Never understood all the Tomcat love

[John1]

1 hour ago, Juggernut said:

Hey Pete, what's the lower limit of BVR vs. heater range?  Where does heater range stop and BVR begin if that makes sense?  Not even sure if it's a hard number either....  I thought it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 11-15 miles but I ask because I just don't know.  I know that at least one of the MiG kills in Desert Storm was done with an AIM-7 (probably more than one but don't have either my references or my memory handy at the moment).  I think the guy I'm talking about is Steve Tate (1st FG F-15C driver; Capt. at the time if my memory isn't totally shot) and was flying CAP on the first night of the war.  I have his account on video and I think he launched at a 15 mile range and saw the fireball at around 10-11 miles.  Again, not entirely sure of the final distance.  I'd definitely call that BVR; even when I was young and could test out better than 20/20, I don't know if I could've seen that jet at 11 miles and certainly not at night.

Was listening to an Eagle pilot (from mid 80's to 2000).   He said the typical engagement started around 40-45 miles out, with radar detection.  By 20 miles or so, the Eagles were "sorted" on their targets and by 10-12 miles, missiles were launched, and the Eagles angled away to minimize closing speed, while still keeping the target locked for the AIM-7's.   With AIM-120's, that changed the tactics but unless you they were close in, the F-15's still had to track their targets for a bit, until the AIM-120 got close enough for it's own seeker to go active.   Regarding your first question, the new AIM-9X Block 2's are supposed to be getting close to BVR ranges.  

 

By the way, I believe the majority of the Desert Storm kills were made by AIM-7's. 

 

I'm not Pete but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. 

[Pete Fleischmann]

1 hour ago, Juggernut said:

Hey Pete, what's the lower limit of BVR vs. heater range?  Where does heater range stop and BVR begin if that makes sense?  Not even sure if it's a hard number either....  I thought it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 11-15 miles but I ask because I just don't know.  I know that at least one of the MiG kills in Desert Storm was done with an AIM-7 (probably more than one but don't have either my references or my memory handy at the moment).  I think the guy I'm talking about is Steve Tate (1st FG F-15C driver; Capt. at the time if my memory isn't totally shot) and was flying CAP on the first night of the war.  I have his account on video and I think he launched at a 15 mile range and saw the fireball at around 10-11 miles.  Again, not entirely sure of the final distance.  I'd definitely call that BVR; even when I was young and could test out better than 20/20, I don't know if I could've seen that jet at 11 miles and certainly not at night.

Hi Jugg-

nominally 10nm.

At 10 miles, if I had a new wingman, I would call “10 miles- HUD power Flares”

to get his face out of his scope and start looking for a tally Ho, switch the VTR to film the HUD, get the power out of AB for the heater threat, and get ready for IRCM because we were now in a visual fight -

P

[jeroen_R90S]

19 hours ago, Alex said:

The next one after the F-35 will be the last manned fighter.  And it will deploy with multiple AI-piloted wingmen (wing bots?) per human driven craft.

The F-35 is already scalable/upgradable to do that.... (loyal wingmen)

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by jeroen_R90S

[jeroen_R90S]

17 hours ago, Pete Fleischmann said:

this is a beam maneuver- more often referred to a “notch” and was used against a SAR shooting threat.

If flown correctly, you are actually fighting the CW illuminator of the threat radar. By putting the threat radar “on the beam”, you exploit the low airspeed threshold detect of the threat radar, by decreasing the Vc to the point where the threat radar drops you and the SAR missile in the air goes stupid because you are too slow according to its algorithm. To stay in this radar notch takes precise timing and SA. The Notch will trash the threat radars lock only. When you pitch back hot into the threat you will expose yourself, but now at a range inside BVR with awareness of where the bandit should be and you with a position of advantage.

 

Used to do this against AIM-7 shooters all the time in the early days of the F-16 when we were heaters and gun only. 
 

P

Thanks for the explanation, Pete! I did have to search out some of the acronyms, (CW illuminator for example...), but really interesting stuff. Interesting that the AIM-54 would still depend on the launching aircraft's radar to give it it's long range and only use it's own for the last part.

 

A bit off-topic, but being in a job that involves things like exploits and vulnerabilities I think this is a really good example of how exploiting (algorithm)vulnerabilities is much, much broader than what we're involved with. I might use this example to certain target audiences, so thanks for this!

 

Jeroen

[Marcel111]

Seems like the F-14‘s strength was it‘s weapons system (ie huge radar), back in its heyday. And it could carry a lot of stuff a long way. 

 

I‘ve always thought that the F-14 had unlucky timing. Had it been conceived just a few years later, it would have been a true 4G fighter with relaxed stability / FBW, LERX and most importantly no silly swing wing (which has some aero benefits but at huge cost to complexity/cost/maintenance, weight, fuel).

 

Cheers,

 

Marcel

[Alex]

2 hours ago, jeroen_R90S said:

The F-35 is already scalable/upgradable to do that.... (loyal wingmen)

 

Yes - I would expect that we'll see these things deploy with F-35's at some point well prior to the 6th-gen fighter being available.  But IMO the 6th-gen machine will be built from the circuit boards up with the idea that it exists to quarterback a fleet of unmanned assets.

