WI: USN buys a 'better F-14' instead of Super Hornet

SsgtC

Banned
Simplified logistics and operational arrangement is nice too. The traditional F-14, F-18, A-6 air wing is less flexible than a all-Hornet wing.
Very true. But with a modernised F-14, we're likely to see an all F-14 based air wing (excluding when USMC squadrons are attached).
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Very true. But with a modernised F-14, we're likely to see an all F-14 based air wing (excluding when USMC squadrons are attached).

Would we, though? I can't see an F-14 redone as an EW bird, for instance, like the Growlers are. I'd expect to still see a 14/18 mix on the decks until the F-35 shambles along in the 21st century.
 
Would we, though? I can't see an F-14 redone as an EW bird, for instance, like the Growlers are. I'd expect to still see a 14/18 mix on the decks until the F-35 shambles along in the 21st century.

Why not? Why couldn't new build F-14's (presuming the line is sustained) be modified like the Growlers are?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Would we, though? I can't see an F-14 redone as an EW bird, for instance, like the Growlers are. I'd expect to still see a 14/18 mix on the decks until the F-35 shambles along in the 21st century.
I see no reason for it not to be. If anything, the -14 would make a much better EW platform than the Hornet. It's bigger, has more available power, can carry a lot more equipment, and has an absolutely HUGE radar area to contain a massive amount of jamming or eavesdropping equipment.
 
Last edited:
West Germany were also offered the F-14 as well.

Do lack or precise Date, i can only speculate why the German Air-force has not buy the F-14.
There was in end of 1960s plans to equip the Luftwaffe with heavy multi role combat aircraft (two engine with swing-wing)
like US/German projects Boeing/EWR 360 and Republic/EWR A400 VTOL project or The Panavia Tornado program
In beginn that had to be two aircraft: two man Bomber and one pilot Fighter, based on same Airframe with swing-wing

Somewhere in process the F-14 Tomcat was under consideration in begin 1970s.

but in end became the Panavia Tornado, a Two man heavy multi role combat aircraft and Luftwaffe buy the F-4 Phantom as interceptor/reconnaissance plane.
and studies for new Fighter jets began, what let in 1979 to the European Collaborative Fighter and finally to the Eurofighter.

I think was issue was that Germans wanted to much again, like make the High altitude Interceptor F-104 into the multi role combat F-104G on shoe string budget.
The F-14 was a very good air superiority fighter, defense interceptor, and tactical aerial reconnaissance
But Like i know the Luftwaffe, the Germans wanted low level flight air superiority Fighter/Bomber/aerial reconnaissance and ground support in one Aircraft
but in End the Germans finally realized, that they wanted was impossible and went for Mix air fleet of The Panavia Tornado and the F-4 Phantom
And The participation of German Aerospace Industry in The Panavia Tornado project had certain role in this story...
 
You really want to make a thread a Tomcat Wank, have the plane forced on the US Air Force. Say a confluence of factors - the first F-15 prototype crashes on its maiden flight, there are corruption problems with McDD, strong civilian leadership on the Hill and in the Pentagon decides that if the USAF and USN can both use the F-4, they can both use the F-14.

This has some other interesting butterflies. The F-14 probably gets better engines (the TF-30s really sucked) and Bombcat (say the F-14E) capability sooner. The initial F-15 export customers (Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Japan) will all likely get the F-14 and now F-14s are getting license produced by Mitsubishi. Wow, there is a twist of history, Mitsubishi making a Grumman fighter.
 
the Story how the F-111, F-14 and F-15 and F-16 came to existing is complicated
allot of technical, financial and political problems and personel decision influence the planning.
It started with need or a new low-cost tactical fighter design for short-range roles in 1965
and ended in begin 1970 with prototype flights of F-14 and F-15. In configuration almost twin, design except one F-14 got variable-sweep wings, while F-15 has fixed wings

actually USAF study also variable-sweep wings for fighter design what became the F-15 program...
 

