Jump to content

F-22 Raptor Oxygen problem


Recommended Posts

The F-14 wasn't some slug in ACM. Its strength was as noted already long range powerful radar, well armed with missiles and ability to get to station quickly but is was able to turn and burn pretty good too. Airframe was stressed to pull up to +9 and -3G from all I ever read The M-61 canon would have been able to be employed in such ACM.

Sure the TF-30s were not the best engines but they worked. GE-F110 made her a much more capable machine. Yeah she was a horrible maintenance nightmare but once flying the Tomcat was still a pretty formidable bird of prey.

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Define "brilliant ad placement."

I check out this thread for a good laugh and it doesn't disappoint. This thread's taken a turn toward the F-14 and what does the Google ad banner up top display?

ARC_Screenshot.png

The F-14 wasn't some slug in ACM. Its strength was as noted already long range powerful radar, well armed with missiles and ability to get to station quickly but is was able to turn and burn pretty good too. Airframe was stressed to pull up to +9 and -3G from all I ever read The M-61 canon would have been able to be employed in such ACM.

It's ability to turn and burn was $#!t.

Check out Red Eagles. The book opens with an encounter in 1976 over Nevada between a $#!t-hot brand new F-14 (flown by one of the first Tomcat pilots to have attended TOPGUN) encountering a MiG-17 and getting it's butt handed to it. Two things stand out about that; "Robb was entering a visual fight with his opponent, something that the Tomcat had not been designed for, and which his training at TOPGUN had taught him was a last-ditch measure" and at the merge "I turned hard across his tail at 7Gs* half stunned and half trying to see what he was going to do. Bleeding energy quickly I tried to equal his turn, it became clear that I had committed to a slow speed "knife-fight" with the MiG; not the school solution to be sure. Despite my best effort to get the best turn out of the Tomcat, the MiG continued to swing behind my wing line, headed for my six."

This Tomcat pilot wasn't a complete hack either. He'd been selected to go into the Tomcat due to his skills and later graduated from FWS. Yet he committed several errors both before and after the merge that displayed the Tomcat's weakness - it wasn't a dogfighter. dmk0210 is absolutely correct. It was obsolete by the mid-1990s and was only able to stick around for another few years because someone decided to put a LANTRIN pod under the wing and hang a couple of bombs from it.

Had the F-14 not "shot down" Zeros in The Final Countdown or starred in Top Gun it wouldn't have the popularity it currently enjoys. I know that people have a lot of love for the Tomcat, but it wasn't the second coming.

*The F-14 was not 9G rated. It was 7-7.5 at best and it certainly couldn't attain even that with a combat load of fuel tanks and missiles. Later on this was reduced to 6.5 because they were wearing out the airframes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mig-17 was an agile, old fighter but had many limitations itself, that gave numerous US airframe designs fits. Vaunted F-4's and I bet even them wonder jet F-15's and F-16's would still be in tough on a ACM situation with a well piloted Mig-17.

Top Gun was designed to allow naval aviators to work from BVR to visual ACM and to turn any disadvantage an F-14 may have into an advantage. Your 1976 dog fight story was one where the F-14 was brand new and crews along with all who worked with her were still learning and developing a relationship with her.

Simple fact is the F-14 would probably take out the Mig-17 before the Mig pilot even knew the F-14 was there.

I never said and I doubt anyone has said the F-14 was the best at ACM, but surely more than enough info, history, film and video shows she was not POS at it.

I recall hearing about USAF F-5E's in 1970s' Red Flags taking out top dog fighter F-15's. Does that make the F-15 a POS?

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall hearing about USAF F-5E's in 1970s' Red Flags taking out top dog fighter F-15's. Does that make the F-15 a POS?

No - because the F-15 has a kill ratio of a hundred and something to zero, which is just a bit better than the F-14's (by about a hundred and something kills). Sorry for the inexact number, too lazy to Google but you get the gist, right?

With regard to your anecdote above, it is meaningless. If you fly enough ACM sorties, any uber fighter will eventually get in the sights of a lesser, much more basic aircraft (see the posts above about F-22s vrs Typhoons for example of this). The only difference in your example is that the F-15 was much more maneuverable than the Tomcat and had equal (and later in life much superior) BVR capabilities.

Also, the F-15 didn't have the Tomcat's tendency to kill it's pilots with disturbing frequency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No - because the F-15 has a kill ratio of a hundred and something to zero, which is just a bit better than the F-14's (by about a hundred and something kills). Sorry for the inexact number, too lazy to Google but you get the gist, right?

