I was stationed on the Kitty Hawk when we got overflown by 2 SU 24's and 1 SU 27. They put on a pretty cool "air show" Gave absolutely no respect to the hornets. The 24's would unload and run on them easily. Once they launched 2 Tomcats that changed really quick. It was funny watching them sliding infront of and basically cutting off the hornets. After the Sukoi drivers realised they couldn't pull away or maneuver away they gave up and left.
from what I've read the wings of aircraft have advanced to the point of where you can get best of both worlds with current generation of wings and no longer need the sweep for the speed saving on cost/space/maintenance on the wing.
@@Csilk That is not true at all. The F-18 is vastly inferior to the F-14 in terms of performance, speed, acceleration, turn-rate, ability to sustain energy in chained high energy maneuvers and ability to do vertical maneuvers like vertical scissors or double immelmans etc. The variable geometry gave the F-14 a very broad envelope of performance. It could out-accelerate even the F-15C at low levels with wings fully swept back where F-14 could hit Mach 1.3+ on the deck (50 feet). F-14 was/is the best thing Navy ever got. The only excuse made by the Cheney in the pockets of Hornet mafia was, it was too expensive to maintain, but you gotta pay to play. The airframe was nowhere near its max potential and everyone agrees Grumman had huge plans to make it the best gen 4.5 fighter.
@@2ZZGE100 I read the truth of the damage the F18 made to the mission of the carrier air wing. The F18 destroyed the long-range carrier protection mission, greatly diminished the range at which bombs could be delivered off the carrier, and savaged the airborne electronic jamming capability of the air wing.
@@FirstDagger F-14 has a much higher kill ratio. It has a much higher combat record. 164:3 with Iran and 5:0 with US Navy. Also, remember F-14 was the most feared fighter of its time. F-14s engaged/intercepted a very large number of enemy fighters, but they simply wanted nothing to do with it as soon as they found out they were going up against an F-14 especially with its powerful radar.
He backs everything up by factual evidence and sources so it is only disputed by people who don't want to believe. Over 8 years of war, for Iran to win the war, they would have had to shoot down 164 fighter planes since Iraqi fighters were invading Irani airspace on a very regular basis.
@@KLRGT500KR Agreed, libanon and iraq pilots were told to disengage as soon as they saw a F14, But this had more to do with the AIM-54 Phoenix missiles wich could shoot 6 targets at once from over 150 miles.
It's sad that they don't go with the Attack Super Tomcat 21 and Super Tomcat 21. Extended range, wider range radar than the F22, Big engines, more manueverability at low speeds, helmet mounted displays for both. Super Cruise, Thrust Vectoring plus all the other modern day tech. This plane would be a true modern day fleet defender.
@@davidecarugati9958 Yeah, it's called a "Jack-of-all Trades, Master of none". Swing Wings are phenomenal unless you are worried about all this Stealth B.S.; which most Aircraft don't even need to accomplish the Mission. You are 100% wrong though.
As a former F14 RIO from the 80's I want to damn to hell three groups of people. 1. The people that settled for the P&W engines, 2. The people that delayed the GE engines, and 3. The people that destroyed Aviation Officer Candidate School (The Cradle of Naval Aviation) in Pensacola in the early 90's.
Because of cost factors I do not believe the F-14 ever reached it's full potential. The proposed Tomcat-21 was better in every single way than the F-18 Super Hornet.
Costs, Congress was skeptical of the F-14 from the get go, and the F-14 never fully reached it's maintenance and safety goals during the height of its service. Also, you had leadership in the late Reagan and Bush era who did not want Grumman being the Navy's sole source of aircraft. One hell of a plane and do miss her.
The F-14 already was way superior to Super Hornet/Legacy Hornet. Ask any aviator who flew both and you will unanimously get the same answer. It was killed by politics of the Hornet mafia lobbyists that had Dick Cheney in their pocket. Navy fought to the bitter end to keep the almost new F-14D alive, but senate won. Navy has never gotten over the fact that they lost this phenomenal machine they never will be able to get an equivalent of.
The world barely got to see the D version Tomcat. 99% of the negativity is talking about the A-B models. If we got the Super Tomcat 21 it would be flying today most likely
Good jet for its day. Hydraulic. Fuel consumption high. Fuel and Salt errosion made the jet old. FA super Hornet and Growler puts the 18 in the lead today and into the future. The F 14 was a hell of a great old killer. If you were an enemy pilot ... You were the Dog that caught the 18 wheeler ... Not a pretty sight ...
