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

SsgtC

Banned
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 dos 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.
My understanding was similar. That the AWG-9 provided the initial target location and radar lock to the AIM-54, while the onboard radar of the Phoenix handled terminal acquisition and guidance
 
My understanding was similar. That the AWG-9 provided the initial target location and radar lock to the AIM-54, while the onboard radar of the Phoenix handled terminal acquisition and guidance
Does anyone know how well the AIM54 / AWG9 combo would have done against small supersonic missiles ? In particular I am wondering about how viable they would have been against targets such as the AS16 "Kickback" if there was interest in the 1980's in the U.S. and Canada in enhancing NORAD's ability to deal with such targets.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Does anyone know how well the AIM54 / AWG9 combo would have done against small supersonic missiles ? In particular I am wondering about how viable they would have been against targets such as the AS16 "Kickback" if there was interest in the 1980's in the U.S. and Canada in enhancing NORAD's ability to deal with such targets.
I think it would depend on when you're trying to intercept it. Both missiles were Mach 5 capable, so it would probably have to be a head on intercept or intercepted immediately after launch before the Kh-15 could accelerate to top speed. The AIM-54 wasn't a very maneuverable missile. So as long as it's target is also flying essentially straight and level, it should be able to intercept.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Would an STC-21 also come with the AIM-152? IIRC it was supposed to replace the Phoenix.
Most likely. And it would probably be the Hughes/Raytheon design. Semi-active radar homing would not be acceptable long term. And the Westinghouse design wanted to take up a pylon on the aircraft with a radar pod to illuminate the target from either forward or aft. I don't see that going very far unless the missile itself is proven to be massively superior to the Hughes design.
 

BlondieBC

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.

Few years back we had a Red Storm Rising type discussion, and the consensus was that the F-14 would be a great plane for an initial dash after Soviet AWAC with the Phoenix. Maybe have the Navy or the Marine Corp win a few more budget battles and have a squadron or two of F-14 for this type of role in Europe in the cold war. Or maybe a couple of Squadrons "landized" squadrons forced on the Air Force. This will give you a little bit more in the way of F-14 production, and might help a bit.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Few years back we had a Red Storm Rising type discussion, and the consensus was that the F-14 would be a great plane for an initial dash after Soviet AWAC with the Phoenix. Maybe have the Navy or the Marine Corp win a few more budget battles and have a squadron or two of F-14 for this type of role in Europe in the cold war. Or maybe a couple of Squadrons "landized" squadrons forced on the Air Force. This will give you a little bit more in the way of F-14 production, and might help a bit.
Particularly if they're of the Bombcat variety. Because then the planes are true multirole fighters vs long range interceptors. They're also self-escorting
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Particularly if they're of the Bombcat variety. Because then the planes are true multirole fighters vs long range interceptors. They're also self-escorting

If I remember the thread correctly, it is mostly the speed of the F-14 combined with the long range of the missiles. These items force some difficult operation challenges on Generals handling the Mainstays. Hard to keep the Mainstays close enough to the border to be effective and be safe from the F-14's attacks.

Seems like we also had threads discussing land base F-14 out of say Scotland would make the use of the Backfires a lot more difficult.

And we have been talking about how expensive these planes are, but what if the USA picked up part of the tab for the plane as some type of "military aid". Maybe flip a few squadrons of British/Norwegian planes over to the F-14. Or pick a really poor country in NATO (Portugal?) and convert some of their squadrons over to F-14's. Maybe one designated to move to Iceland in case of a war. Or maybe a few in Turkey to help guard the Persian Gulf Oil supplies. Or maybe Saudis?

And I guess this gets us to the core question related to foreign sales. How many more squadrons of F-14 need to be sold to foreign powers to keep the plane in service until today?
 
If I remember the thread correctly, it is mostly the speed of the F-14 combined with the long range of the missiles. These items force some difficult operation challenges on Generals handling the Mainstays. Hard to keep the Mainstays close enough to the border to be effective and be safe from the F-14's attacks.

Seems like we also had threads discussing land base F-14 out of say Scotland would make the use of the Backfires a lot more difficult.

