As a kid I wanted to be a fighter pilot. Poor eyesight, risible spatial awareness and an inability to understand even basic instructions knocked that idea on the head. But even as my career went down a different path, I retained an analyst's interest in aviation. In particular I like to try and understand the military-industrial systems in which aircraft were developed and the doctrines and concepts that governed their employment.
This channel is a way of getting ideas and research from my head into some kind of organised form. I really hope you enjoy watching them as much as I enjoy making them. But please remember that this is my passion and my hobby. I am not a professional documentary maker and I am at best an amateur historian. Please forgive the inevitable mistakes!
Well done. However, can’t agree with the F-14D being the best 4th generation. It was better, but for most applications, F-15C or F-15E probably hold that title. They was a very good reason the Navy looked at the SeaEagle as a replacement/supplement.
Even though it was a 4th gen fighter, the Tomcat was built with the mindset of a 3rd gen, an extremely specialized interceptor rather than an air superiority fighter as the F-15 was. It couldn't be adapted into a multirole (they tried but didn't succeed), and that kind of numbered its days short.
13:15 what does this technojargon mean: 152 pound 24-bit 5400b digital computer? I’m looking for reference information but can’t find anything online using these specific numbers.
One of the best videos i've seen made on the topic. Some slight corrections that i managed to note and not forget during watching. There was never a g-limiter on the F-14, at least not on the A and B variants, i'm not sure about the D and the DFC equipped planes, that may have had some AoA limit in place, but don't take my word for it. That doesn't mean g-limits weren't in place though. They were and they were increased during the operational lifetime, however it was up to the aviators to enforce them. Also, the plane had overstress trackers in place, so overstressing the jet was hard to hide, and usually structural checks were the norm after such occurrences, to make sure nothing's out of place. The other note i remembered is that PD-STT Phoenixes do loft, and the longest ever achieved shot was one such shot. Please correct me if i'm wrong, So much for the notes! Keep making great videos!
While hideously expensive the F-14 was an interceptor, fighter, and late in life a good A-6 replacement. It’s fault were worked out in the F-14D. This is comparable to the F-15 series. Which was repeatedly funded. And still is. The Navy was left with the F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet. Which is a makeshift replacement for the A6, A7, and F-14.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention the CADC was the first true microprocessor ever produced. I own a few fragments of them, they were all cut up and destroyed by the USN to keep them away from the Iranians. I'm not really a computer guy, I'm a plane guy, but I think the technology is fascinating, and it's neat to have a real part of an F-14 next to my model of one on my shelf. I also got to climb in and on the Temple Tomcats in summer of 2020.
Just the fact that the navy personnel on the boat never wanted to see the cat go tells you how mighty it was I feel the defence department made a huge mistake the the f-14D in not utilising it more than it did as a fighter bomber/strike aircraft I know it was used as that for a while but it could've been utilised for many years longer than it was
I believe your account of the USN AIM-54 engagement is a bit out - one of the pilots involved was interviewed a couple of years ago on the 'Tomcast' series and that incident was covered. According to him the missiles were fired from a pair of Tomcats on their way back from an attack mission (so one each from the left shoulder pylon), and both motors failed entirely to start, due to inexperienced deck ordies loading the missiles onto the pylons incorrectly.
I really appreciated the diagram and explanation of the various radar modes and what they did. I have HEARD the terms before but I didn't really understand them.
"Missile Messages". I had a sudden vision of Phoenixes posting on social media, mostly "I'M HOMING IN! I'M GOING TO GET U!" with lots of smiley and devil face emojis.
Does the radar antenna Always point down like it's shown @11:03 ? Or can it also angle "straight on" or "flat front" as well? I would think the antenna could angle head on if the radar could be "bore sighted" straight ahead in a 2.3° cone, as mentioned.
The video reinforces the impression that *a thorough and definitive 'analytical battle' is to settle the question between Beyond Visual Range combat and Aerial Combat Maneuver* ... The *crucial role of engine development in aviation* , *assembly rationalization toward an 'economy of scale'* and *arms exports as a condition of affordable procurement* make for further foundations in aviation historiography...