Top Gun was definitely an influencer on people's opinion of this beast but even that can't explain all the love people have for this plane. I don't know of a single other plane that receives the love and respect the Tomcat has on the internet. With how big it is and all the moving parts along with the space between the engines etc., it should have been an ugly plane but it somehow turned out stunning!
Not only Top Gun, apart from "the other film about Navy/F-14" (The Final Countdown) I remember reading a book, novel or what else I don't recall. It was not about aviation but there was a beautifully written piece in the beginning describing a Tomcat about to line and take off from land on some airbase. This aircraft had the sex appeal to attract anyone even those with no clues about it.
I just found a couple great docs on the Tomcat. Speed and Angles and a show on Amazon called Tomcat Tales. Both are great, highly recommend for any F14 enthusiasts!
@Matthew Caughey You're getting some facts confused there! The AWG-9 system and AIM-54 were developed from weapons systems technology that migrated between different projects as they got cancelled in order. Originally, the basic system was supposed to be used in the North American F-108 Rapier which was a Mach 3 interceptor (NOT dogfighter!) being developed with technology used in the XB-70 Valkryie (also North American). The F-108 never made it past mockup because of the project program production costs. (High cost also killed the XB-70 which had a fair number of technical problems, too. Nobody had built a plane that big before that travelled 2000mph!) Instead, the Navy picked up on the basic weapons tech and was going to use it in its Douglas F6D Missileer. The F6D didn't get too far, too. Basically it was basically a single-mission, subsonic missile carrier incapable of defending itself (think A-6 developed for interception and you'll figure out WHY it's a bad idea to design an interceptor/fighter that way!) and what the Navy really wanted was a "Super Phantom" with greater radar capability and multi-targeting, multi-shot capacity. Enter the General Dynamics F-111, forerunner to the worst thought-out airframe commonality project prior to the F-35 (which is turning into perhaps the biggest turkey in US defense contract history). Instead of letting the Navy developing its own carrier-based airframe, the US SecDef/McNamara forced them to adapt a land-based medium-range tactical attack plane into a carrier-borne interceptor/fighter! It just didn't work very well, period. It was overweight and inferior to the F-4 Phantom! The one thing that WAS an improvement on the F-111B (Navy F-111) was the weapons system, again a hand-down -- this time coming from the F6D. Parallel to the F-111B development was the YF-12A which used the same basic radar/missile technology. The radar and missiles had different names between projects but were very closely related "first cousins." The missile evolved from the GAR-9 to the AIM-47 to the AIM-54. The AIM-47 used in the YF-12A is visually similar if not identical to the AIM-54 tested on the F-111B and adopted by the F-14! (The radar as used on the YF-12A allegedly had greater range than the F-14's AWG-9. Of course, the AWG-9 had continual improvement and undoubtedly more capable than the YF-12A radar set by the time the F-14 was retired.) Likewise, Hughes and Westinghouse shared basic radar technologies between projects despite being competitors. The contractors and military thought the basic concept behind the missile and radar were so good that transferred prototype tech from project to project to keep the tech alive and that meant that they didn't have to literally reinvent the systems from the ground up even as airframe/designs were cancelled.
