Was the F14 really that great, or did it just have the best PR?

Jim K

Jim K

360 For Spacing
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
8,141
Location
Limbo
Display Name
Richard Digits
Home Airfield
KCMI
I'm too young to really remember the Tomcat. I was four when Top Gun came out. Of course, I eventually developed a love for them from the movie, as well as the toy I had as a kid. That swinging wing was the coolest thing of all time. I wasn't paying enough attention to aviation in high school and college as they were winding down. I really wish I could've seen one fly, but c'est la vie.

So now that the last couple airworthy examples are finally being forcibly retired, it made me think, "was it really the coolest fighter of all time, or did it just have the best movie?". Would the F14 live in our collective consciousness if not for Top Gun? Those of you who were there, was it that dominant? I don't think there's any argument about the cool factor; I'm just wondering if it was as great as we remember, or is it just "good old days" thinking?

Interesting the the F15 is nearly as old, but keeps getting updated. As I understand maintenance is what really killed the Tomcat?
 
I recall speaking to a guy who used to be a Tomcat driver back in the day. He said that he absolutely loved the bird, but that it felt like coming back to drive a dump-truck after flying the F-16 as OPFOR at TOPGUN for a while. He also nearly crashed it putting on a private airshow for a family BBQ by putting the wings manually full-back for the fashion statement and forgetting to put it back into automatic mode as he went behind a hill, nearly stalling it in the process.

IIRC, it was really designed for a very specific mission of CVN defense: to go very fast and intercept Russian bombers who were heading to the group, with big fat Phoenix missiles to drive the point home if necessary. Probably fantastic for that. The actual fighter guys here can doubtless more knowledgeably discourse on how badly it would get chewed up in a maneuvering fight.

I think that "great" is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly it has some of the prettiest lines of a fighter. I've flown in the F/A-18 Super Hornet a handful of times (and its variant, the E/A-18G Growler). Great plane, but I don't think it has the deck presence of the F-14. In some ways, it's like how the Hawker Hurricane should be the hero of the Battle of Britain, but it just doesn't have the sexy lines of the Spitfire.
 
From all my fellow alums that flew, from family that used to work on them, to everything I've read about the Tomcat, it was very capable across all spectrums, especially given its original mission. Bit of a maintenance hog, but still loved by all those who came in contact with the bird. It particularly was on point with the 'D' model with the bigger stronger engines, upgraded WS, and load out. If you look at its history, from initial fleet defense, to TARPS, to the Bombcats, it has been an incredibly versatile aircraft. One of its significant strengths was the two person team sitting up front. Having that work load shared, really gave it breadth that was remarkable. I often wonder, had the F-14 been given the production run like the F-15, where they continued to refine, update, refine, and update, imagine how capable it would have been today?

And in spirit of killing the F-14....Screw You Dick Cheney!
 
The F-14 was (in my opinion) one of the best looking airplanes of all time. The sleek, flowing lines made it look alive.

And it had the Phoenix missile system, good for its intended purpose (taking out bombers at long range), which made it look even better.

I think the looks and size would make it stand out and be remembered even if Top Gun didn't exist.

Compare that with the F-15. It just doesn't have sleek, flowing lines. It's just a big plane.
 
Back in the day, I was in the F—15 USAF Program office when there was an evaluation of the F-15 and F-14 called AIMVAL/ACEVAL. Basically it was to see if cheap fighters like the F-5 with heat seeking missiles could defeat bigger fighters, 15, 14. Answer, which was obvious from the start, was yes IF the 15 and 14 had to close within visual range and not use their radars and long range missiles.

In this scenario, The 14 outdid the 15 because it had a TV system call TIZIO that allowed longer range ID than 15’s Mark 1 eyeball. So the 15 guys went and bought rifle scopes and jury rigged cockpit mounts that evened the score.

The F-14 suffered the ignominy of the TF30 causing all kinds of problems but later versions with the F110 engine were vast improvements. The F-15 had similar problems but not as limiting with the F100 engine, again solved with later versions.

