Never understood all the Tomcat love

[Gazzas]

I'm not a big jet fan by any stretch.  But the plane carried the load successfully for a long time.  Hard to argue with success.  And still it's better than most Kommie crap that ever got called an "aircraft".

[John1]

14 hours ago, blackbetty said:

i remember an ancient thread on ARC where this was discussed. had an F-14 gun camera pic in it  of an F-15 canopy with the pipper on the pilots head  

supposedly from topgun

They had photoshop back then?

[Pete Fleischmann]

11 hours ago, John1 said:

You guys need to make a distinction between the crappy A model and the D.   Based on interviews with the crews that flew the Delta, that plane was a beast.   Big motors that didn’t blow up (most of the time), allowing them to easily super-cruise, a very powerful digital radar, data links and a modern, powerful IRST (allowing radar silent intercepts).  Only thing lacking was AMRAAM.  
 

 I’ve got no ponies in this race, just passing on comments from a few podcasts I’ve listened to recently.  
 

Please resume your discussions.  

And a massive radar cross section. No such thing as a silent intercept when I can see you in deep BVR with my radar. The lack of an AMRAAM was certainly not the only thing lacking. 
what’s he going to shoot at me? An AIM-7? Please. Maybe that AIM-54? Just stop. 
You shouldn’t have to work this hard to identify strengths for the Tomcat.

P

Edited November 18, 2023 by Pete Fleischmann

[Pete Fleischmann]

18 hours ago, Alex said:

 

If they're smart they are...

Agree-there is not a facepalm big enough…..

P

Edited November 18, 2023 by Pete Fleischmann

[eoyguy]

Nevermind...

Edited November 18, 2023 by eoyguy

[alaninaustria]

I always liked the F-14 from a technical point of view. It was big, and basically a missile sled. My money was always on the F-16 and F-15 for dogfighters. 

I spoke once with an RAF Pilot who had a multi year exchange with the US NAVY, and he was privileged enough to fly the F-14 and get carrier qualified. He said NAVY flying was a lot different than being based at an airbase and he liked the bird. He later went on to the US NAVY Test Pilot school and later got to sample the modern fleet of US military aircraft and he said the -16, and -15 left the Tomcat behind. He missed getting F-18 qualified, and he told me that the F-18 was just that much more of a fighter then the venerable F-14. He returned later to the RAF and flew the Tornado. He said that was an underpowered dog… always interesting to hear upfront and personal stories from those who fly these birds of prey… 

I always wanted to get strapped into a fast jet - but, I’m content at the other end of the speed spectrum flying seaplanes and firefighting aircraft. Nothing beats punching a load off and saving a community engulfed in a wildfire. 

Cheers

Alan

[Confusionreigns178]

I think folks here are forgetting an aircraft's appearance. Tomcat..... looks amazing. The F-35..... looks like a big, dull nothing, IMHO. 

 

I have no doubt that one F-35 could take on six F-14's and come out smiling, but that's not the point, for me. Just to look at them, there's NO competition.  

 

I will now brace myself for a deluge of "How dare you!" comments. 

 

Cheers.

 

Chris.   

Edited November 19, 2023 by Confusionreigns178
Amending some information

[dutik]

At least the numbers of air-to-air victories are on the side of the F-14. 712 airframes built, 135 victories scored. The 1198 made F-15s "only" scored 104.

 

Maybe a skilled pilot knowing his tactics can outfly a F-14 with a much cheaper aircraft, why not, but out there where the gloves are off and a kill is final it did it's job as intended. Maybe better than the F-15 (sources may vary, as always regarding wartime reports), at least not worse than the Eagle.

 

And which Eagle ever escorted a Bear on a combat mission? The Tomcat did

 

Regards

- dutik

[Dave Williams]

When did the F-14 score 135 victories?  USN had only 2 kills IIRC, and I don’t think there is any way that Iranian F-14s had 133 kills.  If Iran says they did, I’m going to need to see some proof.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Dave Williams

[Oldbaldguy]

9 minutes ago, Confusionreigns178 said:

I think folks here are forgetting is an aircraft's appearance. Tomcat..... looks amazing. The F-35..... looks like a big, dull nothing, IMHO. 

 

I have no doubt that one F-35 could take on six F-14's and come out smiling, but that's not the point, for me. Just to look at them, there's NO competition.  

 

I will now brace myself for a deluge of "How dare you!" comments. 

 

Cheers.

 

Chris.   

