F-14A Avionics

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
What's the reason for the rear seat crew position? What can the F-14a do with the human capability that the F-15A cannot without?

The way I see, they are similar roles by different names: Fleet Defense vs Air Superiority....minus the AIM-54 Phoenix capability.
 
In the Navy the Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) sits in the back. I knew a few but couldn't tell you what they did, something with Navigation, weapon systems and errr Radars. Favorite aircraft but it's retired now.

F-15s are Air Force so that explains the similar roles and different names. My cousins kid flies the F15e and loves it.
 
DC-10, 727, EA-6B, 777, it's all about automation. The FE position is mostly become obsolete. The GPS, FMC, and automation has taken over. What was once done by the human is done by electronics now. Stand by for pilot-less airplanes, it's on the way.
 
RIO worked a lot of the radios allowing the pilot to concentrate on flying. Had another set of eyes looking for traffic. Crew coordination with checklist items (wing sweep, gear, etc). Obviously worked the radar and locked up aircraft. If you remember the 1989 Mig-23 shootdown the pilot was telling his RIO to "lock him up" because he couldn't get a tone on the AIM-9.
 
Jaybird180 said:
What's the reason for the rear seat crew position? What can the F-14a do with the human capability that the F-15A cannot without?

The way I see, they are similar roles by different names: Fleet Defense vs Air Superiority....minus the AIM-54 Phoenix capability.
Click to expand...

Except it's not. The F-15 was always designed for a narrower role than the F-14.

The F-15's mission was straightforward dogfighting- go in, swat this particular airframe out of the sky, return.

The F-14 and the cancelled F6D had the defense mission- go out 200NM+, monitor this large section of sky, find out if anybody's where they shouldn't be, engage at long range, then rush in and dogfight at close range if needed. Easy enough for one person to handle today, not so much in the 1960s. In fact, the tremendous MX just for the various systems needed to do all that is a major reason the F-14 was retired.
 
Jaybird180 said:
What's the reason for the rear seat crew position? What can the F-14a do with the human capability that the F-15A cannot without?
Click to expand...

Probably similar reasons as to why the Air Force bought a couple of hundred two seat F-15E's and the Navy bought a couple of hundred two seat F-18's.

To replace F-15A and F-18A models.
 
Last edited:
warthog1984 said:
Except it's not. The F-15 was always designed for a narrower role than the F-14.

The F-15's mission was straightforward dogfighting- go in, swat this particular airframe out of the sky, return.

The F-14 and the cancelled F6D had the defense mission- go out 200NM+, monitor this large section of sky, find out if anybody's where they shouldn't be, engage at long range, then rush in and dogfight at close range if needed. Easy enough for one person to handle today, not so much in the 1960s. In fact, the tremendous MX just for the various systems needed to do all that is a major reason the F-14 was retired.
Click to expand...

The F-15 can loiter in a section and wait for targets to appear. It can also see BVR and at the time it's radar had better capability than the Tomcat. What I don't get is why not upgrade the Tomcat with the Eagle's systems unless it was just corporate and inter-service rivalry that prevented it. The Eagle was all around a superior aircraft.

The only thing the Tomcat could do exclusively was support the Phoenix missile, and that was likely systems interoperability issues, not to mention the weight of that sucker.
 
JimNtexas said:
Probably similar reasons as to why the Air Force bought a couple of hundred two seat F-15E's and the Navy bought a couple of hundred two seat F-18's.

To replace F-15A and F-18A models.
Click to expand...

Strike Eagle had A-G capabilities over F-15C and F-18E/F was a new airplane altogether. Prior two seaters offered nothing new in terms of avionics capability.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Prior two seaters offered nothing new in terms of avionics capability.
Click to expand...

Except as I pointed out earlier, the reason for the second seat wasn't additional capabilities of the avionics, but rather the workload required to use those avionics and fight the plane at the same time in the short- and long-range defense missions.
 
I was hoping a squid would jump in, but here is what I know about the OP's question.

The F-14A could track six targets at once, the F-15A only one. The F-14A radar was more complex, and the object it defended had extreme value.