What killed the F-14 was the ever increasing maintenance costs but as a Fleet Defense asset, unbeatable. The F-15 got a pretty good Foreign Sales operation that the F-14 never did except to Iran which helped keep the line open for later USAF Variants.

All that said, I still prefer my rides as a pseudo RIO in the F-14 to the Eagle or Aardvark.IMG_1734.jpeg
 
X3 Skier said:
The F-14 suffered the ignominy of the TF30 causing all kinds of problems but later versions with the F110 engine were vast improvements....

What killed the F-14 was the ever increasing maintenance costs but as a Fleet Defense asset, unbeatable...
Click to expand...
Those two points, right there. The TF30 was not originally intended to be the long-term solution but it unfortunately didn't turn out that way. The A to D upgrade did a lot for the airplane and the digital flight control upgrade was a hay-uge improvement in and of itself. Late in life it also proved its air to ground capability (which had really been there, but hidden, from the start to some extent), but in the end the maintainability essentially crippled the fleet and survivability killed it outright.

I never got to fly (in) one, but my first time sitting on an ejection seat was in an A in a hush house watching fireballs shoot out one intake.
Engine (and missile) reliability was much better in the sim :)

Keep in mind when looking at it today it was really a 3.5-ish gen fighter, comparing it to today's capabilities is misleading.

Nauga,
an intrusive patron of the Ironworks
 
Relatively difficult to land (aboard) the Hornet not so much. Also a factor.

And being an interceptor, its mission kinda died. Good enough airframe (aerodynamically) to upgrade, but really doesn’t offer anything the Hornet couldn’t do. So its unique capability seemed fo fade, making the maintenance more significant.

That being said, ya, it was THAT great for its intended mission. Isn’t like the hornet came along and took over that mission.
 
Tools said:
Relatively difficult to land (aboard) the Hornet not so much. Also a factor.

And being an interceptor, its mission kinda died. Good enough airframe (aerodynamically) to upgrade, but really doesn’t offer anything the Hornet couldn’t do. So its unique capability seemed fo fade, making the maintenance more significant.

That being said, ya, it was THAT great for its intended mission. Isn’t like the hornet came along and took over that mission.
Click to expand...
So is it the improvement in missile technology that obsoleted the mission?
 
Late in my career I came across an Tomcat driver that switched to team Air Force at some point in his life. He described the Tomcat (and Eagle) as the last “man’s” planes. Two engines, no FBW, and the RCS of a tennis court.
 
Jim K said:
So is it the improvement in missile technology that obsoleted the mission?
Click to expand...

Loss of the Soviet long range bomber threat… ie end of the Cold War.

Keep in mind the B-2 was considered a failure for quite some time, too expensive to use in a low stakes gulf war.

That’s changed… but it seems to be why its use was pretty limited for so long.
 
One heck of an airshow aircraft as well. Apparently after the Shah witnessed the demo head to head with the F-15, he went with the F-14. Of course they stripped it down and was on fumes when it landed so it’s performance was unrealistic.

Funny thing about the old analog AWG-9 radar it had. If they had it on doing a PAR, it would jam our radar. Created a weird hatched pattern on the scope. Still could see course & glide path targets but barely with all the interference. Went away immediately when you told them to turn off their radar.

IMG_6594.jpeg
 
Velocity173 said:
One heck of an airshow aircraft as well. Apparently after the Shah witnessed the demo head to head with the F-15, he went with the F-14. Of course they stripped it down and was on fumes when it landed so it’s performance was unrealistic.

Funny thing about the old analog AWG-9 radar it had. If they had it on doing a PAR, it would jam our radar. Created a weird hatched pattern on the scope. Still could see course & glide path targets but barely with all the interference. Went away immediately when you told them to turn off their radar.

View attachment 150711
Click to expand...

You are maybe familiar with this, but PAR controllers occasionally tell us to turn off the APG-79's we have in the newer (block 2) super hornets and growler as well.

