Instead of the Super Hornet, the Navy Adopts the Super Tomcat

wormyguy

Banned
In 1990, confronted by an aging fleet of F-14 Tomcats and A-6 Intruders that were growing ever more expensive to maintain and operate, the Navy decided it was time to replace their premier carrier fighter. Two proposals for a fighter were considered, three upgrades to the Tomcat (one "budget" derivative, the F-14E Quickstrike, and two more advanced upgrades called the "Super Tomcat 21," a curious name, since the F-21 designation is occupied by an Israeli Kfir aircraft sent to the US for evaluation). The other was a swing-wing derivative of the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (F-22). With the Cold War continuing (though at its end), the Navy lobbied hard for the Naval ATF (and the A-12 stealth attack plane) and got their wishes - it was decided that it would be the carrier fighter for the 21st century.

However, in 1994, with post-Cold War budget cuts, and visible lack of progress on the Naval ATF and A-12 programs, it was cancelled. A new competition to replace both the F-14A/B/C/D and A-6 was held between the McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the Grumman Super Tomcat 21 (occasionally refered to in marketing literature as the "F-21). Grumman was confident they would win the competition - their proposal was cheaper and offered better performance both as a fighter and as a strike aircraft. However, they had a fatal flaw in their lobbying plan - legislators were unwilling to drop a pretense of fiscal conservatism to fund a "new" F-21 fighter (actually an upgrade that made few changes to the airframe), as opposed to an "upgrade" of the F/A-18 (actually for all intents and purposes a new fighter, it shared almost no parts with the F/A-18A/B/C/D, and was more expensive than the Super Tomcat).

What if Grumman had referred to the Super Tomcat as the F-14E instead of the Super Tomcat 21 in its marketing literature, and Congress had agreed to fund it instead of the Super Hornet? How would that effect US carrier doctrine and fighter development?

http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm
Quickstrike

As the name suggests the Quickstrike was a limited upgrade to the present F-14D. It would have produced a long range strike fighter, capable of replacing the A-6 and thus making up for the cancellation of the A-12. Having learnt from the Air Force's F-15E program how well a 'pure' air-to-air fighter could be transformed into an air-to-ground attack aircraft the Navy proposed doing roughly the same to the F-14 as the Air Force had done to the F-15. The two main upgrades to the Quickstrike were to be extra modes for the AN/APG-71 radar and FLIR pods for navigation and targeting. The extra radar modes were to have included synthetic aperture (SAR) and Doppler Beam Sharpening, allowing for accurate ground mapping. These would allow the radar to generate high quality images of navigation waypoints and targets. The FLIR pods would be very similar to those used in the F-15E, mounted under the fuselage in the aerodynamic fairings that are presently used for the Phoenix missiles. As with the F-15E one pod would have been used for navigation, using a wide angle FLIR, while the other would have been used for targeting, using a narrow angle FLIR and incorporating a laser designator.
To allow the crew to make full use of these upgrades the cockpit would have been improved with the addition of a moving map display, new HUD (presumably compatible with infra red imagery from the FLIR) and head down FLIR displays. The RIO's cockpit would have been changed to allow him to view FLIR imagery and control the laser designator.
The munitions carrying capability of the Quickstrike would have been considerable. Four underfuselage hardpoints would each have carried five substations. The wing glove pylons would each carry two substations. Fully loaded up the Quickstrike would have carried 24 air to ground munitions, probably Mk20's or Mk84 500lb bombs. Heavier weapons would be carried in smaller numbers. Perhaps most important would have been the addition of standoff weapons to the F-14's arsenal. Quickstrike would have added LGB's, AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-65 Maverick and AGM-88 HARM, presumably to be followed at a later date by AGM-154 JSOW and GAM.
While the Quickstrike would have been an impressive improvement to the F-14's capabilities it was killed by the Navy's selection of the F/A-18E/F as the best platform for future long range strike roles.

