Never understood all the Tomcat love

[Pete Fleischmann]

Here’s an article that underscores what I’ve been saying for years about the Tomcat . First in the beauty pageant but last in the talent show. It just simply wasn’t that great-

Click me

 

Pigfighter

[Mark P]

IMHO, the Tomcat never really lived up to its potential in a mass scale as the design was compromised by being fitted with poor engines...

 

Goose and Maverick may not agree though....

 

Mark Proulx

Edited November 16, 2023 by Mark P

[Oldbaldguy]

Couple of random thoughts as they occur to me:  Grumman and the Navy had a mostly monogamous love affair for at least fifty years. I can think of only one Grumman airplane the Navy did not want that somebody else bought - the OV-1 - although there may be others. The Navy always has been burdened with airplanes that have to operate from carriers as well as fight and win.  That’s a hard combo to resolve because weight and all those extra moving parts rarely result in something as universally capable as, say, an F-16, which is one of those rare airplanes that became all things to all people.  When you give an engineer free rein to build a device that does a certain thing, you may not get the final product you were hoping for, engineers being who and what they are.  The F-14 is a good example.  It was supposed to fly fast and far with a heavy load, turn and burn enroute, then come home and land in a couple of hundred feet on a boat.  That’s a very tall order.  Grumman produced an 80% solution and the Navy bought it, probably in large part because it was a Grumman product and partly because of politics.  One of the easiest ways to address an airplane’s lesser traits is to turn the PR department loose.  Both Grumman and the Navy did just that and it wasn’t long before every kid on the planet was convinced the F-14 could actually do all the things Hollywood said it could.  The recruiters loved it, the Navy was heavily invested and the airplane hung around longer than it should have.  I have no doubt that in the right hands and conditions, the airplane could be cosmic.  My F-14 pilot neighbor flew F-14s exclusively while on active duty.  Of course he loved it - it was all he knew.  He told me a Luftwaffe F-104 exchange pilot in his squadron was terrified of the thing.   He also said it was the best dive bomber he’d ever seen.  It was big, complicated, pricy per flying hour and it had a big ego.  It was not the first Navy airplane that had way less motor than it needed, which also seems to be a Navy thing.  I never much liked the look of an F-14 and, as far as I can remember, I’ve never once rubbed up against a real one.  I can tell you that there are five or six A-4s lined up on my shelves but not one Tomcat.

[geedubelyer]

Yeah, and they're a bear to build in scale too.......ask me how I know.....

 

[Pete Fleischmann]

From an operational perspective, which is all I really have, the Tomcat was no dogfighter. Its BVR capability was also just average. It was too big, too complicated, (and thus a maintenance pig). The Israelis said “no thank you “ and passed in favor of the F-15; which is a much better jet by any metric.

I agree OBG, aesthetically I really don’t find it that appealing (but who cares really). For me it has too many tails, too many engines, too many seats, and is way too friggin big..but when the canopy drops the BS stops, and my opinion from fighting it…well- I was not that impressed.

 

P

[Joe Hegedus]

42 minutes ago, Pete Fleischmann said:

The Israelis said “no thank you “ and passed in favor of the F-15; which is a much better jet by any metric.

 

 

 

Any except that one that says, “thou shalt launch and land upon thine aircraft carrier.”  Kinda important to a tactical Navy airplane.  I’m not a Tomcat fanboy, but given the design constraints that were required of the F-14, It did the job required of it.  Maybe longer than it should have, and it really should have had the new engines much earlier, but it did what was needed when it was needed.  

 

Although I do think they wasted a lot of money needlessly to give it GBU-38 capability for 1 cruise right before retiring it for good.

[Dave Williams]

To be realistic, the F-14 was really designed for one purpose: to protect the fleet by using long-range AIM-54s to destroy Soviet bombers and cruise missile carriers at long range.  That’s really it.  It wasn’t meant to be a close in dog fighter, and it wasn’t meant to be a fighter-bomber.  It doesn’t seem fair to knock an aircraft first flown in 1970 (that’s 53 years ago, kids) and designed for one purpose, compared to other (and later) aircraft designed for dogfighting or multi-roles.

 

Not surprised Israel didn’t want it.  I’m surprised Iran even took it.  It was sort of a one trick pony, and being designed for carrier OPS, was heavier than it needed to be for non-carrier use.

[Dope737]

The 14 had one job...shoot down bombers and cruise missiles. 

[JeepsGunsTanks]

They should have re-engined the entire F-14 fleet instead of bringing back the silly and mostly useless Iowa Class Battleships. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Battleships, but they were just a HUGE waste of money and resources in the 80s. It would have been nice to get them in the Korean War Configuration as museum ships that way too! 

 

57 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

To be realistic, the F-14 was really designed for one purpose: to protect the fleet by using long-range AIM-54s to destroy Soviet bombers and cruise missile carriers at long range.  That’s really it.  It wasn’t meant to be a close in dog fighter, and it wasn’t meant to be a fighter-bomber.  It doesn’t seem fair to knock an aircraft first flown in 1970 (that’s 53 years ago, kids) and designed for one purpose, compared to other (and later) aircraft designed for dogfighting or multi-roles.

