Provided that the Navy would've cleared their use over land for fear that the new missile would fall into Soviet hands.
What squadron did you fly with? I spend quite a few years living near Hector Field which was, at the time, the home of the 119th FW "The Happy Hooligans." I loved to hear the howling of the old F-4s; That eerie and yet somehow comforting sound of an icon. I hated it when they switched to F-16s. Budget fighter lawn darts; The lot of 'em! (Still better the lawn darts than the expensive R/C airplanes they gave them later after pulling the 119th out of Hector Field!)
My late father-in-law was deployed aboard the King in theater and helped to pulled some of your stable mates out of the brine.
Many of them would most likely been lost to accidents and SA-2s.
Thank you for your service! Depends a lot on what you were doing, I think… If you were flying wild weasel sorties, old, tough, reliable, time-tested, and fast as hell would count for a lot, possibly even explain why you’re here with us today, but if you were doing bomber escort or any kind of air-to-air missions, then as you stated, if you could resist the temptation to go in and use the Gatling cannon because it’s so much more fun, then because of the synergy of the radar and that Phoenix missile, the guy with the red star would think his plane just suddenly exploded, mid flight, and for no particular reason… but he would only think about it for a nanosecond or two …
so close though , the f14 was just a hair to late to make it to the war. some were deployed in the evacuation of Saigon as radar platforms to assist but not in a combat role
@@mikesmith-wk7vy Actually VF-1 & VF-2 did use the Tomcat in Operation Frequent Wind to provide air cover for the evacuation of US personnel in April of 1975! They didn't encounter any hostiles in the sky but you can bet that they were primed and ready to give their Tomcats their first taste of blood. ;)
And what’s funny… this is the exact plane we need today.
The aircraft carrier risks becoming obsolete because it is outranged so badly by hypersonic missiles. This sort of Tomcat could be performing a sort of modern “fleet air defense” for a 21st century: reaching out and hitting hypersonic missile launch sites before they can hit back, carrying air launched hypersonic missiles…. We need a family of these
Yup, but it'd also need to be stealthy, be able to supercruise at speed (like mach 1.4-1.6), have thrust vectoring engines for increased maneuverability, be able to "control" UAVs as well.
Hypersonic missiles will probably be able to be fitted on planes soon enough too, and enemy integrated air defense systems will probably have hypersonic SAMs so they can reach targets far away too, hence the need to be able to supercruise so one can limit the amount of time one spends within a missile engagement zone.
That makes no sense - why send up a plane to launch a pre-emptive hypersonic missile strike, when you could do the same off a surface ship - or even better yet, a submarine?
Y’all acting like hypersonic missiles are not the most expensive and advanced rods of steel we have ever made in mankind’s history. They are expensive and do not cause a proportionate amount of damage in relativity with the cost. They are just really hard to intercept. Either way countries like Russia with the gdp of Brazil would go bankrupt in no time if they just start lobbing these missiles everywhere.
With more powerful radar and visual intel systems, most air combat is BVR or CAS ground attack. Putting a human in the cockpit for BVR munitions launch is nearly pointless. Fleets should be using more UAVs, not this.
Missiles can be shot down. Hypersonic missiles are moving so fast, have to slice through the air with such precision, that almost any amount of damage would be instantly fatal. And an anti-ship missile requires functional sensors to detect its target, which is going to be hard when the missile's nose is glowing red from air friction.
that skull and cross bones on the F14s look really badass tho lol
Worked on A/B/B+/D. Remember when it got Lau-138s and Lantirn pods in the mid 90's. Bad ass fighter, but it required tons of manhours to keep it flying. F-18 is just so much easier to work on.
AMH's forever!
Yah. I proclaimed that the E/F was a dog. So wrong….it is everything it tried to be. Granted, no more, but certainly no less.
@@fawnlliebowitz1772 You guys were always busy chasing pressure leaks, doing brake jobs, air bleeding systems, replacing pumps and actuators, and topping off the reservoir. I'd almost be willing to bet that you're still a little slippery from all of the MIL-H-83282C you had to handle....shit causes nerve damage.
o_O ....fun.
@@jeremyhess7977 Actually I did all that, more when we used Mil-H-5606 B and C. MIL-H-83282C was fine but I truly did hate Skydrol! It was like drinking Turco aircraft soap!
@@fawnlliebowitz1772 Ahhh....Turco. I remember the smell of that stuff. Especially, after spending half a day at the wash rack soaked in it. It smelled like a mix between turpentine and burning circuitry.
Always loved Grumman designs, even those said to be ugly. The F14 was a beast for a lot of reasons. despite it's issues, it served until 2006! That says a lot. It even serves today in another nation but that's another story.
I was on CVA=62 75-79 and loved watching F-14 A-7 target practice on a towed target... what a blast !!! Wish I had never gotten out !!!
Tomcat 21 would’ve been unreal.
The fact that the original _Macross_ VF-1 Valkyrie fighter was based on the F-14 has added even more to its iconic reputation.
The Jet was so cool that most thought it must be a fighter of the future, instead we get that lame F35, with all it's troubles and ugly duckling syndrome.
And don't forget about the GI-Joe Skystriker that was also our beloved cat in cartoon form.
@@josephkugel5099 Oh, I haven't forgotten. :)
@@-JustHuman- It's had a lot of troubles because it's a very complicated bit of kit. However, since the war in Ukraine, foreign buyers are lined up around the corner.