Ak-84

Banned
You really want to make a thread a Tomcat Wank, have the plane forced on the US Air Force. Say a confluence of factors - the first F-15 prototype crashes on its maiden flight, there are corruption problems with McDD, strong civilian leadership on the Hill and in the Pentagon decides that if the USAF and USN can both use the F-4, they can both use the F-14.

This has some other interesting butterflies. The F-14 probably gets better engines (the TF-30s really sucked) and Bombcat (say the F-14E) capability sooner. The initial F-15 export customers (Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Japan) will all likely get the F-14 and now F-14s are getting license produced by Mitsubishi. Wow, there is a twist of history, Mitsubishi making a Grumman fighter.
Probably, but there are several problems not least of which.
1) USAF had already had one Navy Fighter forced upon it and by God they were not going to have another.
2) The USAF after the Phantom era had re learnt that WVR combat was not obsolete. The TomCat was designed to fight at exterme BVR ranges. It seemed to have little WVR ability unlike the F15. Its not true the TomCat was a pretty good dogfighter, but the 1970’s USAF was all about WVR and a big ass missile craft was not something they would have looked kindly on.
3) The Phantom was the USAF’s backbone and it nearly bankrupted them. The major replacement for the F4 as standard fighter was not going to be the F15 it was going to be the F16. Smaller and cheaper. What part of smaller and cheaper is a F14?
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
Assuming the Canadians did go for the Tomcat directly, and not say a backroom deal to purchase the Iranian Tomcats, which nearly happened in OTL, I'd imagine It might have similar features such as a high powered side lamp to illuminate intercepted bombers. It's certainly be useful up patrolling Canadian airspace for Soviet/Russian bombers. The more hefty landing gear might also help it operate from less than ideal runways.
 
Assuming the Canadians did go for the Tomcat directly, and not say a backroom deal to purchase the Iranian Tomcats, which nearly happened in OTL, I'd imagine It might have similar features such as a high powered side lamp to illuminate intercepted bombers. It's certainly be useful up patrolling Canadian airspace for Soviet/Russian bombers. The more hefty landing gear might also help it operate from less than ideal runways.

it would make sense if they look into F-14
since requirement of Canadian Air Force was twin engine Aircraft for long range patrol and reconnaissance mission.
in case something goes wrong the Pilot can return with one engine to nearest Airport
because chance for crashed pilot to survive in north polar circle is nearly zero !

3) The Phantom was the USAF’s backbone and it nearly bankrupted them. The major replacement for the F4 as standard fighter was not going to be the F15 it was going to be the F16.
The F4 was good long-range supersonic jet interceptor and fighter-bomber, But was complex to maintain machine like F-14
you notice that there is almost no airworthy F-4 or F-14 in Private hands...
 
The F4 was good long-range supersonic jet interceptor and fighter-bomber, But was complex to maintain machine like F-14
you notice that there is almost no airworthy F-4 or F-14 in Private hands...

Wasn't it policy to destroy the F-14's or turn them into museum pieces to prevent Iran getting anything out of them? Fairly sure the USN ones were scrapped?
 
Do not forget long-term maintenance and logistic costs. The Phoenix missile is pretty expensive per shot and maintenance too.