To me, the F-14 always looked rather Ichabod Crane-ish - all knobs and knees and elbows - while the F-35 in any form looks so very turd-like.  In a world where computers do so much of the design work, I’m afraid elegance is much a thing of the past.  All the really sexy planes of the fifties and sixties are products of slide rules and cocktail napkin doodles and the old adage about an airplane often flies like it looks.  Those days are long gone.  Airshows, rivalry and Hollywood aside, I think the F-14 and the F-35 are more kindred spirits than not.  The F-14’s job was to deliver the goods as far away as possible in a very analog, battering ram way at a time when that was the only solution.  The F-35 does the same thing by manipulating ones and zeros without the need to get its hands as dirty.  Neither is/was intended to bring back the swirling dogfights of WWI.  What a wonderful, modern time we live in.  Now, the real elephant in the room is not the “My Chevy is better than your Ford” syndrome, but pilots in general.  Most everyone who flies is convinced that they are/could have been a fighter pilot.  It’s the nature of the beast.  Straight and level is about as exciting as your easy chair at home.  Upside down and backwards gets your blood to pumping.  Pilots see themselves that way no matter what airplane they fly.  I have done loops and rolls in a Cessna 172.  My wing commander thought nothing of fighting A-10s with a C-130.  I once jumped an ultralight in my little homebuilt and immediately got my ass kicked at less than freeway speeds.  ANY pilot who tells you he has never flown lower than the tree tops, has never seen the ground where sky should be, bombed cows or strafed a train is lying.  It’s a pilot thing.  And there is the rub.  Not every wife is beautiful and smart nor every airplane nimble and quick, no matter what Hollywood or some PR guy wants you to believe.   I think that’s Pete’s biggest gripe:  He was dancing a wicked tango with the prettiest girl in the room while everyone else was gushing over the big girl who could barely waltz.  I get it and I can’t dance at all.

[dutik]

55 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

When did the F-14 score 135 victories?  USN had only 2 kills IIRC, and I don’t think there is any way that Iranian F-14s had 133 kills.  If Iran says they did, I’m going to need to see some proof.

 

5 USN kills: 2 Su-22, 2 Mig-23, all Libyan, and an Iraqi helicopter.

Sources about Iranian kills vary from 33 to 135 victories. As alsways there must have been two different wars at the same time, if you ask different participants about the results. Same procedure as every war

 

Regards

- dutik

Edited November 18, 2023 by dutik

[Pete Fleischmann]

2 hours ago, dutik said:

At least the numbers of air-to-air victories are on the side of the F-14. 712 airframes built, 135 victories scored. The 1198 made F-15s "only" scored 104.

 

Maybe a skilled pilot knowing his tactics can outfly a F-14 with a much cheaper aircraft, why not, but out there where the gloves are off and a kill is final it did it's job as intended. Maybe better than the F-15 (sources may vary, as always regarding wartime reports), at least not worse than the Eagle.

 

 

All of this is not based in reality. Any factually informed, unemotional and unbiased objective review of the Tomcats operational performance destroys this notion.

P

[John1]

8 hours ago, Pete Fleischmann said:

And a massive radar cross section. No such thing as a silent intercept when I can see you in deep BVR with my radar. The lack of an AMRAAM was certainly not the only thing lacking. 
what’s he going to shoot at me? An AIM-7? Please. Maybe that AIM-54? Just stop. 
You shouldn’t have to work this hard to identify strengths for the Tomcat.

P

Easy Pete, I'm just regurgitating the interviews of pilots and RIO's who flew the D.   They all acknowledged the failings of the A but seemed to think that the D model was everything the original aircraft should have been.  I guess it comes down to just being in love with whatever aircraft that you are flying. 

 

Do find it surprising that the Navy opted not to equip the B/D models with AIM-120, guess they figured that with the "Peace Dividend" they could save some $, plus they would never have a peer threat that made this missile necessary.   As long as you are just going up against third world Su-22's, no need for any high-end weaponry. 

[Pete Fleischmann]

2 hours ago, Confusionreigns178 said:

I think folks here are forgetting is an aircraft's appearance. Tomcat..... looks amazing. The F-35..... looks like a big, dull nothing, IMHO. 

 

I have no doubt that one F-35 could take on six F-14's and come out smiling, but that's not the point, for me. Just to look at them, there's NO competition.  

 

 

So perhaps this explains the question in the subject of my thread.

 

”It looks cool”

 

Meh. 

 

[Pete Fleischmann]

1 hour ago, Oldbaldguy said:

   I think that’s Pete’s biggest gripe:  He was dancing a wicked tango with the prettiest girl in the room while everyone else was gushing over the big girl who could barely waltz.  I get it and I can’t dance at all.

That’s pretty funny OBG- literally made me chuckle out loud. Good stuff.

 

P