And we have been talking about how expensive these planes are, but what if the USA picked up part of the tab for the plane as some type of "military aid". Maybe flip a few squadrons of British/Norwegian planes over to the F-14. Or pick a really poor country in NATO (Portugal?) and convert some of their squadrons over to F-14's. Maybe one designated to move to Iceland in case of a war. Or maybe a few in Turkey to help guard the Persian Gulf Oil supplies. Or maybe Saudis?

And I guess this gets us to the core question related to foreign sales. How many more squadrons of F-14 need to be sold to foreign powers to keep the plane in service until today?
Or sell them to a nation that historically keeps military equipment in service for a long time :)
 

SsgtC

Banned
And I guess this gets us to the core question related to foreign sales. How many more squadrons of F-14 need to be sold to foreign powers to keep the plane in service until today?
I think we need hundreds more. Or a USSR that lasts longer and let's the USN get the STC-21 through Congress instead of basically being forced into the Rhino.

Without a longer lasting USSR, I'm not sure any amount of aircraft could keep the Tomcat in service till today. It was a horrendously expensive aircraft to operate. And with the budget cutting everyone did as part of the "Peace Dividend" it's an obvious target now that it's primary target set is collecting dust at an abandoned airbase. Maybe if a country built their Air Force around the -14, but not otherwise.
 

Ak-84

Banned
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.
Actually yes they can. When the TomCat decides to engage the “bandit”, the RADAR will shift to fire- control mode. Which works by refining the target data, done by sending out more powerful and refined RW to get a lock. This frequency shift is noted by the targets RWR which knows that launch is imminent. When missile launches there is a momentary drop in power to avoid damaging the missile seeker, this drop is also detectable and the target knows that shit has gotten very real.

In a true LOAL ideally use of fire control RADAR and any shifts is avoided until just before intercept. Most common way is to use an off boresight, to send the AAM in the direction of the target or have an onboard INS system on the missile.
F14 and AIM-154 had neither.
 
Actually yes they can. When the TomCat decides to engage the “bandit”, the RADAR will shift to fire- control mode. Which works by refining the target data, done by sending out more powerful and refined RW to get a lock. This frequency shift is noted by the targets RWR which knows that launch is imminent. When missile launches there is a momentary drop in power to avoid damaging the missile seeker, this drop is also detectable and the target knows that shit has gotten very real.

In a true LOAL ideally use of fire control RADAR and any shifts is avoided until just before intercept. Most common way is to use an off boresight, to send the AAM in the direction of the target or have an onboard INS system on the missile.
F14 and AIM-154 had neither.

I have to say that this does not sound anything like the engagement process described by Wabpilot on the navweaps site . He was an F-14 pilot . Also the LOAL you describe is not true . An IR missile can do the LOAL method you describe at short ranges and an AIM-120 may also , however against a target over 40 nm away midcourse guidance is normal and required . The AIM-54 was a true fire and forget missile with the option of midcourse guidance .
 
Actually yes they can. When the TomCat decides to engage the “bandit”, the RADAR will shift to fire- control mode. Which works by refining the target data, done by sending out more powerful and refined RW to get a lock. This frequency shift is noted by the targets RWR which knows that launch is imminent. When missile launches there is a momentary drop in power to avoid damaging the missile seeker, this drop is also detectable and the target knows that shit has gotten very real.

In a true LOAL ideally use of fire control RADAR and any shifts is avoided until just before intercept. Most common way is to use an off boresight, to send the AAM in the direction of the target or have an onboard INS system on the missile.
F14 and AIM-154 had neither.

Radar was already in fire control mode, before firing the missile. The fire control mode was a part of 'track-while-scan' mode, where the radar scans aerospace in front of aircraft while tracking 4 choosen targets. The frequency shift does not happen when a missile is fired, since the radar still tracks the 3 remaining targets and pilot can pick a new target. On-board radar will not damage missile seeker, since the seeker (radar) will go on when close to target (20 nm IIRC). So the missile will lock on after launch.

F-14 was not outfitted with AIM-154.
 
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.
No it wasn't. It had multiple guidance modes, generally relying on in-flight updates from the launch aircraft's RADAR. The on-board RADAR was for terminal guidance and only had a range of about 15km.
 