Granted, it's not the best-looking fighter ever made, but it could have been worse-we could have been stuck with the Boeing Pelican.
The ultimate irony is that the most effective combat user of the F-14 and the only ones using it today is Iran.
I knew an F-14 Tomcat pilot that used to talk about flight tactics like the Maverick character did in the final battle that he learned at Top Gun. Like having a fighter on you're ass within 400 yards ans almost doing a 360 by manually extending wings, dropping flaps, using the pedals to make tail veins go almost vertical, extending the air brake and splitting throttles with edel on one and full power on the other.
This mimicked thrust vectoring causing the jet to go vertical to upside-down while spinning 360 on center axis. Then flaps up, tail veins horizontal, Air brake off, both throttles to full power, wings 3/4 back til Mach 1.3 then full back.
Bam you are behind the enemy with missle lock or in gun range
Damn good video Alex - really good job. I never knew about all the proposed development of the F-14, only the F-14D which I thought was the final version. Now I REALLY wish the navy had continued with the Tomcat... Sigh. Another what could have been...
Russia has a plane that looks alot like the proposed YF-21, so were kind of screwed in terms of development.
Learned a lot from this Alex. Really appreciate all the time and research you put into these videos. Super cruise with this variant, at this point in history would have been a big deal! The ASF is even more mind boggling. "Super Duper Tomcat!" Still, a bunch of ASF Super Duper Tomcats, coupled with F-35's as line backer missile trucks . . .
Call it the F-14U "Ultra Tomcat".
These are the very thoughts I have had about this plane. Truly iconic.
The greatest feeling ever is opened up full throttle, wings sliding in breaking every sound barrier on earth!!!! ..
Aside from the super tomcat, I learned this from a video game.
F22 Raptor might be superior, but harder to fly the ASF14 new Tom Cat is very much easier to fly.
With the updates proposed in the video, the new F-14 Tomcat would at least the equal of the F-15EX Eagle! We have the finest congress "that money can buy," and one of the most powerful lobby groups favor all interest of the F/A-18 programs. They put their foot down and squashed the F-14 upgrades, as well as the money to continue the F-22! When the F-22 productions stopped, the F/A-18 lobby had congress to make a bill to have have all production equiptment needed to build the F-22 was to be takened apart / destroyed! Many of these types of efforts have more to do with money and special interest more than what is actually should be going on. It's only our combat people that discover the limitations of their weapons when they have to use them.
Indeed fast destroying of F-22's production line tooling/assembly jigs etc stinked lot like illegal Chinese coal mine worker's half year old pants dirty politics.
With the money spent for making those in the first place would have thought equipment would have been put into storage for many years.
But guess F-35 was that much higher profit margin project for Lockheed...
And then the F-35 came around, which is effectively killing the Legacy and Super Hornets both. The more things change, man.
F14 was a drag machine that lost so much speed because it had to carry so many different targeting pods just to be affective and with the size of the F14 with its payload and targeting pods would make it detectable with today's radar at over 100 miles. F14s would get shot down so easy with enemy anti radar defense. Not to mention, at the end of its service, per flight hour needed like 15 hours of maintenance to keep it running lol
@@xkavarsmith9322 "And then the F-35 came around, which is effectively killing the Legacy and Super Hornets both."(sic)
Incorrect. The F-35C was intended to replace the legacy Hornet not the Super Hornet. The F/A-XX program is intended to replace the Super Bug.
All of these programs cost something called money, anybody know what that is? Is it rare?
Evolution and blueprint for the F-14:
1.) the WS-300a fighter bomber proposal (1956), which Soviet Russia took a long hard look at when developing their own version.
2.) The A-5 Vigilante [(1958) concept had dual vertical rudders] which preceded the Mig-25. Increase all the proportions all around (engines too) and you basically have it's Russian counterpart.
3.) The F-111. Where the over priced Aardvark failed, they set out to fix with the F-14.
There were several different proposals for the ST-21. Depending on year/era, budget kept getting cut therefore major compromises had to be made. Unfortunately, politics (a competitive smear campaign based on corporate falsehoods) killed any possibility of the ST-21 from ever occurring.
"a competitive smear campaign based on corporate falsehoods" got any more info on this? I've heard it mentioned before. would love to read more.
from what I understand the F-14 had more range, more payload and didn't need an escort. despite originally being an interceptor, it was pretty damn good at air-to-ground. The decision to completely retire it seems a little fishy.
So, in fairness, the F111 was actually super effective. It had more tank kills in golf 1 than the A10, dropped more ordinance, and did its job superbly well. They were expensive but in a pre-stealth era would have been amongst the most survivable aircraft if WWIII had ever kicked off.
Another brilliant video, also It’s so refreshing to watch content without adverts,thank you for this
Alex your videos are brilliant, I learn so much every video in such a relatively short run time for all the info packed into these vids, they fly by because you have mastered a flow to your presentation that makes watching your content such a delight. I truly mean this when I say this is the best American military aviation channel on the platform, can’t wait for what you have for us next! And I’ll do my small part as always to share your videos! Keep up the great work my brother and God bless, and Merry Christmas!
Subscribed! This is fantastic content- you deserve way more views.
I've been a plane fanatic for a long time and this was the first time I'd heard of the F-14 glove vanes.
Awesome short man very informative, but most importantly a blast to watch..thanks, from the f4 phantom before.😎.