I don't have any first-hand experience with the Tomcat, other than having watched it fly around when I was a kid/young man. They were retired fully, a couple years before my own Navy career began. Lot's of my old department heads during my first tour in Hornets had come from the Tomcat though. They mostly had lukewarm things to say, at least the ones who weren't so caught up in the legend and identity that they couldn't see how it fell short compared to modern fighter aircraft. I think the best quote I remember was "I was just trying to survive it". To be fair, that guy, and most that I knew, had come from the A+ and B, which I believe still had the TF-30's. Have heard pretty good things about the -D from a handful of folks I've chatted about it with. Tomcat could go real fast and fly far though. Two things the fleet at the time in my early career couldn't do, and still can't do really in comparison today. The tomcat was an incredible looking/sounding jet though. No doubt about that. I think had the funds been allocated to make the fully upgraded version (super tomcat or whatever they were calling it at cancellation in the early 1990s), and had it had AIM-120, 9X, and all the modern combat systems, it would have been a pretty potent interdiction aircraft in comparison to the Super Hornet. It certainly proved its capabilities over Afghanistan in the CAS and FAC(A) roles.
 
35 AoA said:
The tomcat was an incredible looking/sounding jet though. No doubt about that.
Click to expand...

So there I was… strolling out to my jet one day during a launch. All of the sudden I was the only one in sight standing… everyone else was on the deck hanging onto a padeye.

Hmmm… ok, maybe I should too. Just as I latched on the Tomcat in front of the raised JBD went into tension.

WOW. So loud and violent my teeth hurt!
 
"I'm too close for missiles, switching to guns."
I grew up not far from Miramar, and we had F14's going over all the time. Noisy and beefy. I have no idea about its combat capability, but seems like it was the next gen of the F4 lead sled.
 
I'm old enough to have seen them quite a few times fly in airshows. It was an iconic bird for sure!

I was lucky enough to attend a presentation by Dale Snodgrass at my local airport's pilots' association a few years back. Mostly the same stories you can hear in his many speeches available on youtube, but it was an honor to have heard them first-hand! Worth a search for his talks if you haven't seen or heard them. Some interesting stories I thought.

And on another note...I follow Ward Carrol's youtube channel. He's a retired f-14 RIO. Don't think he's done much on the tomcat lately, but he's got some good tomcat info up on his channel as I recall.

One of my regrets is not following through on my conversations with recruiters as I was graduating college in late 1989. I was seriously thinking about trying to get into Navy flight school, and that would have been right about in the middle of it's time with the USN I believe....so who knows.... Although admittedly my primary interest at the time was USCG helicopters, still I was noodling the idea of trying to go navy instead, and I was talking with a Navy recruiter who sported wings of gold.
 
35 AoA said:
You are maybe familiar with this, but PAR controllers occasionally tell us to turn off the APG-79's we have in the newer (block 2) super hornets and growler as well.

I don't have any first-hand experience with the Tomcat, other than having watched it fly around when I was a kid/young man. They were retired fully, a couple years before my own Navy career began. Lot's of my old department heads during my first tour in Hornets had come from the Tomcat though. They mostly had lukewarm things to say, at least the ones who weren't so caught up in the legend and identity that they couldn't see how it fell short compared to modern fighter aircraft. I think the best quote I remember was "I was just trying to survive it". To be fair, that guy, and most that I knew, had come from the A+ and B, which I believe still had the TF-30's. Have heard pretty good things about the -D from a handful of folks I've chatted about it with. Tomcat could go real fast and fly far though. Two things the fleet at the time in my early career couldn't do, and still can't do really in comparison today. The tomcat was an incredible looking/sounding jet though. No doubt about that. I think had the funds been allocated to make the fully upgraded version (super tomcat or whatever they were calling it at cancellation in the early 1990s), and had it had AIM-120, 9X, and all the modern combat systems, it would have been a pretty potent interdiction aircraft in comparison to the Super Hornet. It certainly proved its capabilities over Afghanistan in the CAS and FAC(A) roles.
Click to expand...
Nah hadn’t heard about that. Never worked Super Hornets though. Legacy never gave us a problem. Wonder if it’s the power output? That AWG-9 was a big radar.
 