I'm pretty sure the F-14A had a data link to talk to the ships and other F-14s, which the F-15A could not do.

The F-15A was a great airplane, but it had a simpler mission (dog fighting) and hence a simpler radar.
 
Jumping, as requested, with a dumbed down version of my perspective:

F-14A: reach out and touch someone. Or six someones, large in size, at the extreme edge of the defense zone. Built around the Phoenix missile system. Adequate at fighting smaller, closer opponents, depending on the pilot's skill. Adapted and improvised later in life to remain relevant in later versions, slingin' bombs as good as any A-7 driver.

F-15A: front line fighter, could travel great distances and employ a relatively short reach at the time using Sparrows and Sidewinders against all enemies large or small. Expanded their reach once Amraams came around, adapted and improvised a bit, but to be honest not sure the -A saw any of that. I will leave that info to the Golf Course Warriors. :)
 
Last edited:
The Eagle radar (even the A) could always see as far or further than the -14. The Eagle was the first fighter to have a true HOTAS function for the radar. FWIU, the 14 took a lot more work to run the radar than the Eagle did/does.

The Eagle was not designed for dog fighting as several have mentioned (even though it's good at it). It was designed to go after long range Soviet bombers - which is why is has such a big, badass radar.

All 104 Eagle kills are with the original radar (A's and C's both started with the same APG-63V0 radar).

The two seat Eagles were never meant to replace the single seat - different airplane, different mission. They do about 80% A/G, where as we do 100% A/A.
 
Jaybird180 said:
The F-15 can loiter in a section and wait for targets to appear. It can also see BVR and at the time it's radar had better capability than the Tomcat. What I don't get is why not upgrade the Tomcat with the Eagle's systems unless it was just corporate and inter-service rivalry that prevented it. The Eagle was all around a superior aircraft.

The only thing the Tomcat could do exclusively was support the Phoenix missile, and that was likely systems interoperability issues, not to mention the weight of that sucker.
Click to expand...

The Tomcat started out life supporting the AIM-54 but it became much more than a long range shooter. It's TARPS capability was used heavily in the Gulf. Of course it became the "Bombcat" in the 90s as well with the LANTIRN pod.

Only real experience I can tell you about the Tomcat was the AWG-9 radar would cause interference in our PAR. Always had to tell them to turn it off during approaches.
 
It can also see BVR and at the time it's radar had better capability than the Tomcat.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. The F-15 certainly could not engage six targets simultaneously, as the F-14A could.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'see BVR'. The F-15A never had any sort of IR or optical sensor. I know some F-14s had an IR sensor, but I'm not sure which ones or if it worked at all.

The F-111 had an IR sensor in the tail for a while, but all it was good for was telling the crew that the sun had risen.

The F-4E could argue that it had better BVR than the F-15A, because both airplanes had radars that could detect targets beyond of line of sight, but the F-4E had wing root mounted camera (TSIEO) that let the crew visually identify the target. To be fair, the F-15A did have some cool tricks up its sleeve that kind of made up for the lack of a visual ID system.

I know for a fact that the F-4E camera could detect a crewmember engaged in self gratification in the mobile control van at Clark AB! :rofl:
 
Jaybird180 said:
The F-15 can loiter in a section and wait for targets to appear. It can also see BVR and at the time it's radar had better capability than the Tomcat. What I don't get is why not upgrade the Tomcat with the Eagle's systems unless it was just corporate and inter-service rivalry that prevented it. The Eagle was all around a superior aircraft.



The only thing the Tomcat could do exclusively was support the Phoenix missile, and that was likely systems interoperability issues, not to mention the weight of that sucker.
Click to expand...


A few traps and an Eagle would have been scrap metal. There was a specific number of trap cycles the F-14 had to meet and Grumman beefed up the gear considerably to meet it. The Air Force didn't want the extra weight penalty associated with that. Ironically the Navy wanted out of the F-111 joint project for the same reason.

The AF also got, the P&W F-100 in the F-15. The teething pains of that engine weren't particularly nice. The Navy bailed back to the TF30 which wasn't great either, and then jumped to the GE F-110 which the AF put in the F-16.