Zheng He wrote:
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.

Possible of course but frankly the Air Force had good reasons for NOT allowing themselves to be forced into using the F-14. Unlike the F-4 the F-14 wasn't originally an "air superiority' aircraft but a long range "missile" bus for the Phoenix with "some" capability to engage in air-to-air combat. The Air Force wanted and needed an actual air-superiority fighter capable of going into a dogfight with the likes of the Mig-21 at ranges all the way down to guns. Hence while they 'look' similar the F-15 is more maneuverable and agile than the F-14 with better acceleration. The F-18 and F-16 even more so. (Hence the reason a lot of us actual military folks got a lot of laughs out of the F-14s "out-maneuvering" F-5's/Mig-28s and A4s in "Top Gun" since the main "lesson" is actually 'don't get into turning fights with the small fry' which Navy crews found out when facing similar aircraft which were not restricted to following "Soviet" air-to-air doctrine :) )

I also think you're missing several 'butterflies' since the Air Force would have almost immediately found the "BombCat" option as they were desperately trying to avoid buying and operating the A-10. Too late of course but it means that when the initial idea of retiring or transferring the A-10 to the Army comes up in the late 80s it will probably be acted upon rather than resisted as per OTL since the Air Force can override the Army's protests since the "F-14" can be the close support 'bomb-truck' the Army wants while still being a 'fighter' the Air Force wants. Hence when Desert Storm rolls around in 1991 the only "Warthogs" in theater will be OA-10s belonging to the Army and most ground attack will be with F-14 "StrikeCats" :)

Further I'd not be surprised if the whole 'light-weight' fighter program doesn't get a boost in the arm since the Air Force F-14 won't be as capable in close combat as OTL's F-15. So you may see an expansion of the number and types of F-16s the USAF fields up to an possibly including some operational version of the F-16XL.

Michel Van wrote:
the Story how the F-111, F-14 and F-15 and F-16 came to existing is complicated

Understate much? :)

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

The 15 is lighter and more maneuverable and was specifically designed to 'dogfight' whereas the 14 was primarily a 'missile' bus for the Phoenix with some fleet defense capability. The 14 was optimized for BVR engagements whereas the 15 was optimized for medium and short range engagements with some BVR capability.

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

Yep and rapidly concluded that VS wasn't worth the cost or complexity and didn't give any advantages over fixed wings for the parameters required. Which is one reason the Air Force would fight tooth-and-nail being force to use an aircraft that met almost none of the 'criteria' required for its operational planning.

Ak-84 wrote:
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?

1) While the F4 served the USAF well it wasn't 'optimized' for the kind of combat the Air Force planned to fight. Then again it wasn't for the Navy either which is why they wanted the F-14. In the end though they "look" similar the missions and operations of the 14 versus the 15 are significantly different and would not have been met by the use of either in the others role. At best you'd have another "F-4" which does none of the jobs needed well but can in theory at least do them OR you end up with another "F-111" which can't really do ANY of the jobs required and is actually useless to one or both services in the originally planned role. (The "keyword" here is it was supposed to be an "F" not an "FB" for both the Navy and Air Force)

As I pointed out above (as did Michel) the path that lead to the 14/15 was complicated and twisted BUT it was pretty clear to everyone that neither aircraft could be effectively 'shoe-horned' into the role of the other without great compromise and cost. And with the "lesson" of the F-111, (and MacNamera still around to admit it was all a mistake on-record) no one was going to push that kind of outcome again.

2) Pretty much so and in fact to the degree that the "light-weight" (and supposedly lower cost) fighter advocates managed to get a foot in the door which lead to the F-16 and eventually the F-18.