Phoenix missile was there for a reason - to kill Soviet bombers at long distances.
We can think of one or two scenarios where the F-14/Phoenix combo might be of use. Like, enemy deployed one or two airborne radars, each of them escorted by 2-3 pairs of fighters of Su-27 or J-10 class, the fighters located 30-50 miles ahead of the radars. F-14 can lob the Phoenix from 70-90 mile distance on the radars, and safely retreat. The F-18E/AIM-120 combo can't do it, since the enemy has the means to engage the Hornets before those can engage radars. It does not need to be the enemy AWACS platform, they can have the LR MP A/C there.
Or, the inbound strike is discovered at wave top at 300 miles from the surface group, the defending fighters are 100-150 miles away from it and to the side. Again the F-14 can make a dash of 30-50 miles in supersonic speed, and fire the missiles 50-70 miles away with good chance to hit targets at low level. The F-18 cannot do that. Further, enemy fired off it's anti-ship missiles. Phoneix has better chance to intercept, and with bigger warhed to kill the missile. Let's recall that Soviets have had supersonic anti-ship missiles for almost 50 years now, and many of them are exported.
Re-programming the guidance system, or installing the new with microprocessors, can allow for missile to be fired as anti-radiation missile to hit the approaching war ship or a ground-based radar that just started emission, thus no need to carry extra anti-radiation missiles like the HARM. USN can purchase 30-50? Phoenix missiles per each Super Hornet or F-14, plus there is a good deal of missiles in the warehouses that can be refurbished.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Phoenix missile was there for a reason - to kill Soviet bombers at long distances.
We can think of one or two scenarios where the F-14/Phoenix combo might be of use. Like, enemy deployed one or two airborne radars, each of them escorted by 2-3 pairs of fighters of Su-27 or J-10 class, the fighters located 30-50 miles ahead of the radars. F-14 can lob the Phoenix from 70-90 mile distance on the radars, and safely retreat. The F-18E/AIM-120 combo can't do it, since the enemy has the means to engage the Hornets before those can engage radars. It does not need to be the enemy AWACS platform, they can have the LR MP A/C there.
Or, the inbound strike is discovered at wave top at 300 miles from the surface group, the defending fighters are 100-150 miles away from it and to the side. Again the F-14 can make a dash of 30-50 miles in supersonic speed, and fire the missiles 50-70 miles away with good chance to hit targets at low level. The F-18 cannot do that. Further, enemy fired off it's anti-ship missiles. Phoneix has better chance to intercept, and with bigger warhed to kill the missile. Let's recall that Soviets have had supersonic anti-ship missiles for almost 50 years now, and many of them are exported.
Re-programming the guidance system, or installing the new with microprocessors, can allow for missile to be fired as anti-radiation missile to hit the approaching war ship or a ground-based radar that just started emission, thus no need to carry extra anti-radiation missiles like the HARM. USN can purchase 30-50? Phoenix missiles per each Super Hornet or F-14, plus there is a good deal of missiles in the warehouses that can be refurbished.
A J10 will eat a TomCat for breakfast and later Flanker models will as well.
Fire at 70 miles away; the problem with RADAR guided BVR missiles arises, the enemy's RWR picks up the launch and the guy just holds and maneovers when the missile approaches. The AN/AWG-9 was so powerful it screamed "I am coming to get ya" to the enemy and his ECM. The AN/APG-71 was better on this score, but the sheer distances of long range missile shots mean using a lot of power regardless and therefore alerting any good RWR set in use.

There is a reason that nobody built Very Long Range AAM (VLRAAMs) after the Phoenix (saving the Russians for use on Foxhound interceptors against Cruise missiles) until recently, when the Chinese tested one for the J-20. And that is after the invention of Lock on after Launch (LOAL). So unless the Tomcat gets a true LOAL ability, long range missile shots are like kicks to the goal from 70 yards, probably doomed.
 
That was my train of thought. If the navy wanted a fighter with ground-attack possibilities, it could have just added air-to-air capabilities to a maneuverable enough ground support plane. I know, it is a lot harder than the other way round, but I has been done successfully with the A4 Skyhawk and a few other planes. Plus when the requirement came up early enough in the design phase, the A12 could have ended up a true multi-role combat aircraft like the OTL Tornado or Sepecat Jaguar.
Adding ait-to-air capability to a stealthy, subsonic, dedicated strike aircraft would have been both pointless and a monumental task.
 

SsgtC

Banned
A J10 will eat a TomCat for breakfast and later Flanker models will as well.
Fire at 70 miles away; the problem with RADAR guided BVR missiles arises, the enemy's RWR picks up the launch and the guy just holds and maneovers when the missile approaches. The AN/AWG-9 was so powerful it screamed "I am coming to get ya" to the enemy and his ECM. The AN/APG-71 was better on this score, but the sheer distances of long range missile shots mean using a lot of power regardless and therefore alerting any good RWR set in use.