TC can jiggy with so many different targets at the same time
The F-14 and Mig-29 are easily the best looking 4th gen fighters. There's just something so badass about the Tomcat.
No commie Rusky ANYTHING can be good-looking! And that includes Emperor Shirtless!
I really enjoyed this video thank you I was an F-4 hydraulic mechanic in Yuma from 81 to 79 and then an F-111 hydraulic mechanic at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho from 86 to 89
I thought the F14 was the most beautiful fighter plane they've ever built in American history. when you saw the f14 flying it looked like an eagle looking for prey. the look and how it flew was merciless. I believe if they released the f14 with the technical knowledge they have now it would be the best jet in any country's arsenal. I would like to see the last produced f14 duel with an f22 or an f35.
It seems to me that among all the vast improvements the Super Cat would provide, the single one the navy lacks most at this time is...Range.
Perhaps the figure the aging Tomahawks and upcoming hypersonic developments can close the gap for now.
F-35C brought back long range strike to the carrier, fulfilling the combat radius they planned to have in the A-12. F-35C with the big wing carries 19,400lb of fuel, doesn’t need external tanks, can bring back its take-off weapons load. Super Hornet increased the range into the same space as the F-14 at around 550nm. F-35C is more like an A-7E with 650-810nm, depending on load, profile, conditions.
Well, with the new refueling drones that has practically been sealed
@@LRRPFco52 well thats good news.
The navy has long considered range to be a secondary consideration because they can drive the carrier to the enemy's doorstep. Just kind of embarrassing if you need top cover from the air force to do it.
@@FusionAero that is only a good idea if your enemy's don't have any defenses. RANGE is the most important part of a Carrier strike aircraft because it helps keep the Carrier safe from Stand off Cruise missiles, Stand off Ballistic missiles and enemy strike planes. Otherwise you risk loosing your 100,000 ton fleet carrier that cost you 5 Billion and has a crew o fover 4,000 sailors.
The problem with the F/A-18 is that it, like many Defense Department decisions in the '60s, is a compromise. Utilizing the Super Hornet saves the USN a lot of money, as it's one single airframe that does several jobs pretty well. However, the USN and the Pentagon masters fail to remember that when you have a carrier fleet to protect from hostile aircraft using 500 mile range supersonic anti-ship missiles, you don't need a fighter that's "pretty good" at air-to-air combat. You need a fighter that's a beast at air-to-air, so they can shoot down a hundred Chinese/Russian/Iranian missiles before they get to your $10Billion carrier, or your $1-2Billion destroyers and cruisers.
Take me back to the early 70s, when there were Tomcats carrying Phoenixes to protect the fleet, and Intruders and Corsair 2s to bomb the crap out of whomever. I spent 3 years on the Kitty Hawk, made two cruises to Vietnam, and never once felt in danger from air attack. I wouldn't feel safe now on a carrier. Not in the South China Sea, with all the air-to-surface assets China has.
This is an amazing video and highly descriptive, great job mate
Everytime I see this F-14 Tomcat I hear the theme song of Top Gun
The capabilities that the ST-21/AST-21 or even more so the ASF-14 could’ve brought to the table would’ve been amazing. If stuff really hits the fan, they may yet make an appearance on carrier decks yet again. I mean when WW2 got hot and heavy, we scrambled for everything we could get that might give us a leg up.
WW2 went on for four years for the USA and six for the UK. The next War could well be over in 5-6 hours. No time to ramp up a new fighter. Next war is "come as you are".
Most of the F-14s are gone, I think. Don’t want the Iranians getting their hands on anything…
All F-14s were scrapped in 2008/9 to prevent any parts making it to Iran. The only ones existing are the museum and static base displays.
@@rcstl8815 10 remain at AMARC awaiting disposition. 90 are on display. 41 remain in service with the IRIAF.
@@AA-xo9uw I'll bet I meant US military active. The ones with the IRIAF were the reason we destroyed our working versions. So no spare parts were available. Think about our audience. They aren't nerds like us! haha
one of the most beautiful fighter jets ever made
I always loved the F-14. My favorite aircraft. Got to see the remains of one heading to the aircraft boneyard in Tucson the other day. The closest I have ever been to one. It made that semi look small.
There is an F-14 on static display at the Grissom air reserve base museum near Peru, Indiana.
A lot of that tech is active in other ways as Northrop Grumman has variations of the proposed equipment on other platforms. Needless to say, ST-21 and YF-23 continue to have their footprint on modern day fighter design and systems. After all, we did get a glimpse of what the NGAD fighter might look like in the NG NFL Super Bowl commercial a few years ago and the line by the was “and the future is now” as you see a few manned tailless fighters fly across the screen. After all, USAF said the have flown the Test aircraft last year…
IMO, the Navy should’ve gone with BOTH the ASF-14/AST-21 and the super hornet
That's a lot of money, man. LoL
It wasn't in the budget to do both and big contracts like that are multi-year endeavors....it had to be one or the other.
@@jeremyhess7977 Hey, a guy can dream can’t he? Also, iirc there was a time, however short, where that WAS the plan. Don’t ask me for details though as I can’t remember as it was years ago
@@lightspeedvictory No, I get it. This all started about 30 years ago....memory gets a little fuzzy when you go that far back. Details start disappearing. Haha!