I worked on a GE F-5 flight school in Tempe AZ in 86-87. A couple of the IPs were former aggressor squadron. One (callsign RIP) told me about going up against F-14 and getting in behind one (multiple times) and having it reverse the position in a single turn. Given that the F-5 rolled out in 1959 maybe that’s not a tremendous endorsement but he was sold on it.
 
We did a lot of escort jamming for TARPS Tomcats and they escorted us a lot as a High Value Asset (HVU) in the EA-6B. Back pre-AMRAAM the Phoenix ruled as the long stick, especially given the Sparrows need to be illuminated all the way to the target but of course the ROE ruled out the AIM-54 in pretty much every scenario except the regimental Backfire raid after the ship so more often they were seen with this escort load out. I took this pic as we were coming off the tanker and heading feet dry into Iraq during Desert Storm. Always a good feeling to have them along, especially since the "C" Hornet had some significant limitations in those days. IMG_0581.jpeg
 
Dunno about that… but in the mighty War Hoover, we had a FUD…

Curious if you resourceful dudes can find out what that was!

Hint: sorta makes the concept of a jury rigged rifle scope seem refined. So instead, we used a bolt on the windshield wiper.
 
When pitting the F 14 Tomcat, F 15 Eagle, and F 16 Fighting Falcon against each other in the ultimate fighter jet cage match, experts usually hand the "best overall" belt to the F 15 for its hilariously perfect air to air scorecard: over 100 kills, zero losses… like it showed up to the bar fight with brass knuckles and left without a scratch, courtesy of the US Air Force, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Japan.

The F 14 played the brooding Navy loner, slinging long range Phoenix missiles from carrier decks to swat bombers, with a modest US kill tally but solid strike game later on (Iran's claims sound like tall tales from a tipsy uncle). Meanwhile, the scrappy F 16 hustled as the budget multirole champ, flipping between dogfights, bombs, and SEAD with ninja agility and global popularity, even if it took a few lumps doing the dirty work. Pick your poison… F 15 for invincible swagger, F 16 for bang for the buck, F 14 for dramatic Top Gun vibes…. but yeah, the Eagle's the one pilots bet on when the fur starts flying.
 
Until the 3x F15's get taken out by a single Hornet :biggrin: (I know it doesn't count, and very thankful we can laugh about it, although I'm sure those pilots aren't)

I'm not sure the Eagle (or the Falcon) is a fair comparison considering the Tomcat (and Hornet) have to built to endure the rigors of carrier operation.
 
Hengelo said:
I want to hear more about jury rigging a rifle scope in the cockpit of a fighter...
Click to expand...
F-15s did that in the late 70s early 80s as well. Guess it wasn’t all that effective because they stopped doing it at some point.
 
Jim K said:
I'm too young to really remember the Tomcat. I was four when Top Gun came out. Of course, I eventually developed a love for them from the movie, as well as the toy I had as a kid. That swinging wing was the coolest thing of all time. I wasn't paying enough attention to aviation in high school and college as they were winding down. I really wish I could've seen one fly, but c'est la vie.

So now that the last couple airworthy examples are finally being forcibly retired, it made me think, "was it really the coolest fighter of all time, or did it just have the best movie?". Would the F14 live in our collective consciousness if not for Top Gun? Those of you who were there, was it that dominant? I don't think there's any argument about the cool factor; I'm just wondering if it was as great as we remember, or is it just "good old days" thinking?

Interesting the the F15 is nearly as old, but keeps getting updated. As I understand maintenance is what really killed the Tomcat?
Click to expand...
Known several Tomcat pilots in both my Naval career and flying at the museum. Every Tomcat pilot (and NFO) I've run into absolutely loved flying the airplane.

Every single maintainer I've ever met that worked on them absolutely hated them, especially the older guys who worked F-4s and then F-14s.
 
