Jump to content

More proof that the F-14 was the best fighter. Ever


Recommended Posts

Didn't the Iranians scored in the region of 50 kills over the Iraqis whilst flying the F-14?

According to Tom Cooper (taking this from Wikipedia as I don't have his book with me):

The Iranians shot down "at least" 160 Iraqi aircraft during the Iran–Iraq War, which includes:

58 MiG-23s,

33 Mirage F1s,

23 MiG-21s,

23 Su-20s/22s,

5 MiG-25s,

5 Tu-22s,

2 MiG-27s,

1 Mil Mi-24,

1 Dassault Mirage 5,

1 B-6D,

1 Aérospatiale Super Frelon,

2 unidentified aircraft.

Yes, I know that adds up to 155 - just copying the numbers from there. Let's just say I am not the only one who takes these numbers with a very large pinch of salt, but what is clear is that it was/is a very formidable aircraft in Iranian service, although they also lost quite a few over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-14 was a bucket of bolts. Does it even have any air-to-air kills?

Aside from that hapless USAF Phantom, we know for sure that it splashed at least one Zero back in '41.

Wonder if that pilot got a USS Nimitz goodie bag like the RF-4C crew got?

Other than that, it's record in USN service wasn't particularly impressive. I believe it was actually kept out of most A2A missions during Desert Storm and OIF because it wasn't considered as capable as USAF F-15's.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-14 was a bucket of bolts. Does it even have any air-to-air kills?

Seriously? The Tomcat, with good engines, was a great aircraft for its time....after the engine upgrade but before AIM-120 was in widespread service, probably the best when one considers overall capability. Would you want to go up against a Tomcat shooting AIM-54s at you? They never received AIM-120 as the Navy was already eyeing SuperHornets, but still...I once talked to an F-15C pilot from the FANG, and his opinion was that he could comfortably handle the Hornets/SuperHornets as long as he did not get slow and low with them, but the F-14A+, B, and D would bite you quickly if you were not very careful.

In terms of kills, only the USN and the IIAF ever operated them. Iran-Iraq War records are sketchy, but the Tomcat supposedly made kills there. Maybe someone a little more in the know can chime in on that as we have folks from all over the world on this board.

The USN has four kills with the F-14A, against Lybian SU's and Mig-23s.

They may have had an F-14 combat loss in Desert Storm, but I do not know the circumstances. Again, someone else here will know.

When it comes to looks, nothing else is even close! It is a sexy beast.

Edit: Make that five. I forgot about the USAF F-4.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record I liked the F-14. I feel all the fighters through the generations contributed in one way or another, none were the best.

The F-15's kill ratio might suggest otherwise

Seriously? The Tomcat, with good engines, was a great aircraft for its time....after the engine upgrade but before AIM-120 was in widespread service, probably the best when one considers overall capability. Would you want to go up against a Tomcat shooting AIM-54s at you? They never received AIM-120 as the Navy was already eyeing SuperHornets, but still...I once talked to an F-15C pilot from the FANG, and his opinion was that he could comfortably handle the Hornets/SuperHornets as long as he did not get slow and low with them, but the F-14A+, B, and D would bite you quickly if you were not very careful.

The Phoenix was intended to shoot down big, lumbering Soviet bombers, not engage fighters. AIM-54 is from the same era as the AIM-7s that were so unreliable in SEA. It had a good reputation as an anti-submarine missile. The Navy was looking into a replacement for the Phoenix in the 1980s. True, the GE F110s finally allowed the F-14 to reach it's potential, but by that time it was too late. The F-14 was obsolete by 1996. It turned out to be a fantastic CAS aircraft, and that extended its life for another decade, but it was remarkably prone to breaking down. It was just too expensive to keep them in the air.

The USN has four kills with the F-14A, against Lybian SU's and Mig-23s.

Five. A Tomcat shot down an Iraqi helicopter during Desert Storm.

They may have had an F-14 combat loss in Desert Storm, but I do not know the circumstances. Again, someone else here will know.