"All around superior aircraft" really isn't accurate. They both had positives and negatives. Both worked out engine problems for years, and neither was that good of a fit for the other branch's missions even though they both sprang from the joint F-111 project.
 
These threads always remind me of two kids arguing over who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. Two different missions, two different CONOPS, two different services, two different airplanes.

Nauga,
shedding pounds and parts at the merge
 
denverpilot said:
A few traps and an Eagle would have been scrap metal. There was a specific number of trap cycles the F-14 had to meet and Grumman beefed up the gear considerably to meet it. The Air Force didn't want the extra weight penalty associated with that. Ironically the Navy wanted out of the F-111 joint project for the same reason.
Click to expand...

All lessons not well learned on the F-35...thank you, Congress...
 
nauga said:
These threads always remind me of two kids arguing over who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. Two different missions, two different CONOPS, two different services, two different airplanes.

Nauga,
shedding pounds and parts at the merge
Click to expand...


Haven't seen anyone arguing. Are you reading in emotion that isn't there? :)
 
nauga said:
These threads always remind me of two kids arguing over who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. Two different missions, two different CONOPS, two different services, two different airplanes.
Click to expand...

That's what the OP didn't get: Air-to-Air is not a single role, and even though capabilities of the basic airframes are similar, the roles they were meant for are very different. Hence why the dedicated RIO vs single-pilot OPS.

Also overlooking the fact that the F-14 was in design/development and service earlier as an outgrowth of a previous design once the F-111B took out VADM Connolly.
 
JimNtexas said:
I'm pretty sure the F-14A had a data link to talk to the ships and other F-14s, which the F-15A could not do.
Click to expand...


I don't recall the Tomcat having Link-11 (later called TADL-A, iirc) but it did have Link-4 (TADL-B or I may have those reversed as the TADL designations were implemented after my time) but we (E-2 Hawkeye) could control intercepts with the Tomcat "coupled" via Link-4, from displaying intercept and bogey data to the RIO, all the way to hands off intercept via autopilot.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
A few traps and an Eagle would have been scrap metal. There was a specific number of trap cycles the F-14 had to meet and Grumman beefed up the gear considerably to meet it. The Air Force didn't want the extra weight penalty associated with that. Ironically the Navy wanted out of the F-111 joint project for the same reason.

The AF also got, the P&W F-100 in the F-15. The teething pains of that engine weren't particularly nice. The Navy bailed back to the TF30 which wasn't great either, and then jumped to the GE F-110 which the AF put in the F-16.

"All around superior aircraft" really isn't accurate. They both had positives and negatives. Both worked out engine problems for years, and neither was that good of a fit for the other branch's missions even though they both sprang from the joint F-111 project.
Click to expand...

:yes: See also: Boyd by Robert Coram. Great detail over the DoD procurement process and historical problems (F-35 I am looking at you)!
 

Attachments

  • Boyd.bmp
    235.2 KB · Views: 8
What can the F-14A do that an F-15A can't?

Fire 6 AIM-54 Phoenix simultaneously at six separate targets 100nm distant and get an 80% kill rate against them, while tracking 24 total targets.

That is its claim to fame. The F-15 is more of a real maneuvering dogfighter (but still with good medium range capability with the Sparrow/AMRAAM), the F-14 works better as a longer range interceptor that can do okay in a maneuvering fight if it has to.
 
Last edited:
besides the obvious "one can land back on the carrier and one cannot" ... :D
(but it's not the avionics in that distinction)
 
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth I was in the back seat of an 90FS F-4G in an exercise called 'Cope Thunder', then held in the Phillipines.

On one day we had F-14's as 'Red Air'. I remember mixing it up with them. The F-14 had a clear vertical power advantage over us, but it wasn't overwhelming. They are big planes, and the white bellies they had made them easy to see. They didn't seem to be able to turn in the horizontal much better than us.

On the other hand most of the EWOs in the 90FS had been in the 67FS until that squadron transitioned to F-15A's. So of course we sometimes tried to spar with our old Fighting Cock friends whenever the opportunity arose.