3) Again correct, the F-15 was always supposed to be mid-to-short range 'heavy' air superiority fighter with some long-to-BVR capability. Similarly the F-16 was supposed to be a 'dogfighter' optimized for short-to-mid range combat as there was a 'need' to cover both regimes. If the Air Force is forced to use the F-14 then they will have far fewer of them and more F-16s

About radar and missile "lock-on": Ak-84 actually has the sequence pretty accurate, (as an aside one should take a "pilots" description of operations with a grain of salt they normally are not fully aware of the sequence of events simply because it's not information that they specifically need to know, I've over 15 years as an Air Force Weapons Technician which means I had vastly superior knowledge than the "operators" did because I in fact DID need to know exactly how they worked :) ) and let me state up front NO IR missile does "LOAL" mainly for safety reasons as they cannot distinguish between IR sources well enough to avoid going after a 'friendly' in the acquisition cone once launched. IR missiles are fully autonomous post-launch and therefore a danger to any IR source. (And before anyone thinks they can be 'programed' to ignore "friendly" IR sources it has taken decades to get them to stop chasing the Sun and have some chance of being able to distinguish between a 'flare' and an actual aircraft so, no)

Further air-to-air combat radars have several 'search' and 'combat' modes and these ARE well known despite trying to keep them secret as long as possible. You can in fact have the radar in BOTH search and combat at the same time but it is VERY clear when a radar goes from 'search' to 'lock' and YOU are the target because the pulse-train, pulse repetition frequency and power level are very distinct. (Hence where you get the scene where someone gets a 'lock' tone meaning an enemy is now using concentrated combat radar ON YOU. Note that there is NO such warning for an IR missile due to the obvious fact that IR is a passive system and therefor give off no 'warning' radiation)

Aircraft radar DOES in fact 'dip' in power when a missile is launched. This is to prevent damage to the missile electronics due to high-power microwave interaction/interference/damage issues. (Normally a 'safety zone' is blocked off up to 20 feet in front of an air combat radar during ground testing due to personnel and equipment hazards generated. Needless to say a missile tends to be a LOT closer when it passes into the 'danger' cone) This in fact is one reason that 'hand-off' semi-and-active missile guidance systems were developed so that now one networked fighter aircraft can use another's' 'radar-lock' to fire on so that there is no detectable drop in the radar signal.

(I could never confirm it but my 'other' 5 or so years in the AF were as an AWACS/E3 Sentry Radar Maintenance Technician and during that time several of us discovered that the E3 had mountings and wiring runs for a "Missile Control" system which was not installed. From my 'other' job I could surmise that the E3 could emulate some 'combat' radar signals at further distances and higher power levels therefore possibly allowing data-linked aircraft to use the E3 returns for guidance and control of semi-or-active radar seekers)

The Phoenix, (which was fired by the RO in the rear seat, not the pilot) had several modes with most of the long range shots being launched in the 'general direction' of the target while the F-14 maintained a "target-lock" to track and update the missile near its mid-course-point. This allowed the F-14 to track 6 separate targets and then 'assign' a missile to each as they came within the missile terminal guidance phase and activated their own radar. Shorter range mode would have the missile radar switch on just after launch, (for the same reason the aircraft radar went to reduced power on launch) where it would 'synch' with the target lock of the aircraft tracking the target and then use its own radar to follow the target once locked. It was not actually a "fire-and-forget" missile except in short range engagements where its own radar was activated shorty after launch. In most long range modes it had to receive 'updates' on the target location as between the time of launch and activation of its own seeker the target could have moved outside its possible search cone. (Onboard radar range was "about" 11 miles or 18km)

Randy
 

Ak-84

Banned
I thought until the arrival of AMRAAM’s the perferred USAF tactic post Vietnam was using the AWACS/GCI to get vectors to a visual ID and then use the AIM-9L’s to kill the target. No emissions or tell tale frequency shifts or power dips= unaware target.
 
I thought until the arrival of AMRAAM’s the perferred USAF tactic post Vietnam was using the AWACS/GCI to get vectors to a visual ID and then use the AIM-9L’s to kill the target. No emissions or tell tale frequency shifts or power dips= unaware target.

For the F-4 community yes. Not with the F-15s, even before the AMRAAMs came along, the F-15's radar gave it a viable BVR capability with the new AIM-7Fs.
 