@@lightspeedvictory The plan to kill the Tomcat occurred long before NAVAIR sold congress the Super Bug bill of goods.
13:11 says it all. The only air-to-air kill the last 2 decades. A dedicated air-to-air platform is 1950s thinking. Sadly. But I agree that the F-14 huge airframe could be beautifully adapted to other roles.
The reason the Tomcat had so few kills was that no one wanted to fight it. Many post USSR interviews of Russian pilots reveal the standard doctrine was that if locked by and AWG-9, or APG-71, RUN AWAY NOW. If locked by an AIM-54C, punch out.
@@tolson57 yeah in reality the whales told each other to look out of giant metal birds dropping these fancy harpoons called the aim 54 on them, said that the whalers are no longer using boats
The Iranian F-14's had more kills than the American ones.
@@fredmdbud True and most with the AIM-54A Phoenix. The Iranians were not worried about Rules of Engagement (ROE).
@@tolson57 "The reason the Tomcat had so few kills was that no one wanted to fight it."(sic)
Who generates ATOs during joint operations?
A couple of other factors that came into play--size. The F14 was a BIG bird. The Super Hornet is significantly smaller--which means you can fit more of them on a carrier. The trade-off of more numerous planes which required less maintenance but were less capable made sense to Navy brass at the time.
The other thing was the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was the trigger for killing several great military projects, not just the Tomcat.) The F14 was primarily intender for fleet defense, intended to intercept would-be attackers before they could get close enough to launch strikes on the main body of the carrier group. At the time, the only entity on the world stage that presented a significant threat was the Soviet Union, and when the USSR fell apart and a major portion of the aircraft that were capable of carrying out the attacks that the Tomcat was intended to counter were scrapped, the Tomcat was suddenly overqualified. It's easy, now, with hindsight, to say we should have kept it...but Russia was scrabbling to hold itself together and was widely considered as barely having military power...it had plenty of equipment, it just couldn't afford to operate most of it. China has been making noises about "reclaiming" Taiwan since Taiwan was founded, but lacked any significant naval capabilities and what aerial assets they had were knock-offs of older Soviet designs, and not a significant threat to anyone except their immediate bordering neighbors.
And even the Phoenix missile was getting retired, which had been a big part of why the Tomcat had been designed in the first place.
With pressure to upgrade, yet keep down costs, and the apparent disappearance of the Big Bad that had been the rationale for projects like the Tomcat, there wasn't a good perceived reason, at the time, to keep it. Shortsighted, yes, but military history is full of short-sighted decisions based on political and economic pressures. The Tomcat was just another entry on that list.
Were any of the ranking brass at the time still around, I'm sure they'd be saying that the ASF14 would have been a good investment, if they had known then what we know now--a lot of the concerns about American naval vulnerability in a hypothetical confrontation with China would be a lot less with a fully upgraded Super Tomcat available to carry the fight to even greater ranges.
Too bad hindsight is 20/20 and foresight is often blind...
Been listening to "Tomcast" the F-14 podcast which was created by veteran Tomcat aircrews. Seems the F-14A had the same bomb aiming equipment as the A-7 Corsair II from the he beginning which means that it could have been used as a multirole fighter from it's introduction.
Ironically, the main issue of the Super Hornet is its lack of range to face Chinese threat, something that wouldn't have been a Problem with the Tomcat (or de supertomcat) and despite not being "stealth" the truth is that Steath capabilities are more propagandistic than practical for many technical reasons
US has the best strategy air refueling capability in the world. Don't really need a massive jet fuel fighter anymore when we have in air gas stations.
I am mostly convinced that aerodynamics, for fighters, had been mostly mastered by the time the 4th gen fighters were made (F-14/15/16/18, as well as the Russian counterparts) and there is really little room for improvement. Now, with the incredible advancement of technology and avionics, makes the 4 gen fighters incredible beyond belief. Helmet mounting sighting/targeting, negates a lot of the need for maneuverability, and also allows for a greater situational awareness and coordination.
I am beginning to believe that Stealth is less and less important. Some stealth AC make some sense, but we don't need a 100% fleet of stealth. In fact, I am guessing that 10-20% is more than enough. Stealth is becoming more easily defeated.
Agreed. Once LIDAR becomes more reasonable to be deployed in an air defense role all the RAM and composites in the world aren't going to spare them from being noticed. The old Toms had a lot of legacy systems that, if stripped out, could've been used for some seriously sick tech.
If they were brought into the age of composites, increased fuel capacity, given more reliable and powerful engines, plus thrust vectoring they would've become the US's premier multi-role platform.
Alas, it just wasn't meant to be. I nearly cried when they were retired. Then I think I actually did when they decided to literally shred the entire fleet with only a few saved for museums.
Stealth/VLO technologies vs sensors is a constant game of cat and mouse. There isn’t a static VLO configuration without room for improvement, and it has been this way ever since the Germans put elongated pyramid matrix RAM on U-Boat masts in the 1940s. Stealth is becoming the baseline standard for all new fighter designs, not something that is less needed.
Such a quality channel. And I always learn some stuff which is always welcome
Thank you for answering my question! I've always wondered what an updated tomcat would look like.
Unfortunately, the Soviet Union collapsed, and we didn't need such a capable aircraft. Now that we've turned China into such a formidable adversary, we're starting to regret that we don't have such a capable aircraft.
Yeah, our "leaders are still fighting the last war/adversary.