There is a reason that nobody built Very Long Range AAM (VLRAAMs) after the Phoenix (saving the Russians for use on Foxhound interceptors against Cruise missiles) until recently, when the Chinese tested one for the J-20. And that is after the invention of Lock on after Launch (LOAL). So unless the Tomcat gets a true LOAL ability, long range missile shots are like kicks to the goal from 70 yards, probably doomed.
But not the proposed STC-21. That aircraft would have been one of the top dogfighters in the world with variable geometry wings and thrust vectoring. Add in an AESA radar and you're talking A VERY deadly aircraft. Don't forget as well, the Phoenix was a Fire-and-Forget weapon. Meaning no staying straight and level to keep the radar locked on target while enemy fighters close in on you.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Costs would be a major problem.
In any situation where the Navy gets Congress to approve the purchase of Super Tomcats, the increased cost would not be a factor. Especially when weighed against the vastly increased performance vs the original Tomcat and the Super Bug
 
A J10 will eat a TomCat for breakfast and later Flanker models will as well.
Fire at 70 miles away; the problem with RADAR guided BVR missiles arises, the enemy's RWR picks up the launch and the guy just holds and maneovers when the missile approaches. The AN/AWG-9 was so powerful it screamed "I am coming to get ya" to the enemy and his ECM. The AN/APG-71 was better on this score, but the sheer distances of long range missile shots mean using a lot of power regardless and therefore alerting any good RWR set in use.

Some people asumed that MiG-29 will eat anything the West can throw in, that was proved false. Even against the Iranian F-14s, Iraqi MiG-29s didn't enjoyed that great kill/loss ratio. Even if it was positive for them. All of this before we toss in the Desert Storm data.
Since Phoenix have had it's own radar - it was actively radar guided, like the AAAMRAM and unlike eg. Sparrow - the radar of F-14 didn't need to illuminate the target when Phoenix was flying. It is one thing to say 'Hey, it's the AWG-9 there, lets jam it', actually jamming it was not that easy, especially if one's state of military electronics was not on par with USA/West/Japan.

There is a reason that nobody built Very Long Range AAM (VLRAAMs) after the Phoenix (saving the Russians for use on Foxhound interceptors against Cruise missiles) until recently, when the Chinese tested one for the J-20. And that is after the invention of Lock on after Launch (LOAL). So unless the Tomcat gets a true LOAL ability, long range missile shots are like kicks to the goal from 70 yards, probably doomed.

LOAL was Phoenix's bread and butter from early 1970s. Russian AA-9 was semi-actively guided, ie. it didn't have on-board radar like Phoenix did, while also providing about 60% range of the AIM-54C.
It was not that easy nor cheap to design a 100+ nm A-A missile, and there was not many countries that also required that.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Active homing AAM are not true LOAL. They still require the fighters onboard RADAR to switch to fire control mode to track the target l and do the power up/down, which will be noticed by the targets RWR and he is now wise to the coming threat and can evade.

A true LOAL AAM uses data from either passive sensors onboard the fighter, or external sources like from GCI or AEW, to fly to a designated point in space and only then is the fighters own RADAR turned on and the missile given final direction.
 
Active homing AAM are not true LOAL. They still require the fighters onboard RADAR to switch to fire control mode to track the target l and do the power up/down, which will be noticed by the targets RWR and he is now wise to the coming threat and can evade.

A true LOAL AAM uses data from either passive sensors onboard the fighter, or external sources like from GCI or AEW, to fly to a designated point in space and only then is the fighters own RADAR turned on and the missile given final direction.

Enemy fighter wil certainly notice the radio emisions, but that does not mean it the missile launch is imminent, not it will tell who is the intended target. Retreating just because the radiation from AWG-9 is registered represents a misson kill.
Launching missiles that use just data from passive sensors means the missile does not know the distance of the target, so it is probaly a no-go for anything bar short range missiles. My take is that Phoenix was LOAL before the LOAL was cool.
 
Last edited:
Top