F-14 Tomcat: Everyones Favourite Fighter?

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is my personal favourite fighter of all time, Not only just me but billions of other people find it a personal favourite too.

As it is the year 2006, The Tomcat is sadly being replaced by the
F/A-18EF 'super' hornet which pilots(Obviously former F-14 Pilots) say is not so super as was meant to be.

Even though the Tomcat is being replaced, It will always be a true legend and will always be remembered.

It is also the hottest fighter ever to exist, Not only it has great air performances but it is a pure turn on too!

The F-14 was mainly designed to carry the Phoenix Missile, and act as an interceptor for Russian long range bombers carrying nukes. It got it's fame from the Movie "Top Gun". It's size makes it a less then stellar Fighter Jet which was quickly eclipsed by the USAF F-15 in performance and abilites. As the Role of the US miltary changes after the cold war, so to must it's aircraft

The F-14's capabilities is only eclipsed by those who chose not to accept it.

Shattered OUT...

you guys have to thank IRIAF for making it even more famous and knocking down all of the mig fighters and i mean each and every one of them, french fighters were included as well.




[edit on 6-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Mehran]

I really don't see it with the F-14. Nothing special in my books. Spitfire is classier, Flanker way cooler (and a better combat record...) etc.

That pic of the Iranian F-14 reminds me that in 1981 it was proposed that the RAF buy the F-14's from Iran (who were looking to sell at the time due to the USA cutting off spares and support) along with their Phoenix missiles (plus new ones) which would also be integrated into the Tornado F.3.

This was meant as a stopgap force multiplier until the Eurofighter came into service, which would have meant them still flying today if it had happened. Just picture F-14's in the colours of 56 and 74 Sqns

[edit on 7-3-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
This was meant as a stopgap force multiplier until the Eurofighter came into service, which would have meant them still flying today if it had happened. Just picture F-14's in the colours of 56 and 74 Sqns

[edit on 7-3-2006 by waynos]

And could you imagine how many RAF pilots would be sitting the cockpit thinking thier tomcruise lol, would the sqdrns callsign be "maverick"?

I dont know if this true but I watching a show last night on the Sr-71. One of the people that worked on the SR-71 stated

The SR-71 had a RCS that is 100 times smaller than F-14 even though it was twice as big and developed years before the F-14

If thats true why didnt they incorporate more about what they knew of stealth into the F-14 design.

Was it a cost factor?

Did the people behind the F-14 have no clue of the stealth advancements of the SR-71?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont know if this true but I watching a show last night on the Sr-71. One of the people that worked on the SR-71 stated

The SR-71 had a RCS that is 100 times smaller than F-14 even though it was twice as big and developed years before the F-14

If thats true why didnt they incorporate more about what they knew of stealth into the F-14 design.

Was it a cost factor?

Did the people behind the F-14 have no clue of the stealth advancements of the SR-71?

There is possibly some truth to the claim - the SR-71 is generally agreed to incorporate some low-observable technology, particulatly in the blended chine/wing roots, inward canted tail fins etc. BUT, there is no doubt that the Soviets did routinely detect it at long range using their radars - SR-71 missions were typicaly flown in international waters and would be 'met' by Mig-25 and Mig-23/Su-15 fighters, particularly over the Baltic (whether the Russian fighters wetre ever in a position to shoot the Blackbird down are subject to much debate though). So the SR-71 wasn't STEALTH in the way we think about it.

And remember that the SR-71 was flown 'clean' without weappons - the weapon carrying version almost certainly had a far greater RCS, as would the version with the drone on top of the fuselage.

However, it does seem likely that the designers at Grumman did not know very much at all about the SR-71 design or low-observable technology. Same with McDonald Douglas when they designed the F-15 etc.

Surely all claims about the SR-71 being in any way stealthy are rubbish aren't they?

I understood the SR-71 to have one of the biggest radar signatures ever? All those sharp edges, titanium structure with no RAM whatsoever and those massive engines meant that on its record run in 1974 the RAF tracked it all the way across the Atlantic. If the Blackbird was stealthy what was the big deal about the F-117 a decade and a half later

The Blackbird was designed with two objectives in mind, to go very high and to go very fast.

The stealth design of the F-117 is so compromised it can barely fly and carries a feeble load anyway. Only with the F-22 has the needs of stealth been reconciled with the requirements for supersonic performance ( and only mach 2 at that).