@Matthew Caughey The A-12/YF-12A/SR-71 development is a very complicated story. Even today, the entire story is not completely known to the public and there's a lot of confusing disinformation and half-truths still floating out there. Essentially, it began as a CIA project to replace the U-2 (which was seen as being more and more vulnerable to USSR SAM tech as time went by) with help from the USAF, of course! (IF you're going to have air missions from land bases, the Air Force is GOING TO BE INVOLVED, period. That's their turf!) The USAF provided men and material for the project so they were involved from the beginning, CIA-run or not. The YF-12A and SR-71 were derivatives from the A-12 ordered by the USAF only when it became obvious that the aircraft was going to outperform everything else speed and altitude wise. Even if USAF was perhaps not crazy going on another adventure with the CIA, they'd be stupid to pass on the project. The YF-12A planes ordered by the USAF were modified from three frames already on the initial 18-plane contract the CIA put in to Lockheed. The SR-71 was still a bit further ahead and wasn't secure until some years later... The basic A-12 itself had to be proven for the SR-71 to go forward. As it is, the SR-71 was a separate production contract of about 30-32 planes separate from the A-12. A-12 production eventually split into 3 distinct variants =>[12] A-12/single pilot (CIA missions), [3] YF-12A/two man-crew (USAF, interceptor) with BIG forward fuselage/nose changes, and [3] M-21/two-seat A-12 similar to SR-71 from side view, fewer changes from the A-12 than the YF-12A; designated as mother plane for D-21 unmanned drones. To say whether the A-12 or SR-71 was the "better" plane depends on your priorities... IF it's higher-performance and better still photography, A-12 hands -- it's lighter and had room for a camera with a bigger lens than the SR-71. IF you value versatility and the ability to swap out sensor and payload pallets, no contest -- the SR-71. The SR-71 lost a bit of speed and altitude but could remain in the air longer and do more kinds of surveillance (electronic recording, radar, photography, etc.) than the A-12. The SR-71 stayed in service beyond the late 1960s because it was a "white program" and there was less to lose if the Air Force lost a plane that was "out in the open." A-12s and SR-71s were performing essentially the same mission which made one aircraft frankly redundant. Also, it was very expensive to produce AND operate the Blackbirds which is why the A-12s were ultimately mothballed by 1968 and why no version of the Blackbird remained in service besides the SR-71. (You could say the Air Force inherited modern aerial reconnaisance from the CIA. Both the U-2 and Blackbirds were CIA-initiated programs that eventually became Air Force legacy aircraft.) The YF-12A interceptor had phenomenal performance but still had limitations. One, it was NOT a maneuvering plane. NONE of the Blackbirds were! They were all too big and not aerodynamically suited to dogfight -- that was never part of the design spec and no Mach 3 plane built has EVER been a dogfighter! Two, it had a limited payload of three missiles. Not much combat persistence there...! That's probably okay in most circumstances where the YF-12 would have been used (ie, destroy nuclear-armed bombers at EXTREME range!) but it's limiting when you consider that the F-4, F-14, and F-15 could all carry EIGHT missiles AND dogfight! If pushed, the F-16 and F-18 could probably manage a mix of eight missiles, too, even though ideally they're really suited for four to six max. To be fair, only the F-14 ever carried the AIM-54 (AIM-57 descendant) operationally. The F-14 COULD carry six missiles of the approximate type the YF-12A used but only from a landbase but would never reach anywhere near the full speed of a YF-12A. Internal carriage meant the YF-12A could fire its missiles at Mach 3. The F-14 had external carriage and even with lower drag AIM-54 missile pallets between its engines could realistically probably only get up to about Mach 1.6-1.7 tops, and probably only with 4 AIM-54's max between the engines. Hang two more of those same missiles on the inner wing rails and the plane probably would have a hard time just getting supersonic with a large drag profile out there on the wing rails. Six AIM-47/-54 class missiles was beyond the capability of the F-14 to recover on a carrier with... That many AIM-54's was just too heavy and could possibly crack the airframe on aircraft recovery. Tomcats generally loaded off carriers with 2 AIM-54 missiles and a mix of 2+2 AIM-9's and AIM-7's.
At the last but not the lest... was one of the aircraft (forse) l'unico where was allocated* 6*Phoenix air target Sistem missiles. A Legendary Multirole JetFighter .
Was there ever any plans or talk for the Marines to have the F-14? Seriously, it seems like the F-14D and more advanced versions would have been great attack aircraft for the Marines.
Yes, the Marines did plan to use the F-14 and had pilots and maintainers in school to learn the aircrait but the Marines opted out of the program before any aircraft were procured for the Marines.
@Joshua N. Ajang, no and no. Marines have historically flown from fields on land and the number of carriers is based on the number of fleets and areas that need to be covered.