 

Not surprised Israel didn’t want it.  I’m surprised Iran even took it.  It was sort of a one trick pony, and being designed for carrier OPS, was heavier than it needed to be for non-carrier use.

 

28 minutes ago, Dope737 said:

The 14 had one job...shoot down bombers and cruise missiles. 

 

That's not exactly true, early on, it had the capability to drop bombs, and the Marines were looking at purchasing some, but when the costs got out of hand, and the Marines dropped out, they stopped the development. 

 

It was designed to be a better all-around fighter than the Phantom, not just a missile sled, that was the F-111b. 

[Pete Fleischmann]

54 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

To be realistic, the F-14 was really designed for one purpose: to protect the fleet by using long-range AIM-54s to destroy Soviet bombers and cruise missile carriers at long range.  That’s really it.  It wasn’t meant to be a close in dog fighter, and it wasn’t meant to be a fighter-bomber.  It doesn’t seem fair to knock an aircraft first flown in 1970 (that’s 53 years ago, kids) and designed for one purpose, compared to other (and later) aircraft designed for dogfighting or multi-roles.

 

I am being realistic. Regardless of what it was designed for, the fact is that it was employed in many other roles, and we poured a lot of money down a Tomcat-shaped pit trying to smash a round peg into a square hole . When I fought the Tomcats I was not asked to simulate a Blinder bomber or a cruise missile so they could train to their supposed strengths. So yeah- I am knocking it for the reality of its performance in the roles which it was actually employed. Can’t get more realistic than that.

P

[Juggernut]

I remember “chatting” with an F-14 pilot during one of the Commander’s day air shows (right after Desert Storm) and all the Eagles with kill markings were there and this poor guy tried in vain to convince me that the Tomcat was better than the Eagle.  Even the F-15E’s were there with their mission markings.  Quite an impressive display of USAF power.  Anyway he culminated our conversation with the claim that he got a kill on an F-15 at 35 miles.  I said “that’s impressive” and tactfully declined to ask how many times he ended up a virtual smoking hole.  Having said that, the Tomcat crew did put on a really good show when it was their turn.  
Can’t even venture a guess as to who’d prevail in a 15 vs. 16 ACM but my best guess is it would come down to the pilots.

 

Strange though I never got the chance to talk with any of the “Ego-drivers” from the Eglin or Langley MiG killers.

 

[eoyguy]

I always love these discussion when an aircraft or other weapons system, designed for a specific and pretty narrow mission, is then slagged on because it can only do A and B, a little of C, but not D, E, or F. The Tomcat was designed for a specific mission; fleet interceptor. Mission, to take off and land from an aircraft carrier, protect the fleet at range, from the expected threat of anti ship missiles and bombers. Did it do that? Absolutely, better than the Phantom or F-18 ever could. Long range and loiter time, 2 man crew, long range radar and best for its time BVR using Phoenix was its mission. In the long range interceptor role, at the time, it was without equal.  Was it a huge beast with questionable engines? It was. If it had gotten better engines earlier on, I doubt a lot of what was in that article would hold water. But it did its job. Used in the realm that it was designed for, it would shoot lesser aircraft in the face from over a 100 miles down to sidewinder range. Now, put into situations which it was never designed, like dog fighting smaller aircraft in restricted/short range environments like "topgun" yeah, its not in its element. Also, don't forget that it was part of a layered fleet defense. Anything that got by it would then have to get by the ships Surface to air missiles, and later on, CIWS. Putting it down because it wasn't good at dropping dumb bombs or the best dog fighter is like complaining your 12 gauge shotgun has poor accuracy at 100 yards and has excessive recoil. How well did the F-16 or F-18 do at BVR prior to the Aim-120? How many times were F-15's and F-16's required to land and launch from a pitching, saltwater soaked carrier deck in the dead of night? The Tomcat, designed in the late 60's and operational from the early 70's, did what it was designed to do and did it well.  The P-51 was a good fighter, but its air to ground abilities kinda sucked. The F-86 was only a good dogfighter, the Phantom was a bomb truck that could shoot missiles but was by no means a great dogfighter.. Are their reps undeserved as well?

[Pete Fleischmann]

Just an unemotional, honest assessment from someone who has gone canopy to canopy at 1200 kts closure with the Tomcat. Those are the discussions that I love and find value in. I’m attempting to bring that out here, because I find it interesting and revealing.

Again; what it was designed for is irrelevant when you look at how it was actually employed..and the roles which it was employed in; it did not excel at.

P

[eoyguy]

I think he's still pissed that the Air Force got 'Iron Eagle' while the Navy got the all time classic...'Hot Shots'... I mean, 'Top Gun'.

Edited November 17, 2023 by eoyguy

[Pete Fleischmann]

9 minutes ago, eoyguy said:

I think he's still pissed that the Air Force got 'Iron Eagle' while the Navy got the all time classic...'Hot Shots'... I mean, 'Top Gun'.

Welp.. the Navy was the ultimate loser because they got stuck with the Tomcat- but they managed to convince most of the world that the F-14 was something that it was not. So good job?

 

And Iron Eagle was pretty horrible-

P