If the 1950's B 52 still could be around till the 2050's, there is no reason why the F 14 frame couldn't be. Whether that really would be an economic AND efficient solution at the same time, is quite another question.
Carrier aircraft endure a lot more punishment.
Fighters endure more airframe stresses than bombers.
There's a reason fighter pilots wear g suits
Only the B-52H is flown today.
Entered service 1961 last built in 1962
How often are todays B-52s flown?
Hours flown
# of landings.
I don't know numbers,
But I would think that most carrier fighters are flown near daily.
Some with multiple launches and traps a day.
Not just comparing apples to oranges
More like fruits to vegetables.
Key things to consider is cycles or takeoffs and landings
also pressurizations.
A bomber generally goes to elevation, does its mission and returns.
A fighter might change drastic elevations multiple times per mission.
Not really, bombers just need to fly far and carry lots of armament while fighters need to stay up to date in terms of manoeuvrability, stealth and avionics
Just check videos of Tomcat carrier landings, they were so violent, material was under so much stress. Salt water never did them any favors either. But they could've always manufacture new frames... Knowing that we live in a world where F-15EX exists, I always wondered how would Navy's counterpart perform in the 21st century, or would it achieve export success in its later years.
@@Dembilaja As an avionics guy for F-22's, the existence of the 35 and 15EX programs really saddens me. The EX should be in place of the 35's, not 22's. There's no reason your "low-end" rank filler fighter needs stealth.
yeah no the F-14 isn't nearly good enough as a design for that
The F14 is my favorite...best highlight reel I've seen on UA-cam for the air platform...thanks. Smooth high quality video loop, captions optional. Thanks again!
Those early P&W engines were always understood to be temporary fits because the suitable engines were not available soon enough for earliest block production deployment.
At 3:20 when you said it could've catapulted the tomcat into the future....while simultaneously showing an F14 launching off the carrier steam catapult. Well done, sir.
What a great episode! I think the only reason the Navy axed the new 14 designs is that the Navy ultimately wants a fleet of unmanned drones. I think manned fighter and attack aircraft will soon be a thing for the history books. I imagine there will be horrible, nightmarish growing pains as they transition from manned to unmanned forces, but it does look like the future. I would be autonomous, advanced AI hunter-killers are being developed and tested right now. All that aside, an ultimate A/F-14 attack/fighter/nuclear strike craft would have been brilliant, and they'd be kind of handy on today's carrier.
We can only wish that the Navy had an open mind towards drones. They had to be pushed into putting a drone on the carrier and they give it *refueling duties*. The USN has its collective head up its ass, on drones.
My understanding is the Navy didn't axe anything - politicians did.
@@Solidboat123 That would a misunderstanding.
@@JoeOvercoat I was replying to lexwaldez regarding the cancellation of future Tomcat designs, not the drone thing
@@Solidboat123 NAVAIR was complicit in the killing of the Tomcat. They sold congress a bill of goods on the Super Bug.
Excellent presentation! Very informative.
I'm not the only person who thinks we should have upgraded it and still be flying it. Great job Alex H.
On one hand, the idea of a modern heavyweight dogfighter just sounds stupid, but on the other hand, a long range missile platform which can go out far, launch a variety of precision munitions and then turn about, scoot and evade, that sounds pretty good.
Just don't expect it to survive in close air to air combat against more up-to-date designs dedicated to the role of fighter aircraft.
Wouldn't be so sure about doubting a Tomcat in a turning fight against much even today, and that's due almost solely to T-V nozzles. Put them on GE F-110s and see who comes up with the jump ball!
Sounds like the Navy needs the ASF-14
Excellent presentation!!
Great coverage and insights of the paper tomcats- love it and always good to see tomcat personalities like Ward Carroll endorse the episode!
I would love to have a slightly more in-depth comparison as to In theory any of those "proposed" F-14 upgrades would stand up against a head-to-head with any of today's current F-22 & F-35! Of course also against any of the current Russian/Chinese fighters. I know that can only be speculation, but with all of the facts it seems like a relatively accurate comparison could've made. Somewhat like the show that put Samurai against Roman Legionaries, or Spartan against medieval knights. Just curious. Thanks!! PS- My money would be on the new Tomcat! Just saying! Thx
There is no way an upgraded F14 can beat an F35 or F22
It's not the plane, it's the pilot 😉
"Could have been the best fourth generation fighter in history."
That's saying quite a lot, considering the air-to-air record of the F-15.
To be fair there are other factors for that
Who ends up generating ATOs in a joint operation?
The deck is always stacked in the zoomies favor unless you're tasked with CAS.
The F-14s overwhelming superior performance in the Iran/Iraq war is pretty telling.
The fact that the F-14 was a reliability and maintenance nightmare was the biggest reason why it was probably dropped. I worked on them when they were at my air base on occasion when I was in the Air Force.. they were a maintenance nightmare. And I have known several people who worked on them in the Navy who stated that having 50% of them operable on any Naval carrier was usually doing pretty good. If you had more than 50% you were doing great. The D model still couldn't keep up with a mig-23 in acceleration, adding the F-15 engines or something almost identical to them, would have been a really nice touch but it would have been quite a bit of an upgrade to that plane and I think it could have been saved but they had lost enough money on that pig already. Trying to convince people that their third fourth and fifth upgrade of this aircraft would have made it enough better to make it viable was asking just a bit too much. Aside from that, you had far more other people with money to pay to the decision-makers, which is usually how military aircraft actually get adopted. Otherwise we would have at least a couple of thousand at age 54 Cheyenne helicopters that have been upgraded with modern avionics that had a 3000 mile range, and we would have no 8 ends because they would have rendered them useless.