Tomcat 21

Tomcat 21 was a more far reaching modification to the F-14D. Using ideas from the Quickstrike proposal Grumman developed the design as a lower cost, multi-role alternative to the NATF. Quickstrike was mainly an avionic and systems upgrade, however to this Tomcat 21 added reshaped wing gloves, which roughly matched the profile of a standard Tomcat glove with the vanes extended. These added around 1,134kg (2,500lb) of fuel. Wing flaps were also to be modified, using a single slotted Fowler type flap. Slats and spoilers were also to be modified. This would have provided 33% extra lift on approach to the carrier, enough to make up for the extra fuel and avionics. The all moving tailplanes would also be enlarged, by extending the trailing edge.
With the increased fuel, structural changes and avionics the empty weight of the Tomcat 21 was expected to be only 454kg (1,100lb) than that of the F-14D. Due to the increased fuel capacity gross weight was expected to increase from 33,070kg (72,900lb) to 34,470kg (76,000lb).
Like the Quickstrike Tomcat 21 would carry nav-attack FLIRS, either the LANTIRN system or Night Owl pods from Ford Aerospace. Again these would be mounted in the front of the aerodynamic Phoenix fairings (which house the cooling oil system for early model AIM-54's on the F-14A and B. The D does not have this system). The laser designator for the Night Owl system would be carried in the undernose twin pod.
In addition to the FLIRS the AN/APG-71 would have been further modified, giving it an ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar) capability, improved look down/shoot down capabilities over land and a 20% increase in target acquisition range.
At a time when high cost designs were being killed at a prodigious rate Grumman was quietly confident that the relatively low cost Tomcat 21 would see production. Its anticipated development costs were $989 million, with the first flight in 1993 (if the go ahead was given in 1990). Production models were expected to begin delivery in 1996. 490 Tomcat 21's were projected, a mix of 233 new build (cost $39 million apiece) and 257 remanufactured aircraft from F-14B/D's (cost $21 million apiece). Which FY these prices were calculated for I do not know.

Attack Super Tomcat 21 (ASF-14)

If the Tomcat 21 was a relatively low cost structural modification to the F-14D then the Attack Super Tomcat 21 (hereafter referred to as AST-21) was the most advanced derivative Grumman could make, both in terms of aerodynamics and avionics.
As well as the structural changes mentioned above the AST-21 would have thicker outer wing panels, allowing even more fuel to be carried. Larger external fuel tanks would also be developed. Flaps and slats would be further refined, reducing approach speeds by 18mph.
A new version of the F110, the GE F110-GE-129 would power the aircraft, giving the potential for the AST-21 to supercruise (achieve and sustain supersonic flight without need for fuel hungry afterburners) at up to Mach 1.3. Vectoring nozzles were also considered, but felt unnecessary when the design displayed a 77 degree angle of attack without the vectoring nozzles.
To aid servicing and repairs all maintenance controls would be grouped onto a single panel.
In the cockpit each crewmember would receive colour MFD's and helmet mounted displays. A single piece forward canopy would replace the present windscreen, enabling full all round vision for the first time.
Carrying the nav-attack FLIRS of the other variants the AST-21 would replace the AN/APG-71 with an electronically scanned unit, incorporating a host of air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. This would have twice the power of the AN/APG-71 and be among the biggest leaps in capability. Some reports suggest this radar would have been that developed for the A-12. Defensive electronics would also have been upgraded, with the AST-21 carrying 135 packets of chaff/flares in launchers on the LAU-7 missile rails.
At present it is unclear whether the ASF-14 differed in any notable way from the AST-21, but the former was the designation used when the Navy carried out a serious study of the Grumman proposals in 1994. Unfortunately for Grumman the study decided the ASF-14 to be unaffordable. As a result the Navy moved ahead with its present plans to develop the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet variants.
The Super Tomcat 21 Proposal

st21-2.jpg


Changes from the F-14D

f14-history-f14x-st21.gif


The Swing-Wing Naval ATF (F-22) Proposal

f22-natf.jpg
 

MacCaulay

Banned
It's...the Bombcat?

When was this supposed to be ready? Myself, I've become a hardcore believer in the Tomcat after researching it for the Soviet Invasion of Iran. It's a good plane, and probably the best airborne radar/weapons system pairing we ever put on a plane with the AWG-9/Phoenix combination.

Jesus, you don't need an AMRAAM when you're able to plow maneuvering Floggers out of the sky at 40 miles.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Grumman said they could start producing them 3 years after it was approved (perhaps a little optimistic).

The ASF-14, with supercruise, would have been an awesome fighter.

But unless the USSR hangs in there another 6 to 8 years, it probably would never get procured. Just too expensive.

As far as F-18 over the Tomcat 21, they went with the newer plane with newer electronics and less maintenance, I think. But I still wonder if they didn't make a mistake there. The SuperHornet isn't as bad as its detractors would make it out to be, but Tomcats rule.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's...the Bombcat?

When was this supposed to be ready? Myself, I've become a hardcore believer in the Tomcat after researching it for the Soviet Invasion of Iran. It's a good plane, and probably the best airborne radar/weapons system pairing we ever put on a plane with the AWG-9/Phoenix combination.