With regard to your anecdote above, it is meaningless. If you fly enough ACM sorties, any uber fighter will eventually get in the sights of a lesser, much more basic aircraft (see the posts above about F-22s vrs Typhoons for example of this). The only difference in your example is that the F-15 was much more maneuverable than the Tomcat and had equal (and later in life much superior) BVR capabilities.

Also, the F-15 didn't have the Tomcat's tendency to kill it's pilots with disturbing frequency.

The F-15 kill ratio is vs. 100 developing, basket case, near 3rd world kills over pilots flying lousy and over rated planes and the pilots themselves that were likely as skilled as shopping cart collectors flying the same planes. Replace each F-15 kill situation with an F-14 (F-16, F-18 for that matter) and the F-14 ( F-16, F-18) would have the same 100 kills.

BTW ask the shot down Libyan Sukhoi pilots about the F-14's ability to flame another's butt?

As to F-14 killing its own crews, seriously? The F-14 has no disturbing record of such.

However, I'm not going to waste any more of my time in a pointless argument over the F-14 as a dog fighter.

I'll only add this, I've had the thrill of seeing F-14's put on pretty impressing maneuvering during air show routines over the years. Though an air show routine is no substitute for a real ACM session it does reveal an ability for an airplane to display its ability to twist and turn. B and D versions of Tomcats were especially very impressive in this regard.

GE-F110 equipped F-14 B/D's were in another class over the older P&W TF-30 ones.

One more time though, I do not hear/read anyone claiming the Tomcat was the be all in ACM, but that it could hold its own with a flight crew who knew what they were doing.

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Top Gun was designed to allow naval aviators to work from BVR to visual ACM and to turn any disadvantage an F-14 may have into an advantage.

Yes, and TOPGUN taught Tomcat aircrews to avoid getting suckered into BFM because....

...it wasn't a dogfighter.

tumblr_m95ydhJ1bE1r9spw1o1_500.gif

Top Gun was designed to allow naval aviators to work from BVR to visual ACM and to turn any disadvantage an F-14 may have into an advantage. Your 1976 dog fight story was one where the F-14 was brand new and crews along with all who worked with her were still learning and developing a relationship with her.

Wait, I'm confused. First you said that TOPGUN (BTW "Top Gun" is a movie, the Navy's Fighter Weapons School used it as one word) was designed to allow naval aviators to work from BVR to visual ACM and turn any disadvantage an F-14 may have into an advantage.* But then you claim that the then four-year old plane was still so new that no one - including TOPGUN instructors and graduates - knew how to employ it properly because they didn't have a relationship with her? So which is it?

*TOPGUN did not teach aircrews how to turn their disadvantages into advantages. That's B.S. If poor turning performance was a disadvantage that could be turned into an advantage, then no one would try to build aircraft of ever-increasing agility. TOPGUN taught naval aviators to exploit their aircraft's advantages and not permit the enemy to dictate the terms of the fight such as getting into a slow speed turning fight. It doesn't take four years of operating the Tomcat to realize that if a MiG-17 turns best below a certain airspeed, then you don't go there.

The F-15 kill ratio is vs. 100 developing, basket case, near 3rd world kills over pilots flying lousy and over rated planes and the pilots themselves that were likely as skilled as shopping cart collectors flying the same planes. Replace each F-15 kill situation with an F-14 (F-16, F-18 for that matter) and the F-14 ( F-16, F-18) would have the same 100 kills.

I'm just going to ignore the jingoistic (and borderline racist) aspect of that comment and point out a couple of facts along with a statement about the nature of the state of the Iraqi Air Force for sake of the audience.

By the time of the Gulf War, the Iraqis had just ended a decade of fighting with the Iranians. Yeah, they were tired, but they had combat experience. In the words of Gen. Chuck Horner, "they (the Iraqis) were no slouches." And amongst their air force was the then-new MiG-29, not exactly a lousy, overrated plane. After three days of winning silver medlas in air-to-air against the F-15 and they decided it would be safer to seek asylum with their former bitter enemies. Jump forward a few years to the skies over the former Yugoslavia. Again, MiG-29s are the opponent, and four fell to F-15Cs with no losses.

BTW ask the shot down Libyan Sukhoi pilots about the F-14's ability to flame another's butt?