Excelent vídeo,. I agree with you about the last statement that You mentioned
The old Tomcat had a combat range of 580 miles vs 450 of the Super Hornet.
Or 290 miles out, then back, vs 225 miles.
The Phoenix missile, the Tomcat being the only platform that can launch it, has a range of 100
The AIM120d is said to have a 100 mile range.
Unfortunately the Super Hornets radar is only good for about 50 miles
The Tomcats radar is good to about 230 miles
Imagine, adding 20% more combat flight range for the new Tomcat, then a radar system that can fully utilize the latest AIM120 full range.
You're talking close to 800 mile combat range vs about 500 for the f18 and AIM120
Plus a plane that can get there 350 mph faster.
A Super Duper Tomcat could see enemy aircraft MUCH further out,
turn to engage, fly out past the Hornets maximum strike distance by 75 miles, then launch a missile that can reach another 100 miles.
In other words, a plane that could intercept Chinese J-15/J-20 aircraft, before they could launch their YJ-83 anti ship missiles.
F14 was a drag machine that lost so much speed because it had to carry so many different targeting pods just to be affective and with the size of the F14 with its payload and targeting pods would make it detectable with today's radar at over 100 miles. F14s would get shot down so easy with enemy anti radar defense. Not to mention, at the end of its service, per flight hour needed like 15 hours of maintenance to keep it running lol
"The old Tomcat had a combat range of 580 miles vs 450 of the Super Hornet.
Or 290 miles out, then back, vs 225 miles."(sic)
You've confused range and radius. An unrefueled radius of 580 miles yields an unrefueled range of 1160 miles.
@@nexpro6118 "at the end of its service, per flight hour needed like 15 hours of maintenance to keep it running lol"(sic)
LOL indeed. 15 MMH/FH was about what it briefly was when the aircraft were new. Had it been that low in 2006 the D would have been kept in service.
@@AA-xo9uw sweet jesus lol
The Super Hornet is lacking a lot, and we got lucky with the GWOT that it was used in the air to ground role, and not air to air against a "near peer adversary."
There are serious advantages to having dedicated fighter and attack aircraft.
The Tomcat was a better attack aircraft than the hornet when It started dropping bombs. The attack role was built into the tomcat from the begining. Much to be said about a 2 person crew. Tomcats were buddy lasing targets for hornets who had no laser pods at the time thank Dale Snodgrass for that.
The US military does not specialization anymore. We only make Swiss Army knife compromised platforms, whether ground, air or sea. The most egregious example of this is the Air Force’s repeated attempts to kill the A-10, only to have Congress, CONGRESS to make the right decision .
Absolutely untrue, the Hornet is capable of carrying a wider range of payload options, has potent air to ground missiles, and is the savior of the night operations during Desert Storm. The Marines love their F-18s and never operated the F-14, because it sucks.
@@IgnoredAdviceProductions hi craig
@@ramonnoodles7840 helo
Adding a comment only due to YT is usually giving props . Your commentary speaks a good deal about the Tomcat's history... So.. Thank You!
You are the bomb Alex! Pun intended. Thanks for your work and your service. I look forward to every drop. Also, the music you choose meshes perfectly with your content and delivery. Tom Clancy would be proud!
I thought the Tomcat's greatest attribute was it's massive radar tracking capability and in fact it's primary mission was carrier defense, while the F-18 was the ground attack asset. Is that not true? If it is then what was used, upon axing the f-14. to fill that void- the Hornet and now the Raptor?
In short, nothing. Because the F-18 and later Super Hornets could do almost everything except long range interception, the navy wanted to streamline carrier operations by having fewer types of aircraft on the carriers. The F-18s was also more cost effective.
The E/F/G Super Hornets only superficially look like the older A-D Hornets when in fact they're all new aircraft. I think it was a brilliant political maneuver since those in Congress were none the wiser when they signed off on the purchasing agreement.
In turn though the new Super Hornets (Super Bugs) are able to do pretty much everything all of the old types could do. Strike, interception, electronic warfare and in-flight refueling all rolled into one - save for ASW. IF necessary they could probably even develop pod mounted systems for that too though.
As with any jack-of-all-trades aircraft though it has a few places where it's lacking. The A-6E had a slightly higher bomb-load; Albeit it was a subsonic platform. The F-18, in any of it's variations, could never hope to win against an F-14 in a knife fight. Furthermore it has a shorter combat range and is MUCH slower than the F-14.
On the other hand by reducing the number of types of aircraft on board there's a great deal of part commonality. Since they're newer platforms designed with ease of maintenance in mind they're nowhere near as maintenance intensive as a thoroughbred like the Tomcat was. Furthermore maintenance crews can work on all three variants with little familiarization training from one to the other.
That said this is the first time since the 60s that we didn't have Mach 2+ capable fighters capable of getting themselves between approaching aircraft or cruise missiles and our fleets.
@@athelwulfgalland exelent summary, and the navy also no longer have the long range radar and missiles the Tomcat had. Let us hope that does not bite them in the ass.