No "may" about it, there was an F-14 loss. It was shot down by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile. Navy learned a hard lesson in 1991, and that was it's probably a good idea to install RWR in your aircraft.

When it comes to looks, nothing else is even close! It is a sexy beast.

You're right, it's not even close. The Blackbird far exceeds the Tomcat.

sr71-sunset-afterburner.jpg

Edit: Make that five. I forgot about the USAF F-4.

If you have to add in a blue-on-blue accidental shoot down from a training exercise to bump up your kill stats, your argument is invalid.

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomcats are beautiful planes, but so is a Spitfire MK.V.c. I personally think the Spitfire is prettier, but hold nothing against the Tomcat.

Had you asked me three months ago just how many aircraft the Tomcat has under it's belt; I'd said around twenty-five. Four and a chopper is not bragging rights!

I mean we got at least a dozen Mustangs with 25 kills! Tomcat is a true fast mover (anybody want to question that?). Can carry a few bombs, but is not really a bomber. You gotta Go slow to do that job with skill. Still it's not the Tomcat's fault, it's ours. We did a similar thing with the F4 Phantom. Made a fighter bomber out of it (or did we make a fighter out of it?). Never really did either job at the top of the food chain. But still think the Phantom was a better bomber than the Tomcat (how much?) The only airframe that broke this rule (after 1953)I can think of was the F100. Designed as a front line fighter, but made a better fighter bomber. Yet all these airframes were (or are) good. We just gave them the wrong job. Now we get to the F15's. Never been one shot down by another plane. Faster than the Tomcat, but not enough to loose sleep over. Will turn inside a Tomcat, and out climb most anything out there today. How it is on the deck I don't know. Then we recreate the F15 into the "E" model. Now we got something to turn heads.

Face it everything gets outdated sooner or later. Your Tomcat is destined to become a Ford Truck sooner than later. Same for the F22 or F15, by the way.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-15's kill ratio might suggest otherwise

The Phoenix was intended to shoot down big, lumbering Soviet bombers, not engage fighters. AIM-54 is from the same era as the AIM-7s that were so unreliable in SEA. It had a good reputation as an anti-submarine missile. The Navy was looking into a replacement for the Phoenix in the 1980s. True, the GE F110s finally allowed the F-14 to reach it's potential, but by that time it was too late. The F-14 was obsolete by 1996. It turned out to be a fantastic CAS aircraft, and that extended its life for another decade, but it was remarkably prone to breaking down. It was just too expensive to keep them in the air.

Five. A Tomcat shot down an Iraqi helicopter during Desert Storm.

No "may" about it, there was an F-14 loss. It was shot down by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile. Navy learned a hard lesson in 1991, and that was it's probably a good idea to install RWR in your aircraft.

You're right, it's not even close. The Blackbird far exceeds the Tomcat.

sr71-sunset-afterburner.jpg

If you have to add in a blue-on-blue accidental shoot down from a training exercise to bump up your kill stats, your argument is invalid.

AIM-54C not the same as an A. Early AIM-7s were not so good either, but later ones were. The Lybian Mig-23's were I believe both shot down BVR with AIM-7s. I do not know how good the AIM-54 really was, but my understanding is that it was NOT just designed to shoot down bombers, but also to shoot down cruise missiles. They shot down drones with them in testing. I think the kill rate was IVO 85%, but I do not recall any specifics beyond that. I have a book around here somewhere that claims the missile was pretty badass. One issue I have heard about in the fleet back in the day was corrosion because it had to be plumbed for cooling from the aircraft before launch.

I know the F-14 was not put up very often in A2A situations, but it was good enough for the Navy to rely on it for decades. In any case, in US service at least, the F-14 is undefeated in A2A, just like an Eagle. Can't shoot down what they won't let you fight. Don't know about the Iranians, but I heard they did okay with the jet.

In the looks department, we were talking about fighters, I assumed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we get to the F15's. Never been one shot down by another plane.

Well, officially at least. There are claims from various sources that the Syrians have shot down up to four Israeli F-15s in air-to-air combat in the 1981-83 period which, as per their usual policy, the Israelis deny. Of the four I think only one is worth considering (29 July 1981 by MiG-25PD).

