WI F-14 exported to NATO and allies?

burmafrd

Banned
Actually it was KNOWN from Day 1 that the F-14's would be greatly improved with better engines. It was a major black mark on the Pentagon and the Reagan Administration that it was not done IMMEDIATELY. The F-14 could have been converted to the bomber roll at any time, just like the F-15 eventually was. BOth could have been done a LOT sooner then it was done.
 
Actually it was KNOWN from Day 1 that the F-14's would be greatly improved with better engines. It was a major black mark on the Pentagon and the Reagan Administration that it was not done IMMEDIATELY. The F-14 could have been converted to the bomber roll at any time, just like the F-15 eventually was. BOth could have been done a LOT sooner then it was done.

What is the earliest date one could get a F110 in service in numbers?
As far as my googling skills can tell (I don't know squad about engines), by '79 the F110 is still in it's infancy.

Also, it's not so crazy the USN went for upgraded TF30's first and there's no need for F110's untill they give up on the TF30's, right?

Still, nobody is going to buy Tomcats without engines while happily waiting several years for the F110.
Although you're right AFAIK and it was known the Tomcat would do better with better engines (they were designed afterall with better performing engines in mind), you don't know for sure if and when they're going to get new, nifty engines.

So, my previous remark is still valid IMHO:
Why buy more expensive airplanes, which are less suited for your airforce and might get better with an expensive engine upgrade in the future? Not to mention it might not even be possible to export Tomcats to any nation but Iran from '77 to '80.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Thanks, I'm sorry. I should have used the correct term instead of "general interceptor".

Yup. That's why I spend 15 bucks on these books, so I can correct people on the difference between interceptors and air superiority fighters. :D

As for the engine, the F-14A's engine troubles were mostly because the new ones couldn't be put in in time for the roll out date.
 
I could understand that, but that's not what you said previously. :D
It was the following part which I didn't get, because it doesn't made sense IMHO:

My point with this quote was explained much better by CalBear in his post.
The Tomcat/Phoenix has been getting a mythical reputation on the Internet which goes way beyond what's reasonable.
Ah. Well, actually I was always imagining Japan's Tomcats in a bomber interceptor role. (Or actually, I thought that is what interceptors do: attack bombers. Not deal with fighters or what not) As I said, I thought that was one of the major roles of the JASDF, and the Tomcat + AWG 9 + Phoenix (and note that the radar is still useful even if you're not using the Phoenix with it) would clearly be superior to the F-15 in that role, and probably (replacing the Phoenixes with Sparrows) be comparable in other roles.

Why buy more expensive airplanes, which are less suited for your airforce and might get better with an expensive engine upgrade in the future? Not to mention it might not even be possible to export Tomcats to any nation but Iran from '77 to '80.

Well, in my thread it was because there weren't any F-15s :) But more seriously, as I said above, the F-14 is superior in some aspects to the F-15, and it is possible that the JASDF decides improved bomber interception is more useful than a somewhat better all-round fighter. (And on engines--see below)

Flying Dutchman said:
What is the earliest date one could get a F110 in service in numbers?
As far as my googling skills can tell (I don't know squad about engines), by '79 the F110 is still in it's infancy.

Also, it's not so crazy the USN went for upgraded TF30's first and there's no need for F110's untill they give up on the TF30's, right?

Still, nobody is going to buy Tomcats without engines while happily waiting several years for the F110.
Although you're right AFAIK and it was known the Tomcat would do better with better engines (they were designed afterall with better performing engines in mind), you don't know for sure if and when they're going to get new, nifty engines.

According to wikipedia, they were actually supposed to get navalized versions of...the F-15 engines (the F100). Rather criminally, the Navy decided not to procure them, instead opting for TF30s. The obvious POD here is simply to have them choose to not procure any TF30 Tomcats for squadron service, leaving the only production model the one with the engine that can actually propel the aircraft the way it was designed. The F100s are still...problematic, but they'll give the F-14 clearly better performance.
 

Bearcat

Banned
According to wikipedia, they were actually supposed to get navalized versions of...the F-15 engines (the F100). Rather criminally, the Navy decided not to procure them, instead opting for TF30s. The obvious POD here is simply to have them choose to not procure any TF30 Tomcats for squadron service, leaving the only production model the one with the engine that can actually propel the aircraft the way it was designed. The F100s are still...problematic, but they'll give the F-14 clearly better performance.

Maybe if the TF30 is even a little worse than OTL... a few more crashes in flight testing, maybe a QC scandal at Pratt & Whitney... the navy might decide it has no choice but to go to GE.

The original F-14B was the designation I think for the up-engined Tomcat (not OTL historical -B, mind you, the designation got reused). Maybe here the navy adopts that as the production version.

Maybe we also see a -D equivalent sooner, and eventually something like the designs that were proposed after the NATF program crashed.
 
The F-14 was basically built for naval reconnassaince and interception. Canada had no carriers; the CF-18 is really all they ever needed.

As far as the UK...I just can't picture an F-14 jumping off the HMS Ark Royal..... :confused:
 
Tomcats could never fit on the Ark, they're too large. As we know, even the Rhinos had problems with the Speys being slow to spool upon a sharp throttle increase. Throttle mismanagement could leave the F-4 in the drink if you're not careful. I don't even want to think about a compressor stall during a low viz T-storm while executing a bolter. Only thing to do is pull the yellow handle and hope for the best. Perhaps the UK buys Hornets instead?
 
Then the UK would lose the Falklands because they wouldn't have any CATOBAR fighters to handle the Mirages. I don't fancy a Skyhawk against an upgraded Mirage V, even if the Argie pilot is a greenhorn.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Then the UK would lose the Falklands because they wouldn't have any CATOBAR fighters to handle the Mirages. I don't fancy a Skyhawk against an upgraded Mirage V, even if the Argie pilot is a greenhorn.

Well, what do you want the MoD to do? Buy new patches!? :rolleyes:
 
Here's the first in the series of patches produced for potential F-14 operators: first up is Canada

f14-history-f14a-cd.jpg
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, they used F-4s into the late 70s. And until the Tomcat, the Phantom was pretty much the largest turbojet carrier fighter there was.


Well they also had a deck to fly them from. Couldn't do that with "through deck cruisers".
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Well they also had a deck to fly them from. Couldn't do that with "through deck cruisers".

True, but you couldn't have flown an F-4 off one, either. I'm assuming if they went to the trouble to buy F-14s they'd go to the trouble to keep up a carrier in service that could fly them.

Or they just use them as interceptors. That's the less wanky and more logical choice that I'd probably go with if I was in charge of Britain's checkbook (sorry: chequebook).
 
Top