Jim K said:
So is it the improvement in missile technology that obsoleted the mission?
Click to expand...
Probably. By the late 90s, defense of the flat top became more focused on Aegis area defense (cruisers and destroyers) augmented with Defense Counter Air which could be done with Hornets. By the time I was in the fleet, Tomcats were being used more like an A6 replacement (hauling a lot of bombs) than as air defense assets.
 
One of the slogans in the development days when B/G Ben Bellis was the SPO Director was “Not a Pound for Air to Ground”. Fortunately the engineers at MacAir and the SPO were quite adept at some sleight of hand engineering.

Later versions of the Eagle benefited from the ability to quickly add the conformal fuel tanks and easily adaptable hard points for air to mud weapons.
 
Fleet Air Defense was still a big worry when I was “helping” the USN set their requirements for the Navy version of the ATF back in the day. In order to get the Russian Bombers before the launch of cruise missiles, it required a weapon system that basically couldn’t fit on the Boat. Ergo, either the carrier is obsolete or a new approach for the Carrier Battle Group Defense was required. Hence the vanishing of the NATF. Not at all sure if this isn’t the same story for the USN F/A-XX.
 
Last edited:
Tools said:
Dunno about that… but in the mighty War Hoover, we had a FUD…

Curious if you resourceful dudes can find out what that was!

Hint: sorta makes the concept of a jury rigged rifle scope seem refined. So instead, we used a bolt on the windshield wiper.
Click to expand...
Well you didn’t have a HUD so maybe F’ed Up Display? Possibly used the bolt on the wiper for alignment landing aboard the ship?
 
Flip Up Display… a piece of plexiglass, sprung up, held down by a little cover. Unlatched it and it would flip up.

Had another piece of plexiglass held by a thumb screw, little calibration marks for mils… and viola, a bombsight.

The bolt on the wiper worked MUCH better!
 
I was in the Navy and making regular appearances on carrier flight decks when the F-14 was the hottest thing on deck. Several times I've seen, heard and felt a Tomcat down at deck level, wings swept and hauling ass. It made a big impression on me then. I'm no expert. But I think it must've been pretty good at the mission at that time.
 
I've seen them fly at airshows, and walked up close to them there, that's the extent of my experience. In addition to Top Gun, though, there was "The Final Countdown" that had some good F-14 footage. The premise was a modern for then carrier going back to Pearl Harbor just before the attack.

The scenario that could have happened, but didn't, would be if the US sent a carrier to help the British with the Falklands. My bet is had that happened, the F-14s would have been able to operate without the restrictions on visual contact, Argentina would have more than a bit of trouble getting past them, and it would have saved quite a few British lives. But that wouldn't be just the F-14's, of course, airborne radar coverage was a thing the British didn't have.

I don't know of another jet fighter with a longer range at the time, or one that we were so worried about parts getting out of the country that we shredded. My take is that Cheney was cut from the same cloth as McNamara. But I don't know the details. I do know a guy who worked on F-111's, and he said both the avionics and airframe were miserable to maintain, but that they were great aircraft. Moving wings and analog radar are both complicated.
 
When they retired the F14 they didn't mothball them for spare parts. They crushed / destroyed all of the airframes. The thinking was that we didn't want any spare parts remaining, as they could possibly get to Iran.

So...... someone in the US at the time thought the F 14 was still such a capable aircraft even at its life cycle end that we couldn't allow Iran to have any flyable ones.
 
Tools said:
Flip Up Display… a piece of plexiglass, sprung up, held down by a little cover. Unlatched it and it would flip up.

Had another piece of plexiglass held by a thumb screw, little calibration marks for mils… and viola, a bombsight.

The bolt on the wiper worked MUCH better!
Click to expand...
Did you all have an AoA indicator on the top of the panel?
 
The standard indexer to the left of it, and the normal gage on the panel.

Interestingly, being designed for two pilots (we flew with a NFO there) it had two throttle quadrants, and two indexers. But the instruments had a different layout!

Don’t know if the right seat ever did traps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top