Link to post
Share on other sites

AIM-54C...

Which was optimized to be used against low and high-altitude antiship missiles. Again, defending the boat from bombers. By the mid-80s the Phoenix was no longer cutting edge, so the Navy started development on the AIM-152 AAAM, but it was never adopted due to the ending of the Cold War and the reduced threat of Soviet/Russian supersonic bombers.

I do not know how good the AIM-54 really was...

Thus negating your claims of its superiority.

I know the F-14 was not put up very often in A2A situations, but it was good enough for the Navy to rely on it for decades. In any case, in US service at least, the F-14 is undefeated in A2A, just like an Eagle. Can't shoot down what they won't let you fight. Don't know about the Iranians, but I heard they did okay with the jet.

Two decades. About as long as the F-4. But not as long as the F-15. Most of it's last decade was in the A2G role or being repaired.

In the looks department, we were talking about fighters, I assumed.

Lockheed_YF-12.jpg

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which was optimized to be used against low and high-altitude antiship missiles. Again, defending the boat from bombers. By the mid-80s the Phoenix was no longer cutting edge, so the Navy started development on the AIM-152 AAAM, but it was never adopted due to the ending of the Cold War and the reduced threat of Soviet/Russian supersonic bombers.

Thus negating your claims of its superiority.

Two decades. About as long as the F-4. But not as long as the F-15. Most of it's last decade was in the A2G role or being repaired.

Lockheed_YF-12.jpg

Calling it a fighter doesn't make it one. It may be able to burn, but it sure can't turn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. I believe it was actually kept out of most A2A missions during Desert Storm and OIF because it wasn't considered as capable as USAF F-15's.

Tomcats didn't have the IFF abilities the F-15 did. So they got held back. The USN thought was "we will be fighting the Russians over the ocean by ourselves, we won't need IFF much, and the ruskis will be coming straight at us"

Note that just about everything post 1991 is about getting everyone on the same page and cooridinating better right down to using the same aircraft in the F-35. Lessons learned

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling it a fighter doesn't make it one. It may be able to burn, but it sure can't turn.

One could say the same for the Tomcat. Viper, Hornet, F-5, A-4, and F-15 can all out-turn it.

- Both the Blackbird and the Tomcat were designed to intercept Soviet bombers at long range (using their speed and long range radar/AAMs) before they could reach their targets.

- Most of the Tomcat's weapons were BVR missiles. It only included a gun as a result of the Navy's experience in Vietnam with the gunless F-4 (which was also designed to intercept Soviet bombers before they could get to the boat)

- The Blackbird's Hughes AN/ASG-18 was a direct predecessor to the Tomcat's AN/AWG-9

- The Blackbird's AIM-47 Falcon was a direct predecessor to your precious AIM-54.

- You already moved the goalposts once from your original statement of "When it comes to looks, nothing else is even close! It is a sexy beast." when you said "we were talking about fighters, I assumed." Now you're trying to move the goalposts again?

1733vy.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that just about everything post 1991 is about getting everyone on the same page and cooridinating better right down to using the same aircraft in the F-35. Lessons learned

This.

There's a lot of whinging about the "lessons of Vietnam" when it comes to air power here on ARC, but those lessons were learned, and applied 25 years ago during Desert Storm. Planning for the next generation of air power was born out of the lessons learned 20-25 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No "may" about it, there was an F-14 loss. It was shot down by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile. Navy learned a hard lesson in 1991, and that was it's probably a good idea to install RWR in your aircraft.

I'm tempted to throw the BS flag on this one. Please tell me that close to 20 years after Vietnam ended, the Navy wasn't sending it's aircraft into combat, against an adversary with SAM's, without equipping them with radar warning gear. Never heard of this before.

If true, that's borderline criminal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tempted to throw the BS flag on this one. Please tell me that close to 20 years after Vietnam ended, the Navy wasn't sending it's aircraft into combat, against an adversary with SAM's, without equipping them with radar warning gear. Never heard of this before.