Zheng He wrote:


Possible of course but frankly the Air Force had good reasons for NOT allowing themselves to be forced into using the F-14. Unlike the F-4 the F-14 wasn't originally an "air superiority' aircraft but a long range "missile" bus for the Phoenix with "some" capability to engage in air-to-air combat. The Air Force wanted and needed an actual air-superiority fighter capable of going into a dogfight with the likes of the Mig-21 at ranges all the way down to guns. Hence while they 'look' similar the F-15 is more maneuverable and agile than the F-14 with better acceleration. The F-18 and F-16 even more so. (Hence the reason a lot of us actual military folks got a lot of laughs out of the F-14s "out-maneuvering" F-5's/Mig-28s and A4s in "Top Gun" since the main "lesson" is actually 'don't get into turning fights with the small fry' which Navy crews found out when facing similar aircraft which were not restricted to following "Soviet" air-to-air doctrine :) )

I also think you're missing several 'butterflies' since the Air Force would have almost immediately found the "BombCat" option as they were desperately trying to avoid buying and operating the A-10. Too late of course but it means that when the initial idea of retiring or transferring the A-10 to the Army comes up in the late 80s it will probably be acted upon rather than resisted as per OTL since the Air Force can override the Army's protests since the "F-14" can be the close support 'bomb-truck' the Army wants while still being a 'fighter' the Air Force wants. Hence when Desert Storm rolls around in 1991 the only "Warthogs" in theater will be OA-10s belonging to the Army and most ground attack will be with F-14 "StrikeCats" :)

Further I'd not be surprised if the whole 'light-weight' fighter program doesn't get a boost in the arm since the Air Force F-14 won't be as capable in close combat as OTL's F-15. So you may see an expansion of the number and types of F-16s the USAF fields up to an possibly including some operational version of the F-16XL.

Michel Van wrote:


Understate much? :)



The 15 is lighter and more maneuverable and was specifically designed to 'dogfight' whereas the 14 was primarily a 'missile' bus for the Phoenix with some fleet defense capability. The 14 was optimized for BVR engagements whereas the 15 was optimized for medium and short range engagements with some BVR capability.



Yep and rapidly concluded that VS wasn't worth the cost or complexity and didn't give any advantages over fixed wings for the parameters required. Which is one reason the Air Force would fight tooth-and-nail being force to use an aircraft that met almost none of the 'criteria' required for its operational planning.

Ak-84 wrote:


1) While the F4 served the USAF well it wasn't 'optimized' for the kind of combat the Air Force planned to fight. Then again it wasn't for the Navy either which is why they wanted the F-14. In the end though they "look" similar the missions and operations of the 14 versus the 15 are significantly different and would not have been met by the use of either in the others role. At best you'd have another "F-4" which does none of the jobs needed well but can in theory at least do them OR you end up with another "F-111" which can't really do ANY of the jobs required and is actually useless to one or both services in the originally planned role. (The "keyword" here is it was supposed to be an "F" not an "FB" for both the Navy and Air Force)

As I pointed out above (as did Michel) the path that lead to the 14/15 was complicated and twisted BUT it was pretty clear to everyone that neither aircraft could be effectively 'shoe-horned' into the role of the other without great compromise and cost. And with the "lesson" of the F-111, (and MacNamera still around to admit it was all a mistake on-record) no one was going to push that kind of outcome again.

2) Pretty much so and in fact to the degree that the "light-weight" (and supposedly lower cost) fighter advocates managed to get a foot in the door which lead to the F-16 and eventually the F-18.

3) Again correct, the F-15 was always supposed to be mid-to-short range 'heavy' air superiority fighter with some long-to-BVR capability. Similarly the F-16 was supposed to be a 'dogfighter' optimized for short-to-mid range combat as there was a 'need' to cover both regimes. If the Air Force is forced to use the F-14 then they will have far fewer of them and more F-16s

About radar and missile "lock-on": Ak-84 actually has the sequence pretty accurate, (as an aside one should take a "pilots" description of operations with a grain of salt they normally are not fully aware of the sequence of events simply because it's not information that they specifically need to know, I've over 15 years as an Air Force Weapons Technician which means I had vastly superior knowledge than the "operators" did because I in fact DID need to know exactly how they worked :) ) and let me state up front NO IR missile does "LOAL" mainly for safety reasons as they cannot distinguish between IR sources well enough to avoid going after a 'friendly' in the acquisition cone once launched. IR missiles are fully autonomous post-launch and therefore a danger to any IR source. (And before anyone thinks they can be 'programed' to ignore "friendly" IR sources it has taken decades to get them to stop chasing the Sun and have some chance of being able to distinguish between a 'flare' and an actual aircraft so, no)