In the F-4 if we were low and the F-15A's were high and coming straight at us we had a shot. If the F-4 was co-altitude with the F-15 would lock on to us before we could lock on to him. We were all firing Aim-7's, so really the guy who shot first had an advantage.

But once we took that lookup shot it was over. We were dead, dead, dead in the F-4. There was nothing we could do after the merge other than run away as fast we could and rely on the generally craptastic AIM-7 of the day to miss us, and after the F-15's AIM-7 missed our only hope was that the F-15A hit bingo fuel before he could run us down and kill us with an AIM-9 or gun.

Of course being Weasels, we never ran away from anything, so we would turn in to the F-15 and die tensed up as he came in for a gun kill before we could get our nose anywhere close to pointed at him.

If I were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and the commie hordes were coming after me I'd hope that I had F-14's to defend me. On a boat I'm not worried about an air-to-air fighter very much, these types of airplanes are mostly harmless if you are not in another airplane.

If F-15's were defending my boat that would be a lot better than nothing, but I'd still be pretty worried, since the F-15A could be overwhelmed pretty easily by numbers.

The F-14's ability to closely cooperate with other F-14's, boats, and Hawkeyes to engage multiple targets a once would give me a warm and fuzzy feeling if I were silly enough to be on a boat in a war.

OTH if I was in an F-4G or an EF-111 I darn sure would be overjoyed to have some F-15's in the neighborhood. The Weasel and Raven together could handle the surface to air threats (the things that do most of the kill'n).

But if Ivan in his Su-27 was prowling about I'd be really glad to let the Eagle driver, that guy with the huge head that barely fits into his bubble canopy, take care of Ivan for me!
 
Anyone ever seen a Tomkitty engage 6 targets at once? Hell, how about 3? How many aim-54's were fired successfully at a WSEP type event?

There's a HUGE difference between what the boom says it'll do and what actually happens. I only fought 14's a few times before they retired them but the all-high-PRF in the Aug-9 is a huge limfac if any enemy understands the most basic radar premises.

I never flew a 14 nor an Eagle in it's very original config, but I know a few who have and i never met one who wouldn't have taken the Eagle if they had the choice.
 
EvilEagle said:
I never flew a 14 nor an Eagle in it's very original config, but I know a few who have and i never met one who wouldn't have taken the Eagle if they had the choice.
Click to expand...
History tells us which airplane won the persistence battle, but if you met your buds in '74 or so and included blue water ops and looong-range defense of the battle group in your mission you might get a different answer. These are just a few of the factors that led to two seats out of the trade studies, which is what the OP asked about.

We can play who's got the bigger stick all day but in the end neither airplane nor their weapons system could perform the other's original design mission as well as the other.

Nauga,
who thinks Aquaman would win
 
nauga said:
We can play who's got the bigger stick all day but in the end neither airplane nor their weapons system could perform the other's original design mission as well as the other.

Nauga,
who thinks Aquaman would win
Click to expand...

Thus the Hornet, beyatch.

And Namor, FTW. Beers on me.

Cat
 
EvilEagle said:
Anyone ever seen a Tomkitty engage 6 targets at once? Hell, how about 3? How many aim-54's were fired successfully at a WSEP type event?

There's a HUGE difference between what the boom says it'll do and what actually happens. I only fought 14's a few times before they retired them but the all-high-PRF in the Aug-9 is a huge limfac if any enemy understands the most basic radar premises.

I never flew a 14 nor an Eagle in it's very original config, but I know a few who have and i never met one who wouldn't have taken the Eagle if they had the choice.
Click to expand...

The F-14/AIM-54 combo has engaged 6 targets and shot down 4 at extreme range DEMVALs.

As far as the AWG-9 being limiting or the electronics on the -15A being more advanced: no $h!@, Sherlock.

The AWG-9, AIM-54, and utterly anemic TF-30 all came off the shelf from other projects after they were canceled. The F-15 didn't even achieve first flight until after the F-14 was in low-rate production testing. When the F-14A was slamming into flight decks during the fall of Saigon, the F-15 was still in development

If you took all the advances in electronics and cockpit design that came in with the F-15B in 1976, but after the F-14A, you'd get something that looked like the F/A-18.