@@athelwulfgalland I hadn't known about the vast differences between the Hornets of old an the newer version. Therefore I can see how it allowed for a 'switch out' w/o 'truly' endangering the carriers especially when measured against upper commands desire to simplify maintenance demands and attempt to bring down operating cost (as I've since learned is about 50% less). But I guess my love for that 'Tomcat' will never die, and I liked them before 1984 'Top Gun' came out, so the movie turned 'like' into 'love'. Thanks for the info.
@@haakonsteinsvaag Thanks! You may find it interesting to note that the AIM-120D (the newest incarnation of the type) matches or exceeds the range of the AIM-54 Phoenix; The exact range is classified. That said it's slower than the Phoenix by a full mach.
However a Mach 5 replacement is under development as the AIM-260 JATM that will have a similar range.
As far as radar systems are concerned it's hard to compare them because a lot about the Super Bug's radar is still classified while the cat's out of the bag on the Tomcat; Pun unintended.
I do know that up until the D variant the Tomcat used the AWG-9 which allowed it to track up to 24 targets at a range of 65 miles. Meanwhile the AN/APG-79 AESA on the F/A-18E/F/G can track targets out to 100+ miles as it indicates it has tracking abilities that exceed the range of it's air-to-air missiles which naturally would include the AIM-120D.
In terms of maximum detection range though it's hard to tell. The D variant of the Tomcat replaced the old AWG-9 with the beast that was the AN/APG-71 which had a maximum range of 460 mi BUT due to the limitations of it's antenna it could "only" detect targets out to exactly half that range. There's no data on the AN/APG-79 AESA's maximum detection range; I assume that's still classified.
The Tomcat required more maintenance man hours per flight hour than any other fighter in service. Only the SR-71 was more high maintenance. The Tomcats legacy stands as a fighter which never got to fight. Skirmish and spar yeas. But never fight. It was never challenged beyond the capabilities of the F-4 it replaced. The F-22 and F-35 broke the Tomcats record as the most maintenance intensive combat aircraft
Are you sure about the F-35?
@@duradim1 Not sure about maintenance hours vs. F-14. But when flight hour costs of single engine plane are higher than in current dual engine planes, you know situation is bad:
Usually engine is the single most expensive to buy and the highest maintenance cost part of planes. (same for passenger jets, hence why drop in number of engines over time)
Sure F-35 is stealthy, but that's about the only part of original promises which has fully materialized.
And keeping that passive stealth working is propably behind some of the very high flight hour costs.
Even USAF has basically quietly admitted F-35 project has failed to reach its goals.
Never got to fight... in US hands. Iraqi MiGs ran from F-14's in the Gulf War, straight into the hands of F-15's and 18's, giving them easy kills on a silver platter. But in Iranian hands, it racked up kills in the earlier war.
Wait for the F-35s maintenance 😵💫
Yep
New to this channel and I have to say...... I love it. You make fantastic content mate, it's interesting, engaging and very enjoyable. Well done mate!!🇬🇧🇺🇸✌✌
I just loved this plane. Thx for the info.
The F-14 is a great plane and should have been improved upon. It would have cost a lot less than the new ones which cost billions.
The proposed upgrades the the Tom cat would have been awesome.
F14 was a drag machine that lost so much speed because it had to carry so many different targeting pods just to be affective and with the size of the F14 with its payload and targeting pods would make it detectable with today's radar at over 100 miles. F14s would get shot down so easy with enemy anti radar defense. Not to mention, at the end of its service, per flight hour needed like 15 hours of maintenance to keep it running lol
@@nexpro6118 "it had to carry so many different targeting pods just to be affective"(sic)
Either TARPS or LANTIRN depending on the mission.
One of my favorite planes. With all of the upgrades it would be awesome. That being said it would be a non stealthy machine that would not survive today's fighters. Love the idea but it would need lots more work to become a more stealthy beast.
It could be is very effective in the low role in a high/low mix. The enemy has to shoot at the missile truck, because it is a significant threat. which is when the stealth bird strikes. In the fog of war the high/low mix will work and the Chinese [and the Russians] are already putting that into practice.
Love the clips from Speed and Angels
Fascinating to see @ 4:47 how the enlarged aero dynamic gloves look similar to how the LERX on the Russian Su57 appears.
Want to sell the F-14 ST to the Navy. Put it on DCS with all the trimmings and have player test the ability out in game. It may not sell right away in simulators but if you can constantly take down an F-35 and F-22 constantly in a simulator, Navy might change their mine and test out one or 2 of them to see how practical it is. Make sure to do it when Trump is back in. Biden would not give 2 shits.
There are rumors that the Navy is looking to come up with something like the F14 thanks to new long range anti-ship missiles. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these old designs were pulled off the shelf and improved with modern design paradigms.
Thanks, Sandboxx.
Thank you. Never knew about this
The Tomcat was just too expensive to keep for the Navy. The Hornet and Super Hornet is not as capable as an interceptor, but has evolved into the most versatile jet ever.
Actually Tomcat's airframe would have made better performance ground bombing platform than Super Hornet.
For basically same reasons as in interceptor use: Payload, range and loitering time.
But details of design like lack of ease of maintenance were just outdated.
Loved the F-14 and for it's original roll of long range fleet defense - it was ahead of it's time. So much so that the biggest complaint I heard was that technology related to target ID and the ROI prevented the use of the AIM-54 at it full capability. So that in and of itself made it like the guy driving the Lambo down city streets - Never able to drive it as it was designed to be driven.