Further air-to-air combat radars have several 'search' and 'combat' modes and these ARE well known despite trying to keep them secret as long as possible. You can in fact have the radar in BOTH search and combat at the same time but it is VERY clear when a radar goes from 'search' to 'lock' and YOU are the target because the pulse-train, pulse repetition frequency and power level are very distinct. (Hence where you get the scene where someone gets a 'lock' tone meaning an enemy is now using concentrated combat radar ON YOU. Note that there is NO such warning for an IR missile due to the obvious fact that IR is a passive system and therefor give off no 'warning' radiation)

Aircraft radar DOES in fact 'dip' in power when a missile is launched. This is to prevent damage to the missile electronics due to high-power microwave interaction/interference/damage issues. (Normally a 'safety zone' is blocked off up to 20 feet in front of an air combat radar during ground testing due to personnel and equipment hazards generated. Needless to say a missile tends to be a LOT closer when it passes into the 'danger' cone) This in fact is one reason that 'hand-off' semi-and-active missile guidance systems were developed so that now one networked fighter aircraft can use another's' 'radar-lock' to fire on so that there is no detectable drop in the radar signal.

(I could never confirm it but my 'other' 5 or so years in the AF were as an AWACS/E3 Sentry Radar Maintenance Technician and during that time several of us discovered that the E3 had mountings and wiring runs for a "Missile Control" system which was not installed. From my 'other' job I could surmise that the E3 could emulate some 'combat' radar signals at further distances and higher power levels therefore possibly allowing data-linked aircraft to use the E3 returns for guidance and control of semi-or-active radar seekers)

The Phoenix, (which was fired by the RO in the rear seat, not the pilot) had several modes with most of the long range shots being launched in the 'general direction' of the target while the F-14 maintained a "target-lock" to track and update the missile near its mid-course-point. This allowed the F-14 to track 6 separate targets and then 'assign' a missile to each as they came within the missile terminal guidance phase and activated their own radar. Shorter range mode would have the missile radar switch on just after launch, (for the same reason the aircraft radar went to reduced power on launch) where it would 'synch' with the target lock of the aircraft tracking the target and then use its own radar to follow the target once locked. It was not actually a "fire-and-forget" missile except in short range engagements where its own radar was activated shorty after launch. In most long range modes it had to receive 'updates' on the target location as between the time of launch and activation of its own seeker the target could have moved outside its possible search cone. (Onboard radar range was "about" 11 miles or 18km)

Randy

I understand everything you are saying, my point though is contrive a scenario that forces the F-14 on the Air Force. I doubt it would be too hard. The Nixon administration cut defense spending just about every year so have a hard push for "efficiency and commonality" between the services. Combine that with a scandal - first F-15 prototype crashes on its maiden flight leading to an investigation that uncovers corruption between McDD and the government that gets several McDD executives and a few government employees thrown in jail.

The result is the F-15 program is DOA and the Air Force has to take the F-14 for want of anything better (similar to how they ended up with the F-4). I agree this results in a lot of butterflies, most likely the Air Force pushing for better engines with the Navy being required to take the first batch of F-14s with TF-30s and the USAF getting first dibs on the first models with better engines. I imagine the F-16 program gets pushed even harder by John Boyd and the Fighter Mafia. I doubt the Bombcat replaces the A-10. The Air Force will push for modifications (like better engines) to the F-14 to optimize it for air superiority and there will still be a sign in the program office at Wright Patterson that says "Not a pound for air to ground" (this was in the OTL F-15 program office).

Interesting thought about the F-16E (F-16XL) winning out over the F-14E in the 1980s.

Again, I am aware of what the USAF was looking for in the F-15 and why the F-14 is not the same, I am suggesting for the purposes of this thread that is looking for a way to get a bit of a Tomcat Wank, find a way to have the USAF end up with the F-14 and the simplest way to do that is to kill the F-15 in the cradle. That leads to the USAF getting the F-14 and the F-15's export customers getting it as well.
 