But with the tech available at the time the F-111B was cancelled, the best way to manage the long-range Air-to-Air and missile defense mission was to stick a dedicated person in the back of the cockpit to manage the electronics.

Remember, the F-14 wasn't a planned start-to-finish program as much as it was a reaction to the F-4's flaws and the shortcomings of the F-111. It was simply the best fit for the mission at hand, with the resources available, that could be ready when it was needed.
 
Last edited:
warthog1984 said:
The F-14/AIM-54 combo has engaged 6 targets and shot down 4 at extreme range DEMVALs.

As far as the AWG-9 being limiting or the electronics on the -15A being more advanced: no $h!@, Sherlock.

The AWG-9, AIM-54, and utterly anemic TF-30 all came off the shelf from other projects after they were canceled. The F-15 didn't even achieve first flight until after the F-14 was in low-rate production testing. When the F-14A was slamming into flight decks during the fall of Saigon, the F-15 was still in development

If you took all the advances in electronics and cockpit design that came in with the F-15B in 1976, but after the F-14A, you'd get something that looked like the F/A-18.

But with the tech available at the time the F-111B was cancelled, the best way to manage the long-range Air-to-Air and missile defense mission was to stick a dedicated person in the back of the cockpit to manage the electronics.

Remember, the F-14 wasn't a planned start-to-finish program as much as it was a reaction to the F-4's flaws and the shortcomings of the F-111. It was simply the best fit for the mission at hand, with the resources available, that could be ready when it was needed.
Click to expand...
And now we get to where I was trying to go:

Why didn't the Super Tomcat live long enough to get some return on the investment? It was a mature airframe with digital computers and avionics and newer engines, but was simply a stop gap until the Super Hornet was ready...unless that story about Cheney hating on Grumman is true...
 
Jaybird180 said:
And now we get to where I was trying to go:

Why didn't the Super Tomcat live long enough to get some return on the investment? It was a mature airframe with digital computers and avionics and newer engines, but was simply a stop gap until the Super Hornet was ready...unless that story about Cheney hating on Grumman is true...
Click to expand...

Nope. The F-14D was what the F-14A should have been at the start. The ASF-14 could have been in development at the same time as the Super Hornet and would have been the definitive naval fighter jet.

BUT, the F-14 is a larger, thirstier jet than the F/A-18 with 2 expensive aircrew and would not have required the manufacturing of a totally new airframe. After the out-of-control spending in the 1980's and the A-12 debacle, official Washington wasn't going to pay for a "fighter" when McDonnell Douglas was promising a cheaper "multi-role" plane that looked more modern and spread more jobs around. Remember, at the time the ASF-14 was proposed, there were still F-14A+ (re-engined but otherwise original 1974-spec) planes in service.

I also cannot totally discount the bureaucrats wanting payback for Tomcat Connolly's cheek in objecting to the "joint" F-111 project.
 
If you really want some information, look up AIMVAL/ACEVAL. F-15 v F-14, Weapons v Weapons

Cheers
 
denverpilot said:
Huh. I hear an echo in this thread. ;) Does anyone else hear that? ;)
Click to expand...

and that's what happens when browsing/posting from the iphone ... did not see your post ... so ... is it still an echo if I didn't hear the prior shout? :D
 
Jaybird180 said:
If I really wanted this type of information, would I post online to PoA:D
Click to expand...

Well any self respecting F-14 fan has the VHS and DVD documentary on AIMVAL / ACEVAL. :D

To summarize, the F-14s essentially kicked butt. Of course there's the famous picture if Joe "Hoser" Satrapa's HUD of an F-15's canopy square in the cross hairs.

I think the F-14 vs F-15 is an apples to oranges comparison. Both had teething pains early on but both turned out to be outstanding fighters. Unless you can somehow tally up all the simulated engagements between the two, there's no way of telling which is a better aircraft. Of course the F-15s actual combat record speaks for itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top