If true, that's borderline criminal.

Didn't aircraft even by end of Vietnam have such receivers?

I kinda find it "funny" seeing such a offense/defense spectrum between people simply talking about an out of service aircraft. Obviously people have their personal favorites, not like there is any chance of winning the argument against each other - especially over looks (try as they may, no one will convince me the F-14 or SR-71 is the best looking aircraft)

Edited by ziggyfoos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that just about everything post 1991 is about getting everyone on the same page and coordinating better right down to using the same aircraft in the F-35. Lessons learned

Monsieur Trudeau you listening... :blink:??

Yeah I thought not...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't aircraft even by end of Vietnam have such receivers?

By the end of the Vietnam war, I'm pretty sure every tactical jet had provisions for this gear. That doesn't mean the actual equip was fitted though. For naval aircraft, often they would not have ECM and countermeasure dispensers installed until they deployed on a cruise. That being said, flying a jet into combat without this is pretty shocking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tempted to throw the BS flag on this one. Please tell me that close to 20 years after Vietnam ended, the Navy wasn't sending it's aircraft into combat, against an adversary with SAM's, without equipping them with radar warning gear. Never heard of this before.

If true, that's borderline criminal.

Technically, they started getting fuzzbusters before the Gulf War. It wasn't Vietnam that was the catalyst, but the fall of the Iranian government in 1979. In the mid-to-late 1980s, the Navy purchased 750 police radar detectors made by the Whistler Corp. in Westford, MA for about $180 each. At one point, F-14A, A-7s and A-6s attack jets had been equipped with the modified auto detectors. Some A-7Es were still using them in 1991.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't aircraft even by end of Vietnam have such receivers?

I kinda find it "funny" seeing such a offense/defense spectrum between people simply talking about an out of service aircraft. Obviously people have their personal favorites, not like there is any chance of winning the argument against each other - especially over looks (try as they may, no one will convince me the F-14 or SR-71 is the best looking aircraft)

You havnt been keeping up with the latest brain washing technology I see...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Tomcat but it was underdeveloped. I try to see the warts and all. Some problems started early and were never ironed out. The navy tried to "sneak one by" and basically wanted to front load the procurement. KNOWINGLY Get a half done product on the ramp, and fix it later. (Speaking of borderline criminal) The problem was they got caught and the new procurement boss basically stuck them with the beta version. Took them 20 years to fix the engines. 20 years. It was rushed into service both because of Vietnam and the funding issues of the 1970s if the navy slowed the train to fix it more, it would probably be canceled. Which again shows how badly political games can screw up military programs that result in torturous issues. The same exact tomcat that killed a libyan fighter in thr 1980s, killed the first female tomcat pilot in thr 1990s. That's kind of a microcosm of its potential and it's pitfalls. A lot of people like to point out how fast the tomcat got into service, but the events of the next 20 years showed it really could have used more time in the oven. I don't think it ever really hit its full potential.

The maintenance style on it was indeed of antiquated as well, the Hornet was a lot more in line with the preferred methods you see today. As was described to me, "back then it broke and you fixed it on the jet. Nowadays, it breaks, you pull it out put the new part/subassmebly in. The jet is now up And then send the old part to be fixed elsewhere. But the plane can fly when it's not being fixed"

For the record, there seems to be a correlation between political pressure and games and sub optimal weapons being fielded and rushed into service. But that's none of my business

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, they started getting fuzzbusters before the Gulf War. It wasn't Vietnam that was the catalyst, but the fall of the Iranian government in 1979. In the mid-to-late 1980s, the Navy purchased 750 police radar detectors made by the Whistler Corp. in Westford, MA for about $180 each. At one point, F-14A, A-7s and A-6s attack jets had been equipped with the modified auto detectors. Some A-7Es were still using them in 1991.

Naval jets were among the first to be equipped with RWR's during the Vietnam war. Fairly certain that any aircraft flown during DS would have them. I believe those "fuzz busters" were acquired to detect the radar of the US built HAWK missile systems that the Iranians had. That system operated on a frequency that the jet's standard RWR gear couldn't initially detect.