*The Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in 1968 were never about a shift to Aerial Combat Maneuver* . Hence Connolly's reply was: _"Senator, there isn’t enough power in all Christendom _*_to make that airplane what we want_* ." - when asked by John Stennis if a more powerful engine would make the airframe _acceptable to the Navy_ (Smithsonian)... Faithful quotation of primary sources is crucial in history - otherwise Nazis will easily gain bases on the Moon as 'someone had heard'. Connolly had supported the F-111 until Defense Minister MacNamara left office - and in fact, it outperformed all other Air Force interceptors due to it's advanced long range RADAR and it's six, large, very long range air-to-air missiles (including advanced features like terrain following RADAR, automated bomb sight calculations, heavy payload for ground missions, shortened and improvised field take-off - so that a modernized F-111F was still out-competing other airframes in swift deep strike missions during the Second Gulf War in 1991). After the Air Force had lost three F-111A under unknown, mysterious circumstances in Vietnam (no signals, no wreckage, no pilots), resentments were growing among instructors at the Naval Air Station Miramar like with Captain Joe Brantuas, returning from Vietnam in 1967 which would lead to a similar *movement away from 'Beyond Visual Range' combat doctrine toward a restoration of World War II Aerial Combat Maneuver* as with Boyd in the Air Force (the advanced F-15 'Fighter Experimental', and especially the F-16 'Lightweight Fighter' development)... Usually MacNamara is blamed for demanding streamlining and standardization across services when commending the F-111 'Tactical Fighter Experimental', with a Navy complaining about 'weight and size' when in reality another requirement which Connolly never bothered to explain to the Senate had quietly derailed post-war, jet aircraft development - as it will forevermore within the services... 45:09 The 1974 Grumman F-14A Tomcat was a well designed 'Naval Fighter Experimental', but only partially completed by 1987 with some initially accident prone engine upgrades (F-14A+/B increasing operational thrust-to-weight-ratio from about 0.5 to 0.8) and additional digitization (F-14D Super Tomcat, capable to outperform the F-15E in strike missions) before being retired in 2006 as being 'too costly to operate' (replaced by the rather transonic, but maneuverable, _reliable_ multi-role F/A-18A-F 'Naval Lightweight Fighter') - a challenge, the F-111 was exactly designed to resolve - and a crucial issue of industrial warfare with which the US still struggles during the current 'lightweight' Joint Strike Fighter program, about to produce a 6 billion budget overrun in the early 2030s (according to the Government Accountability Office)... The F-14 would have been only sustainable if exported beyond Iran - much like the F/A-18 (Canada, Australia which still flew a modified F-111C... , e.g. underbidding the tri-national Panavia Tornado contracts of almost 1000 units in 1976) and... if it's voluptuous nacelles were smothered unto the lofty Air Force... replacing the F-111 and rival sister F-15 'Experimental Fighter' in all variants, aligning US grand strategy and procurement around maritime power (with the AIM-54C designed not just to deter bombers, but also cruise missile strikes - of course, the actual question is what General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas were supposed to build, instead if not forced to merge when the later F/A-18 'Fighter Attack' design appears relatively redundant to more maneuverable F-16 variants unless upscaled toward F-14 weight - like the completely redesigned, yet again shutdown in 2027 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet...). Though the historic development path of post-war jet fighters appears labyrinthine, given increasing miniaturization and sophistication across several technologies, the fact is that the US can't afford several advanced aircraft types across several services unless assembled and maintained in an integrated, efficient, _rapid_ manner - hence the ceaseless talk of 'multi-role' and 'modular' that failed to manifest in reality e.g. within the Navy's Littoral Combat Ships. *A diminished 'economy of scale' is the more relevant military history between the spectacles of 'gOoD lOoKiNg' aircrafts and sentimental nostalgia* (while this video essay is a fully stuffed bargain bag, hauled out of aviation history archives )...