Sadly now days technology has passed the F-14 by. Stealth and other new technologies have rendered even a heavily modernized F-14 obsolete. AMRAAM and other missiles have replaced the AIM-54 and regardless of how cool the Tomcat was, it was past it's "Use By" date. I know it was a great plane but nowadays it just wouldn't match up with current 5th gen fighters.
PS - At AWACs they hated the F-14 because the Iranians had them and it was one nasty threat to the AWACs. One question was - So, if we are fired on by an Iranian F-14 with an AIM-54 what do we do? Response - Once the missile goes Active, kiss your XXX goodbye. Fortunately the Iranians maintenance was never able to keep the plane or the missiles in full operating condition once we stopped supporting them.
"and the ROI"(sic)
ROE
Outstanding video
Great video. Great content.
Yes, they should have done this. How short-sighted. I can't believe they threw away all this development plus the Phoenix missile.
F14 was a drag machine that lost so much speed because it had to carry so many different targeting pods just to be affective and with the size of the F14 with its payload and targeting pods would make it detectable with today's radar at over 100 miles. F14s would get shot down so easy with enemy anti radar defense. Not to mention, at the end of its service, per flight hour needed like 15 hours of maintenance to keep it running lol
@@nexpro6118 You're a broken record.
All those upgrades fail to fix the most glaring problem…..it was expensive to fly and a maintenance nightmare.
They addressed that in the video. The systems could have been modernized to use newer systems with much less maintenance.
@@sidgar1 …I watched the video and know exactly what was said, it still doesn’t fix the fact that variable wings are hard and expensive to maintain. I’m sure the “ultimate” Tomcat would’ve been a little cheaper/easier to maintain. However I have a very hard time believing that it would’ve been much more cheaper to maintain…but that’s just my opinion. The defense industry very rarely backs up and/or produces what is actually promised by them.
@@teddy.d174 And yet the Tornado and B-1 continue in service. Demonstrates that a variable-geometry wing in and of itself is not prohibitively expensive to run.
@@Solidboat123 …I couldn’t care less about the Tornado. However the Bone is incredibly expensive to fly, just over $75,000 per flight hour. It’s mission capable rates are atrocious, some of the worst in the entire Air Force. It also takes about 75 hours of maintenance per flight hour. That’s the exact opposite of “not prohibitively expensive to run”.
@@sidgar1 swept wing is a maintenance nightmare. Not to mention that the cross section on enemy radar with today's radar can see the massive F14 with its external targeting pods that make it stand out on radar 100 miles away. F14s would get shot down left and right by enemy air defense lol.
Fell asleap after watching this😁 thank u, great video!
The absolute most beautiful aircraft ever made. In all of history. And it was also badass.
It's a shame, just when the navy will need an f14 in the coming years this could've been a great option, I mean the Air Force just purchased an upgraded f15c, generally speaking.
F14 was a drag machine that lost so much speed because it had to carry so many different targeting pods just to be affective and with the size of the F14 with its payload and targeting pods would make it detectable with today's radar at over 100 miles. F14s would get shot down so easy with enemy anti radar defense. Not to mention, at the end of its service, per flight hour needed like 15 hours of maintenance to keep it running lol
@@nexpro6118 if you watch some of the plans to upgrade the f14 I think it would have been worth it, the platform is solid, it's a fleet defense aircraft, not a bomber( like they tried to turn it into) it had long legs, and if you re-engine the thing and upgrade the radar with new EWS capabilities it'll jam enm radars quite effectively. That coupled with new missiles it'll be a platform to rival any other, besides the enm knows where you are anyway, it doesn't matter as much. Could you imagine all new avionics with F35 engines and 4400lbs extra fuel with a radar to give your future children cancer at 100miles?
@@nexpro6118 You're a broken record.
"I mean the Air Force just purchased an upgraded f15c, generally speaking."(sic)
The overwhelming majority of the F-15EXs will replace long in the tooth ANG F-15Cs for homeland defense.
The F35 killed it. Not that its a better interceptor, but it was determined a true interceptor isn’t necessary with stealth and stand-off weapons. Carriers fly with escorts so fleet defense is primarily the role of destroyers, with a multi role aircraft capable to intercepting and attacking if needed.
No, Super Hornet did.
"The F35 killed it"(sic)
Incorrect. Cheney and a complicit NAVAIR killed it. The F-35C was intended to replace the legacy Hornet not the Tomcat.
@@AA-xo9uw not entirely correct. F35c is designed for multiple missions. Interceptor, fleet patrol, ground attack and with its avionics can perform a form of command and control of a area communicating with air and ground assets.
It’s specialty would be first strike against ground and enemy vessels without detection.
Awesome video. The real reason why we didn’t get those aircraft, tho, is almost completely due to Dick Cheney and his love of McDonnell Douglas. He almost single-handedly buried Grumman, all while taking bribes from the scumbags at MD. It’s a sad shame, too, since we lost so much capability with this subpar Super Hornet. Cycle times, which had already shrunk due to the lack of range of the legacy Hornets stayed the same. The effective range of the E/F is only 2/3, or less, than that of a Tomcat. Which would work out to far less than 1/2 of the ST21. Not to mention endurance. Also maneuverability, speed, etc. Sad to have the current number one fighter be such a middling effort which can be bested by just about anything else.
Good work!