So when it's an F-15 making the kill, the opponent is a lousy basket-case pilot flying a lousy overrated planes, but when an American F-14 makes a kill, it's against a skilled and cunning adversary flying the cutting edge 1960s and 70s Soviet technology?

tumblr_m9aerbHGfs1qfanzro1_r1_500.gif

As to F-14 killing its own crews, seriously? The F-14 has no disturbing record of such.

Um, what?

Excessive yaw could blank off the outboard engine intake, leading to an engine flameout. At some airspeed/power setting combinations this could lead to a violent departure, which can in turn lead into a non-recoverable flat spin if the appropriate recovery actions weren't taken within a couple of seconds. Unlike many other interceptor aircraft, the Tomcat was not completely optimized for high-speed, high-altitude flight.

The F-14 wasn't a stable nor smooth during the glide slope while coming in for a landing. It had a relatively high pitch inertia and tended to float (thus the "Turkey" nickname). Its high residual thrust enforced the use of relative low engine throttle settings during the approach, resulting in poor engine response which mades recovery difficult if something went wrong.

Since 1991, the fighter had a major crash rate of 5.93 per 100,000 flight hours, compared with 4.82 major crashes per 100,000 hours for all Navy tactical aircraft.

However, I'm not going to waste any more of my time in a pointless argument over the F-14 as a dog fighter.

Agreed, arguing the virtues of the F-14 as a dogfighter is pointless.

I'll only add this, I've had the thrill of seeing F-14's put on pretty impressing maneuvering during air show routines over the years. Though an air show routine is no substitute for a real ACM session...

Yeah, I'm going to interrupt that right there to say "and yet you cite it anyway." Sure the TF30 was a POS but Bob Hoover was able to put on a hell of a show with his Shrike Commander and he didn't even use engines. But no one in their right mind would get a Shrike Commander for their front line fighter air force.

tonystark-8.gif

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat entertaining though.. infotainment at its best.

What about a Raptor vs the Viggen, I mean, both planes have thrust vectoring, right? ;-)

On a serious note, did they ever solve the oxygen problem completely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I thought this was the Typhoon V Raptor Pissing Contest Room ...?

The Tomcat V Eagle Pissing Contest Room is down the hall ... :trolls:

-Gregg

Tweet.

On a serious note, did they ever solve the oxygen problem completely?

They claim to have identified the causes; implying that there were several factors were contributing to the O2 problem, not one single item.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, what?

Since 1991, the fighter had a major crash rate of 5.93 per 100,000 flight hours, compared with 4.82 major crashes per 100,000 hours for all Navy tactical aircraft.

By '91 a good portion of the F-14 fleet was upgraded with the GE engines. Why would you use that one statistic vrs it's overall crash rate from day 1 which is much higher (especially in the years when it was exclusively fitted with the TF-30's).

Regardless, if you compare over any time period, the F-14 will always have a higher crash (and fatality) rate than the F-15.

At least we never lost a Tomcat to one of those awesome Libyan Su-22's, so I guess that does say something about how great this aircraft was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By '91 a good portion of the F-14 fleet was upgraded with the GE engines.

Eh, I wouldn't say it was a good portion, certainly not by 1991.

There were roughly 478 F-14As built and there were 86 F-14Bs (48 of which were modified from Alphas). Not taking into losses, it was roughly 5:1 ratio of F-1As to F-14A+/Bs. The first F-14D wasn't delivered until 1991 (there were 55 Deltas total, including the 18 rebuilt Alphas), so those aren't a huge factor by 1991.

But that's 412:86:55 by the time production ended for the US Navy. By that time, yes, it was a very good portion of the fleet powered by GE engines; closer to 2.9:1. The GE engines helped, but they came about as the Tomcat's career was dwindling down.

Why would you use that one statistic vrs it's overall crash rate from day 1 which is much higher (especially in the years when it was exclusively fitted with the TF-30's).

I didn't have that number offhand, just the 91 number. And Pepper was waiting for me so, yeah, I really wasn't in a mood to go and dig that up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Throwing in a can of gasoline here, since it's not warm enough:

But would not a navalized version of the F-15, if there were such a thing instead of the Tomcat, always have a slightly higher accident rate than the land based version due to the tougher and more demanding carrier duty?

Anyway, I hope they have got that oxygen problem solved now, out of concern for the guys who fly them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Throwing in a can of gasoline here, since it's not warm enough:

But would not a navalized version of the F-15, if there were such a thing instead of the Tomcat, always have a slightly higher accident rate than the land based version due to the tougher and more demanding carrier duty?