Ward Carrol; callsign "Mooch" has told us about flying the F14 in airto-ground missions According to the mid-1970's edidtion of JANE'S POCKET BOOK OF ROCKETS AND MISSLILES. A Phoenix intercepted an incoming warhead at, IRRC 110 miles In 1981, which was the heyday of local radio talk shows with a Rightist tilt. I was one such caller to TSAR, 1480;: AM. The weeknight show was hosted by Mo Lauzier. One night I called in and being a well-known person there, Mo and I had a short convo whill the commercials were running, during which I asked if we were private (off-air) and he siad "yes". I said "Y'know, they call em 'Tomcat'", and he, being good-natured and positively disposed toward me said "Why?" . I replied "'Cuz I can F-14"
I dont think the f-14's "early" retirement compared to the F-15 and F-16 has anything to do with the deisgn, and has everything to do with the fact the the Super Hornet was able to be delivered on time and in sufficient enough quantities to actually replace it on a 1:1 basis whereas the F22 and F-35... Well... If you had told any military planner in 2004 that in 2024 we would still be having F-15c and F-16c represeting a huge portion of our fighter force.. you wouldl have been laughed out of the room.
"(...) the Super Hornet was able to be delivered on time and in sufficient enough quantities to actually replace it on a 1:1 (...)" True - and one has to remember the geopolitical realities of 'Operation Enduring Freedom' a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union - with a Russian Air Force not seriously modernizing their air fleets to Su-27Pu/Su-30SM standards until 2013. Yet, the F/A-18 was considered a 'Lightweight Fighter' during it's competition with the F-16 in said program - at least in some Navy office, it should have made sense to question whether the Navy should follow a similar high-end/low-end mix of it's squadrons as Admiral Zumwalt had demanded for the Navy's surface assets, maintaining an affordable fleet... The F-14D had benefited from engine and avionic upgrades - arguably - far beyond it's original production value (if upgraded, instead of newly produced) - the same could be assumed when an Adaptive/Variable Cycle Engine would be mass produced and technologies from the Joint Strike Fighter program would proliferate unto 4th generation airframes. A comparatively low observable Advanced Strike Fighter ASF-14 would have been technologically in closer reach than a fleet of 100 B-21 Raider or 6th generation NGAD and solve virtually all current operational challenges, a Block III F/A-18E/F or a F-35B/C will not due to their limitation in range (endangering the carrier), loitering time and supersonic speed - although much would depend on the availability of air launched hypersonic weapons that could oversaturate and degrade air defense networks with little exposure.
From what I have read, the main driver in F-14 retirement beyond airframes just timing out / tech irrelevancy has to do with RCS. It became very obvious as missles became more sophisticated that RCS was a huge driver in future survivability. Thus the F-18 redesign. Ive talked to the design team at boeing that made those changes when working on a low RCS design for a competition. When examining the F-14, its possible to lower its RCS but not sufficiently to make it a better option than the redesigned F-18. The F-18 had vastly inferior performance. But that didnt matter as there was no peer adversary. The known use cases for the next two decades didnt include a technological peer. Thus, monetarily, it didnt pencil out. The upgraded F-14 offered was a heck of a gadget but solved no real immediate problem.
The F-111B did not "fail". It met the original specifications for the fleet defense fighter. What failed was the Navy's ability to foresee the needs of the future when issuing those specifications. As a result of combat experience in Vietnam the Navy later realized it could not afford a dedicated fleet defense fighter, and it needed its next fighter to be an all-around air superiority fighter that could also perform the fleet defense role. The F-111B had NEVER been intended to be an all-around air superiority fighter with the dogfighting ability the F-14 would have. Connolly, having been a fighter purist who never wanted the dedicated fleet defense fighter in the first place, was fittingly given the job of putting the nail in its coffin before Congress. But his words are always taken out of context, and the F-111B gets the blame for the Navy's changing requirements.
I have integrated Your argument into my comment. I also would argue that a video is due that looks into Beyond Visual Range versus visual range Aerial Combat Maneuvering as the Korean and Vietnam War are both proxy conflicts that can't reflect a realistic Cold War stand-off (it would have been rather simple to resolve both decolonizing conflicts, diplomatically or with minimal military intervention toward the same outcome).
@@christophmahler I do not see the connection between my comment about aircraft design specifications and your desire to begin a discussion related to geopolitics. I would suggest that is an interested topic but that it would be better discussed elsewhere.
For the more technical and WW1/2 focused side I can recommend "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" he goes into incredible detail. I think he got more than 9 hours just about the P-47.