Jesus, you don't need an AMRAAM when you're able to plow maneuvering Floggers out of the sky at 40 miles.

The Phoenix wasn't all theat terrific at picking off fighter sized and fighter agility targets. It was exceptional against cruise missiles and cruise missile carriers, but more agile platforms stood a decent chance of evading a AIM-54. That was one reason that the AMRAAM was developed, to make the increasingly effective Soviet fighter bombers as vulnerable as their Backfire consorts. There is also the fact that even the SuperTom wouldn't have been able to trap with six Phoenix aboard.

All that being said, it was a tragedy when the Navy lost the Tom. The SuperTom would have been at least as good of a platform as the F-15E/K/GS and would have been substantially better than even the SuperBug, both in payload and in range.

The USN tends to toss away perfectly lovely platforms too soon (the short list includes the A-6, A-7, S-3, and even the A-5 & F-11). So far the Fleet has dodged the bullet on these early outs. Hopefully it will continue to do so.
 
Considering that the F-14 could have been one of the most advanced US aircraft, it's rather sad that the programs to improve got canned, especially when the A-12 was never built and the other programs never got anywhere.
 
It's...the Bombcat?

When was this supposed to be ready? Myself, I've become a hardcore believer in the Tomcat after researching it for the Soviet Invasion of Iran. It's a good plane, and probably the best airborne radar/weapons system pairing we ever put on a plane with the AWG-9/Phoenix combination.

Jesus, you don't need an AMRAAM when you're able to plow maneuvering Floggers out of the sky at 40 miles.
40 miles? The AIM-120C-7 has a range of 72 miles already. The AIM-54 had a range of over 100 miles.

There is also the fact that even the SuperTom wouldn't have been able to trap with six Phoenix aboard.
I've heard this several times, but is it a certainty that the F-14 was not able to trap with more than 4 Phoenix?
Agree with all the rest though.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
The Phoenix wasn't all theat terrific at picking off fighter sized and fighter agility targets. It was exceptional against cruise missiles and cruise missile carriers, but more agile platforms stood a decent chance of evading a AIM-54.

Six months ago, I totally agreed with you.

Osprey's Iranian F-14 Units in Combat had an appendix, though, that listed collected kills (both confirmed and uncomfirmed) along with their weapons system that did it.
With the AIM-54, there were 4 confirmed MiG 21 kills, 14 MiG 23 kills, 8 Mirage F1 kills, 4 Tu22 kills, and at least 8 MiG-25R kills.
The quotes from the Iranian pilots in the book seem to lend credence that the Phoenix was capable of much more than the public has been led to believe.
 
Super Tomcat all the way, simply because the it looks cooler.

totally agree with this one, the tomcat has got to be the coolest looking fighter ever, sure the F22 is all angly and futuristic looking, but the tomcat had character... :rolleyes:
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Six months ago, I totally agreed with you.

Osprey's Iranian F-14 Units in Combat had an appendix, though, that listed collected kills (both confirmed and uncomfirmed) along with their weapons system that did it.
With the AIM-54, there were 4 confirmed MiG 21 kills, 14 MiG 23 kills, 8 Mirage F1 kills, 4 Tu22 kills, and at least 8 MiG-25R kills.
The quotes from the Iranian pilots in the book seem to lend credence that the Phoenix was capable of much more than the public has been led to believe.


It isn't impossible to kill a fighter with a Phoenix, it is just markedly less effective against highly manueverable targets. If the enemy pilot is not on the ball, or is under orders to close on the F-14 to defend a specific target, regardless of any other consideration, or isn't aware that he is under attack (whick is possible if there is no support from either air or ground based radar control) than the missile has a decent chance of making a kill.

I can't imagine that the AIM-54 is more capable than the public has been led to believe. If you accept the statements from the manufacturer or from the Navy whenever it was Budget decision time, the -54 will kill anything bigger than a bumblebee at 100 miles from the launching aircraft 110% of the time. The percentage of the "public" who has even heard anything different is shockingly low, mostly limited to readers of A&STW, wargamers, and hard-core military geeks (i.e. many of us here:D).
 

wormyguy

Banned
Six months ago, I totally agreed with you.