Stealthy my arse


[edit on 7-3-2006 by waynos]

[edit on 7-3-2006 by waynos]

To an extent I agree, but there is plenty of claims that the Blackbird was one of the first aircraft to deliberately incorporate 'stealth' technology. For example, Lockheed were almost overlooked for the Airforce requirement for building a stealth fighter (became F-117) because they weren't thought of as being 'current' on fighters -the blackbird was a CIA project so the airforce knew little about it (so the tory goes).

The stealth aspects of the Blackbird would be down to the blended lines and inward canted tail surfaces. but I agree, if the stealth claims are true, then it wasn't very successful in that regard.

They said the SR-71 did infact use RAM. Radar absorbing paint (which is why it was black)an RAM (Radar Absorbent plastic) along the leading edge. And that the SR-71 was created in part to be stealthy shape. The flat bottom and inward sloping tail fins and such

Im not a expert but thats what they were saying on the show.

Its clear the SR-71 was tracked on radar all stealth planes can be if they get close enough to a radar station. The stealth does however cut down the effective range of the radar.

In the case of the SR-71 it was going so fast and so high and had a reduced RCS that by the time it was detected their wasnt much they could do, and when they did get a missile off the would simply speed up a few hundred knots and they were pretty much untouchable.

A lot of these 'stealth' claims have been retrospectively applied to the Blackbird by people basically looking at it and drawing their own conclusions. If there was any stealth design applied to the aircraft then it failed utterly because my mate has tracked it on radar for the RAF many times and it is the one of the easiest planes to track, only the B-52 is easier (apart from transports and the like). At least that is what he tells me. he says its as hard to see as a flare at midnight, lol. He is not given to gratuitous slating either, as he put it "seeing it coming is one thing, easy peasy, doing something about it is another matter".

As I said ,high and fast. It is obvious that the performance parameters of the SR-71 are incompatible with stealth technology, and they CERTAINLY were in 1959! Again, look at the F-117 - that was designed for stealth in the 1970's.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by waynos]

Shadow, your source is consistant with much of the Tv I've seen which claims that the SR-71 was stealth.

However, Waynos is right re it being easy to track on radar - the Russians saw it a mile off over the Baltic and nearly always scramble to shooting positions (at least the Mig-25s) in time for its arrival.

One common relationship often mentioned is that Lockheed had such a good understanding of stealth (Have Blue etc) BECAUSE of their SR-71 experience.

Now that I can believe, learning about stealth through experience of the Blackbird is perfectly feasible, they certainly knew that reducing RCS was beneficial and would have poured lots of resources into this but the Blackbird was the wrong plane to benefit from it at the time.

Originally posted by waynos
A lot of these 'stealth' claims have been retrospectively applied to the Blackbird by people basically looking at it and drawing their own conclusions.]

These were the claims of the people that built the blackbird

If it comes down to your radar buddy or members of the Skunk works team that built the plane Im going to have to side with the builders.

yeah, the claims often come from Lockheed's direction. Sales pitch maybe, but I doubt they'd outright lie.

The F14 is a beatifull aircraft and the best fighter bomber the navy has at least if they kept on upgrading it. Im sure the tomcat 21 would be a better plane than the super hornet. The tomcats only disadvantage was its old airframe and slow rate of roll. All other things were good. It could turn at 20 degrees a second and good fly fast with TF30's which were not great engines. It could carry a large payload. Theres no better fighter bomber equipment than this. 2 or 4 sidewinders, 2 or 4 phoenix's and 2 lgb's

Thats your prerogative shadow You have never met me or my buddy so I can only offer words on a messageboard.

But seriously, look at it and think, if THAT is stealthy why was so much effort expended on the B-2, F-22 etc. and why do they not share any of its design features? How stealthy can a plane be with the worlds biggest afterburning engines placed right out on the wings? I'll say no more, unless asked

They never said it was stealth just it had stealth aspects. RAM paint and plastic the chines in the shape ( radar engineers convinced the aerodynamicists to add those) and such helped reduce the RCS from what the plane would have had otherwise.

RAM is still used on stealth planes as long as Chines on many of the newest stealth UAVs, such as the RQ-3 Dark Star, Bird of Prey, X-45, and X-47, etc..

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]