+cygeus *General Electric had an interim winner in the F110-GE-400.* I still hold that the engine Tomcat needed was not the F110 - rather, the General Electric F120-GE-400, which would have better than doubled the performance of the never-intended-for-a-fighter United Technologies Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-414A: 23,500# st dry / 39,000# flank afterburner per engine. The Air Force, too, should have gone the F120 route for the Lockheed Martin F-22, which parallels the F-14 in curb weight; the United Technologies Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 is more of an upgrade engine for the Boeing F-15 and Lockheed Martin F-16. In retrospect, with dual General Electric F412-GE-410's, the Boeing F-18 Rhino would have been more instinctual a dogfighter than the Northrop Grumman F-14E, lightning quick in transient performance and, with the General Electric Vulcan out front, as optimum a gunfighter as was the (now-double-inferior due to double the wing loading and a relatively anemic United Technologies Pratt & Whitney J57-P-15) Chance Vought F8U. The F-14E would make up for it in sheer T/W and capacity for seven tons of ordnance under the fuselage alone, plus additional sensor capacity in the forward rails for the Target Recognition and Attack Multisensor Gen 2 plus other avionic hardware - double the attack aircraft compared to the F-18. Additionally, with Northrop Grumman's experience with the USAF EF-111, a variant of Tomcat to be designated EF-14G would have been a better platform for a dedicated ElWar bird, with controls for four of the ECM pods previously flown in the EA-6B.
@no4go2 V/STOL isn't a major advantage? Especially when it's a supersonic aircraft, unlike the Harrier (AV-8)? The F-18 was previously the un-successful YF-17, which lost out to the (Y)F-16, but was refined into a carrier-borne lightweight fighter/bomber to fulfil a different role to the F-16 and not waste the design and testing effort. Either that or someone in government was given a backhander!
2 aircraft histories prove my point on this issue. The F-14 was designed, from the outset, for carrier use only. No one disputes this. However a small number of F-14's were sold to Iran. Iran never had a carrier. That's a special cases i'll admit but landlocked. The F-18 was not designed for carrier use at all and after it was outperformed by the F-16 the Navy saw potential (2 engines) and navalized the design. We know how to do it, it's just a matter of wether we want to or not.
The fly off competition between the F-16 and the F-17 resulted in a virtual tie. Because of logistical support, the Air Force decided on the F-16 because it was powered by the same engine as the F-15. The Navy was looking for a replacement for the aging A-7 and asked Northrup to modify the F-17 for carrier suitability. Northrup having no experience in carrier based aircraft partnered with McDonnel Douglas to develop a Navy version of the F-17. So many changes had to be made that the aircraft was re-designated F/A-18. I do agree that we lost when the F-14 was retired. By seeking more bang for the buck a compromise was reached and you no longer have a great fighter or light attack aircraft. It ends up a lose-lose situation IMHO. The bean counters in the DOD have yet to learn that lesson and we continue to purchase multi-role aircraft.
Yeah well maybe if the A models had a better maintainance record then perhaps then there would be more Ds flying around. Who knows - perhaps by this time there would be Super Tomcat 21s or F-14D Quickstrikes flying around today instead of Super Hornets.
I never imagined that the navy would be so careless as to get rid of its only air superiority/fleet defense fighter. Thanks to war criminals like cheney we no longer have this aircraft. The D was as easy to maintain as the hornet series due to updated hardware and software.
im not a hornet fan but a least the jollys were keep a 2 man crew with the super hornet.the cag has the yellow/black tail fins and the xo has the black tail fins.
Obscure fact time did you know the Hughes AWG-9 radar and the AIM-54 were developed for the proposed YF-12 mach 3 interceptor when the CIA got involved they decided the YF-12 should be re developed into first the A-12 working for the CIA then into the final version the famous SR-71 blackbird there was also supposed to be a recon version of the XB-70 Valkyrie to be called the RS-70 but when the bomber was canceled well you can figure it out
I've thought of a new missile in place of AIM-54 Phoenix. The 'mini-Phoenix' would be similar in length but with a diameter of 9 or 10". Eight or ten could be carried by the Tomcat, plus will have some AMRAAM technology.
@FutureMarine1775USA the paintjob that you are talking about was from the VF-84 Jolly Roger Sqadron and it's only on a F-14A Tomcat, i'm honest to you, dude
26 March 2021 and still no replacement for the Tomcat . Good job Navy way to show the Russians and Chinese that our Carrier battle groups aren’t worth defending.
Grumman should have upgraded F14 as far as engines and avionics, unlike the Boeng F15. . Phoenix missle should have been upgraded to a more compact missle to maintain the BVR capability
F18 mafia leave out the F14, modernizing the F 14 is more cheaper than buying a new F18 super hornet. Because you only need a software upgrade and radar.
Actually, the D-models were hard to maintain, mostly due to the fact that most of them were remanufactuered A-model aircraft. So, off the bat many of the D airframes were at least 10 to 15 years old.