Maybe also needed for other western SAMs used by Iraq but I don't think it was needed to detect the SA-2 that took down that Tomcat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find much of the deprecation of F-14 to be odd here. Based on all I grew up and learning, all Teen series fighters were capable in ACM. F-14 in all videos of demonstrations I saw looked to be able to turn and burn quite similarly to its contemporary peers and be better at ACM than say older fighters be these western or eastern. Yes, the TF-30 engine was not the most optimal and suffered for one stalling conditions at elevated AoA, but it was able to get F-14A moving along. The F-14A+/B/D with the F110 engine was a very much more capable mount. But each teen series aircraft brought to the fight both pros and cons.

F-14 was a fleet defense fighter as per what others said here to intercept firstly Soviet long range bombers. As with such the US Navy believing through the Cold War that the Soviets would as a part of their battle plan use long range bombers to hit the different US Fleets. F-14 with the Phoenix system was set to hit these threats BVR (much like US doctrine is today). To track and fire at the same time 6 different targets was at the time an incredible feat. Even today that is a feat hard to match if at all. But Grumman engineers from all I learned (hopefully more correctly than not :D ) did make sure the F-14 could dog fight if need be.

I do understand F-14 was more old school in maintenance and as such a pig to work on. As the years passed its readiness rate fell pretty low at times. I'm sure I read it would dip below 60% fleet wide, where as F-18A/B/C/D could keep a close to 90% fleet readiness.

Anyways I never heard, read or saw that F-14 was a pig at ACM. Again F110 improved engine A+/B's and later D's with improved avionics were the best. The USN had to be confident in the Tom to protect its different fleets and each one's prized CVN's.

Edited by Gordon Shumway
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find much of the deprecation of F-14 to be odd here. Based on all I grew up and learning, all Teen series fighters were capable in ACM. F-14 in all videos of demonstrations I saw looked to be able to turn and burn quite similarly to its contemporary peers and be better at ACM than say older fighters be these western or eastern. Yes, the TF-30 engine was not the most optimal and suffered for one stalling conditions at elevated AoA, but it was able to get F-14A moving along. The F-14A+/B/D with the F110 engine was a very much more capable mount. But each teen series aircraft brought to the fight both pros and cons.

F-14 was a fleet defense fighter as per what others said here to intercept firstly Soviet long range bombers. As with such the US Navy believing through the Cold War that the Soviets would as a part of their battle plan use long range bombers to hit the different US Fleets. F-14 with the Phoenix system was set to hit these threats BVR (much like US doctrine is today). To track and fire at the same time 6 different targets was at the time an incredible feat. Even today that is a feat hard to match if at all. But Grumman engineers from all I learned (hopefully more correctly than not :D/> ) did make sure the F-14 could dog fight if need be.

I do understand F-14 was more old school in maintenance and as such a pig to work on. As the years passed its readiness rate fell pretty low at times. I'm sure I read it would dip below 60% fleet wide, where as F-18A/B/C/D could keep a close to 90% fleet readiness.

Anyways I never heard, read or saw that F-14 was a pig at ACM. Again F110 improved engine A+/B's and later D's with improved avionics were the best. The USN had to be confident in the Tom to protect its different fleets and each one's prized CVN's.

There is some hype backlash. I would say this, no matter how capable or not capable the F-14 was at ACM, Pilots had to work very hard to make it work. Nothing is easy about Tomcats, and that is a part of the problem. Pilots and support had to work very hard, harder than other teen fighters to keep it equal with them. That's not good. I would say Tomcat pilots and others had a steeper learning curve than say an F-15 group. And that's before we get into the hardships of working on/landing on a ship.

The F-14 does not necessarily have a reputation as a great dogfighter. When it was passed onto me that a former F-14 now F-35 pilot said the F-35 was a better dogfighter than the F-14 I couldn't help but wonder:

A. That the public would die to hear such a thing

And

B. That people with better knowledge of the Tomcat would laugh at the "low bar"

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...