[Pete Fleischmann]

2 hours ago, jeroen_R90S said:

The F-35 is already scalable/upgradable to do that.... (loyal wingmen)

 

I am involved in the Autonomous Wingman project at the Operator Performance Laboratory as an Operational Test Pilot. Our L-29’s are configured to represent the F-35 (displays, helmet, software etc) It is coming -

 

P

[chuck540z3]

So much Tomcat negativity!  Getting back to the topic, "Never understood all the Tomcat love", I for one am one of the "lovers".  Why?  Because it was a very cool jet and to me, simply beautiful in an "evil, wicked, mean and nasty" way.  I can't speak to the performance and maintenance limitations of this jet which are no doubt true or the Navy would not have replaced it with future F-18 variants, but to the general public, it was and always will be an iconic fighter favorite.  I've been fortunate enough to see it fly at 3 airshows, with the last one at Nellis AFB in November 2004 before it was retired, and from an airshow performance perspective, it was just as cool as the F-15 and F-16 demonstrations and with it's wheels up soon after take off, was a crowd favorite.  So there you have it.  You can still love this jet, even if it wasn't the "best".

 

There's a fairly poor quality video of the November, 2004 demo at Nellis below, but it's still good enough to show what it could do to please the crowd that loves it. 

 

F-14 D Super Tomcat Demo

 

Cheers,

Chuck

[JayW]

3 hours ago, chuck540z3 said:

So much Tomcat negativity!  Getting back to the topic, "Never understood all the Tomcat love", I for one am one of the "lovers".  Why?  Because it was a very cool jet and to me, simply beautiful in an "evil, wicked, mean and nasty" way. 

 

I'm with you Chuck.  The navy doesn't take in the "badassery" factor when making decisions about the toys they will use to further their mission.  But "badassery" the Tomcat has in spades.  BTW, so does the F-4!  And, so does the P-47 for that matter.  Badassery.  

[Pete Fleischmann]

Well. From an operators point of view- badassery does not apply to the Tomcat..at least not to this particular fighter pilot..but mediocrity certainly does. 
“Everyones favorite Airshow act” doesn’t mean much in combat. “What it was designed for” doesn’t matter when it was actually employed in missions it wasn’t suited for. It’s gone now-but yet the Eagle remains and is still being built.

 

John Boyd, the Air Force fighter pilot who is the father of energy maneuverability (which changed the nature of air combat forever) and probably the greatest military thinker since Clausewitz, saw the Tomcat for what it actually was- and spent significant political capital to ensure the USAF was never saddled with it. Thank Goodness he did. It was Boyd’s vision that spurred the F-16, the F-15, the F-18, and (together with Pierre Sprey) the A-10.

 

I guess my yardstick is different- but I think my question has been answered. You guys are just going to have to love the Tomcat without me.

 

and I’m ok with that.

 

cheers

P

[chuck540z3]

BADASS!  I've always liked the view from the front the best.

 

The other obvious thing to consider Pete, is that the Navy didn't have an alternative for many years, so the Tomcat was it.  F-14's were a lot better than the F-4's they replaced and as far as I know, F-16's never flew off of carriers because they weren't built for it or strong enough for cat launches.  The Tomcat was legendary and loved, because it could be ready almost anywhere in the world on short notice.

 

 

Cheers,

Chuck

Edited November 22, 2023 by chuck540z3

[JeepsGunsTanks]

6 hours ago, JayW said:

 

I'm with you Chuck.  The navy doesn't take in the "badassery" factor when making decisions about the toys they will use to further their mission.  But "badassery" the Tomcat has in spades.  BTW, so does the F-4!  And, so does the P-47 for that matter.  Badassery.  

 

If the Tomcat Book by Paul Gillcrist is to be believed, the Tomcat wasn't killed by Maintenance hours or the things listed so far, or they were the excuse Dick Cheney used when he killed the program and ordered the tooling destroyed so even spares could not be produced. It was about politics, the program was killed, because Grumman was in New York and a certain NY politician had made Dick angry. 

 

[Pete Fleischmann]

7 hours ago, JeepsGunsTanks said:

 

If the Tomcat Book by Paul Gillcrist is to be believed, the Tomcat wasn't killed by Maintenance hours or the things listed so far, or they were the excuse Dick Cheney used when he killed the program and ordered the tooling destroyed so even spares could not be produced. It was about politics, the program was killed, because Grumman was in New York and a certain NY politician had made Dick angry. 

 

[Pete Fleischmann]

8 hours ago, chuck540z3 said:

BADASS!  I've always liked the view from the front the best.

 

The other obvious thing to consider Pete, is that the Navy didn't have an alternative for many years, so the Tomcat was it.  F-14's were a lot better than the F-4's they replaced and as far as I know, F-16's never flew off of carriers because they weren't built for it or strong enough for cat launches.  The Tomcat was legendary and loved, because it could be ready almost anywhere in the world on short notice.

 

 

Cheers,

Chuck

[Maxim61]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the F-14 was designed to take out long range Soviet bombers at BVR with the AIM-54. It was never designed to dogfight. It was good at what it was deigned to do, nothing more. So it's the  late 70's, you have an F-14 loaded with AIM-54's at BVR and an F-15 with AIM-7's and AIM-9's. F-14 gets it AIM-54's off at maximum range and bugs out. The F-15 is left to defeat the AIM -54's without getting a shot off.  The F-14 is doing just what it was designed to do. Hope that eagle driver is good and defeating the AIM -54. Don't get me wrong, I love the F-15 it just both aircraft were designed for different missions.