Anyway, I hope they have got that oxygen problem solved now, out of concern for the guys who fly them.

Not "gas on the fire" at all, actually it's not a bad question.

An "F-15N" would be in a position to have a higher accident rate than the F-15A-D simply by the less forgiving nature of carrier ops. However, that still doesn't let the Tomcat off the hook (no pun intended). The Tomcat had a higher accident rate than other Navy aircraft because of it's poor engines as well as how it handled during landings (it's handling characteristics during landings earned it the nickname "Turkey"). Had the F110 been employed sooner, then it is likely that the aircraft's accident rate would have taken a downturn.

Anyway, I hope they have got that oxygen problem solved now, out of concern for the guys who fly them.

Most intelligent comment in the entire thread. :thumbsup:

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I wouldn't say it was a good portion, certainly not by 1991.

I didn't have that number offhand, just the 91 number. And Pepper was waiting for me so, yeah, I really wasn't in a mood to go and dig that up.

My bad. Always were a good many more A models than B / D's until the final Tomcat drawdown began.

Funny about finding the statistics, I actually spent 15 minutes or so with Google and couldn't find complete mishap rates for the F-14. I know I've seen them before but since my Pepper (a classic American pure-bred Mutt) was waiting for her walk, I needed to cut short the search as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitate to jump in here, I retired a long time ago from internet flame wars but what the hell...

Since this is after all the internet, and anyone can claim to be anyone, even a super-hero, you'll just have to take my word for it that in the mid-80's, I was a F-14A maintainer. AT (IWT shop) for those that want to know. Maintaining the AWG-9 and the rest of the Comm/Nav/IFF/ECM suite was what I did for a living. Combat cruise (of sorts) against Libya, 1986 aboard the late great USS America. CDI, final checker qual'd, etc, etc.

There was a comment (in very small print) that the the Tomcat couldn't hit 9G's with a combat load. Haha, as someone that had to do many, many overstress inspections I wish that were true. Max G was recorded, the highest I seem to remember was 11g, but that may have been at Togun and not at the ship. Saw 9.x a LOT. These were A models, TF-30's, although we weren't carrying Buffalos - instead we were 4 and 4 (winders and Sparrows) plus the tanks.

Of our 12 jets, on cruise we usually flew 2 off to Sig due to deck space issues, 2-3 were down in the hanger and the rest were on the roof. Everything topside was an "up" jet - we flew 895 continious sorties without an abort with some old jets. One of the jets in the hanger was the rob bird, the others were usually going through major inspections.

Post cruise, we popped a drone with an AIM-54A shot from the oldest active east coast Tomcat.

Maintenance pig? Probably. We worked our butts off to be sure. Once you got them up and kept flying them, they would fly good. The radar and AWG-15 weapons release system had a steep learning curve. We had old jets, so maybe a third or more of my gripes ended up being wiring. But manpower-wise, it sure seemed like the F-14A took fewer folks to maintain than the F-15A. Spent 4 weeks out at Nellis, and could not believe how many USAF maintainers were needed, and how narrow their skill set was. I guess that was more a function of us having to deploy on a ship. It made us good techs, and a few good techs can fix a lot of broke jets. I never launched a jet off the pointy end with a dead nose or without weapons because the Jett Checks (R&C checks for you Hornet guys) wouldn't pass.

Speaking of which, the boat is a rough place to maintain a jet. Corrosion, cat shots and traps all take their toll.

Worked on the Hornet, what a joy it was. So easy to open up. Designing for the maintainer is not something Grumman did well in the later years. Still the Hornet is not without it's vices. The damn things should have been issued with jacks as they always seem to be up on them. And while their unscheduled miantenance numbers are impressive, they have a crapload of scheduled inspections...way more than we had on the Tomcat.

I won't get in the dogfighter discussion, I just fixed 'em. BTW, the later TF-30's were good motors from what I saw. Plus an A model was faster (top end) than the B or D. The B was fast off the line, faster than the -400 Hornets (not sure about the EPE's). The D was somewhere in between, it had more drag with that dual chin pod and even more lumps and bumps than the B thanks to the ASPJ. The GE engines had their share of problems including some nasty AB burnthroughs - lost at least one crew to that on the east coast.

We now return you to your image-heavy e-peen contest, already in progress...

-CJ

Edited by CJ Martin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...