Osprey's Iranian F-14 Units in Combat had an appendix, though, that listed collected kills (both confirmed and uncomfirmed) along with their weapons system that did it.
With the AIM-54, there were 4 confirmed MiG 21 kills, 14 MiG 23 kills, 8 Mirage F1 kills, 4 Tu22 kills, and at least 8 MiG-25R kills.
The quotes from the Iranian pilots in the book seem to lend credence that the Phoenix was capable of much more than the public has been led to believe.
All of those kills (except two of the MiG-23s, of course), were in Iranian service, right?
 
What happens with the aging airframe issue and these rebuilt F-14s? Were the F-14Ds and/or the Super Tomcats to be totally rebuilt airframes? Was the F-14 production line still intact or capable of being reassembled?

The loss of the A-5, A-6, and S-3 has taken some useful capabilities from US carriers. I don't think the long-range strike, ECM, and aerial refueling capabilities are the same. Maintenance and supply personnel may like the current airgroups though. :)
 
The USN tends to toss away perfectly lovely platforms too soon (the short list includes the A-6, A-7, S-3, and even the A-5 & F-11). So far the Fleet has dodged the bullet on these early outs. Hopefully it will continue to do so.

CalBear,
It's too bad the F-11 couldn't last longer. Perhaps if the Canadians had gotten their CV? Or even better Canadian and Aussie CVs.

I also like the Douglas F-4D; I think that was the designation. A hot little fighter with a delta-type wing.

I don't remember what did in the A-7. The USAF got rid of them too. Perhaps it was because the A-7s were too oriented towards ground attack and close support?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
What happens with the aging airframe issue and these rebuilt F-14s? Were the F-14Ds and/or the Super Tomcats to be totally rebuilt airframes? Was the F-14 production line still intact or capable of being reassembled?

Well, I'm not sure about the production line, but if the Osprey books on the Iranian F-14 units are reliable (and there's not a whole lot of other evidence to go on), then the airframes are able to stand up to a hell of a lot provided they're given suitable maintenance.

They're looking at around 20 useable F-14As still in service. That's 1/4 of the force they got in 1977-79. Still being able to fly a +30 year-old fighter is pretty good.

Imagine what the USN could do with airframes that were built in the 80s and had a larger logistics and spares capability behind them.
 
Well, I'm not sure about the production line, but if the Osprey books on the Iranian F-14 units are reliable (and there's not a whole lot of other evidence to go on), then the airframes are able to stand up to a hell of a lot provided they're given suitable maintenance.

They're looking at around 20 useable F-14As still in service. That's 1/4 of the force they got in 1977-79. Still being able to fly a +30 year-old fighter is pretty good.

Imagine what the USN could do with airframes that were built in the 80s and had a larger logistics and spares capability behind them.

I'm wondering which F-14 fleet has had more of a pounding, the Iranian or the USN fleet? The Iranian F-14s fought the Iran-Iraq war. The USN F-14s had to contend with years of carrier takeoffs and landings.

Hmm, speaking of the Iranian F-14s, does the Osprey book go into detail of their wartime missions? Were they interceptors, fighter escorts, did they do any ground attack? I'm curious.

dilvish
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I'm wondering which F-14 fleet has had more of a pounding, the Iranian or the USN fleet? The Iranian F-14s fought the Iran-Iraq war. The USN F-14s had to contend with years of carrier takeoffs and landings.

Hmm, speaking of the Iranian F-14s, does the Osprey book go into detail of their wartime missions? Were they interceptors, fighter escorts, did they do any ground attack? I'm curious.

dilvish

They were purchased to counter Soviet MiG-25R overflights, so their original role during the Shah's regime in the mid-70s was as interceptors. They fulfilled this role in the Iraq-Iran War, as well as dogfighting until the mid-80s, when they were pulled back to long range kills with their remaining Phoenixes and using their AWG-9 radars as "mini-AWACS".

They'd also use them as traps. The Iraqis, around '84-'85, found a way to bounce them using low altitude and the doppler effect. The Iranians then paired a single F-14 with a pair or upto four F-4 Phantom IIs that would trail behind.
When the Iraqis made their run at the Tomcat, the Iranian Phantoms would jump the Iraqis and the Tomcat would bolt since it had the speed to get out before the Iraqis could catch it.

The book actually goes very deeply into the combat that the Iranian F-14 units did.

They both went through a lot. But I'd say that the Iranian F-14s are probably under more stress because of their lack of spares. The US definitely didn't sell them anything after the early 80s. Heck, in the late 90s/early '00s, they were shredding old F-14s to avoid spares making their way into Iranian hands.
I'm not playing down what the USN airframes have gone through, it's just that they've had access to actual Grumman facilities and things that the Iranian ones haven't.
 
Top