I still haven't fixed this for my TL, despite a number of attempts. POD starts having dramatic effects in 1991, but smaller changes can show up a bit earlier. The main idea is that DoD goes for a Zumwalt-esque high-low mix of capabilities instead of trying to get Reagan defense programs on a Clinton budget.

When it comes to Navy carrier air wings, we have two F18 squadrons, two F14 squadrons, and one A6E squadron. For replacing our aging long-range airframes, we have a few options.

1) A-12 Flying Dorito. Probably DOA even without Cheney as SECDEF.
2) A-6F. Very good long range strike aircraft. Less useful as an interceptor/fighter. Navy might be leery of spending money on a marginally improved 1960's aircraft.
3) F-14 upgrade package. This can replace both the A-6 and the F-14. From there we can:
3a) Go hog wild on improved F-14s. Probably not going to happen, this isn't much cheaper than a whole new airframe.
3b) Hold out for the NATF and hope it doesn't get screwed up. (http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/04/natf-better-is-enemy-of-good-enough.html)
4) F-18E/F. Even though it's an all-new aircraft, you can sneak it by Congress as an "upgrade". Cheaper than any alternative other than simple upgrades to the F-14 or A-6, and will last longer as it's a new build, which is handy if you know the NATF is never coming. The huge problem is that its range is significantly less than the F14 and A6 were and it seriously degrades the threat bubble of your carrier.

OTL they went for 4. I'm thinking 3b would be best in my TL, assuming NATF can start flying by 2010, which is...generous, and would also mean the Navy would just get new-build slightly upgraded Hornets instead of F-35s.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I still haven't fixed this for my TL, despite a number of attempts. POD starts having dramatic effects in 1991, but smaller changes can show up a bit earlier. The main idea is that DoD goes for a Zumwalt-esque high-low mix of capabilities instead of trying to get Reagan defense programs on a Clinton budget.

When it comes to Navy carrier air wings, we have two F18 squadrons, two F14 squadrons, and one A6E squadron. For replacing our aging long-range airframes, we have a few options.

1) A-12 Flying Dorito. Probably DOA even without Cheney as SECDEF.
2) A-6F. Very good long range strike aircraft. Less useful as an interceptor/fighter. Navy might be leery of spending money on a marginally improved 1960's aircraft.
3) F-14 upgrade package. This can replace both the A-6 and the F-14. From there we can:
3a) Go hog wild on improved F-14s. Probably not going to happen, this isn't much cheaper than a whole new airframe.
3b) Hold out for the NATF and hope it doesn't get screwed up. (http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/04/natf-better-is-enemy-of-good-enough.html)
4) F-18E/F. Even though it's an all-new aircraft, you can sneak it by Congress as an "upgrade". Cheaper than any alternative other than simple upgrades to the F-14 or A-6, and will last longer as it's a new build, which is handy if you know the NATF is never coming. The huge problem is that its range is significantly less than the F14 and A6 were and it seriously degrades the threat bubble of your carrier.

OTL they went for 4. I'm thinking 3b would be best in my TL, assuming NATF can start flying by 2010, which is...generous, and would also mean the Navy would just get new-build slightly upgraded Hornets instead of F-35s.
I could see this going either way tbh. But to me, there's a couple things that I think would push the Navy to the Super Tomcat. One: the airframe itself is more capable than every other option by orders of magnitude (excluding NATF). Two: the Navy REALLY hated giving up the range that the Intruder and Tomcat had, but didn't have a whole lot of options. Three: The Super Tomcat can replace the F-14, F-18, A-6, EA-6 and KA-6 in the carrier airwings and do all those jobs every bit as well as the aircraft it's replacing (unlike the Rhino, which is very much a Jack of all Trades, Master of None type design). And finally, the Navy just had one brand new aircraft go completely to shit on them in the form of the A-12. I don't see them willing to gamble on the NATF being smooth sailing at this point.

One last thing, even though I mentioned that the Tomcat can replace the Hornet in the airwing, I don't think it would. At least not right away. The Navy would keep the Hornets as long as possible while developing the NATF as a cost saving measure. Super Tomcats would only replace the Hornet squadrons as it became clear the NATF was going to be severely delayed or cancelled.
 
Top