@Bubo25 I agree however I think it would be more "efficient" to have made a naval version of the F-22 to serve alongside the F-35C. Boeing's F-18's are in the way in my opinoin! If it were up to me I would end all F-18 production, for U.S. use, and get those carrier Raptors on board!
Needs to be reintroduced and prepared If China goes after Tawain in 18 months as reported by the council on foreign relations, Their wont be time for a 6th generation aircraft
I can only respond to what you have written. If you think im not "listening" it could be because you're not as clear as you think you are. I gave you "facts" and you responded like a 12 year old. Have you read your comment Tim? If being an e-thug makes you feel better you go right ahead and do that. I will remain a gentleman here. By the way the movie Top Gun started my love affair with the F-14. It was a sad day to see it retire.
"Look up some facts". Interesting. With some modifications any fighter can land on an aircraft carrier and any fighter can be navalized. Russia does it all the time. More recently they're doing it with navalized Mig-29's and Su-27's (aka Su-33) The new Pak-Fa will have a naval version soon as well. The F-35 is the first true multirole platform. A painful lesson learned from the current generation of fighters. You say you've talked to "test pilots"? I say you're statements prove otherwise...
jeeze they should have just made them better? never heard of them just dropping into the Great Salt Lake like the F16s.,.. they make it sound impossible to make/build a different/better engines etc.? must be politics. seems the R.C. guys are building better stuff cuz they're free to try anything, to bad
+mrwong11989 This was not about the Super Tomcat. It is about the original Tomcat with the second generation engine. That version of the Tomcat blew away the Super Hornet in every way, except for maintenance. The Tomcat a few problems that made it require more maintenance than most fighters of it's era. The ST-21 Super Tomcat would have had the Tomcat sent back to the manufacturing for a complete rebuild. The glove area where the wings meet would have been rebuilt with a newer, more reliable design that also increased the kinematic ability of the fighter. There would have been a lot of heavy components replaced with modern composite parts, all new avioinics, sensors and radar and new thrust vectored engines. It also would have had more room for internal fuel. It would have had the speed and agility to match anything flying today, including the F-22 or SU-35 and a more unrefueled range with a combat loadout than any fighter ever built. The only thing it would have lacked was modern stealth.
+Elthenar and also the biggest aesa radar ever with ranger over 300 km coupled with jhmcs helmets and new Phoenix variants and amraam d variants , the Ast 21 would have been the best best bvr fighter in the world , also fly by wire system would have been added with superior mai taman ce , all glass cockpit with touch screens mfds , navy atack flit , new standoff weapons like the harpoon anti shit missle and the agm 88 harm anti radar missle , new ecm and electronic components, new and improved airframe with ticket wings for more fuel and also the fuselage would have been made with composite materials for improved maneuverability and less weigh ,rly the ats 21 would have been the best fighter for the navy and probably the best non stealthy fighter in the world , the f14d was already superior to the super bug when it exited service and with all.of this additions , it would have eaten the super bugs ass for breakfast rly the ats 21 was the plane but always politics with its ugly face and that fat fucker dick Cheney had to ruin it and go with a fighter bomber that is inferior in air to air role compared with 4.5 ge. European fighters sind new generation mig 29 and au 35 , with the ats 21 , it would have been no problem to bad man just to bad
It was cost cutting measure. Nothing else. The F-18 is easier to fly, cheaper to maintain and costs less on fuel. Dale "Snort" Snodgrass who flew both of these fighters for the Navy said, there is nothing the super hornet can do better than the F-14, in a real dog fight situation. There are HUD videos of F-14s getting gun kills on F-18 SH. The F-14D tomcat especially (even the F-14A) was far more powerful and kicked the F-18 Super Hornet's a** in mock dog fights when both of them were in service. The F-18 SH was being used as a ground attack strike fighter while the F-14D in the mid-2000s were being deployed as the air-to-air superiority fighter. The F-14 could turn tighter, could climb faster and add energy (while the F-18 loses energy in verticals), could pull more g and accelerate faster while ultimately hitting Mach 2.5 (the F-18 SH can do barely Mach 1.8).
As a Topgun trained FA-18 pilot who trained/flew with and against the F-14 A, B and D models for 20 years, you're unequivocally wrong in your statement about the combat performance of two airframes. The FA-18 is a much better dogfighter in any configuration and if fought properly will win every time against a F-14. Additionally, as soon as the FA-18 entered the fleet, the airiwngs re-wrote their tactical doctrines to include mixed sections/divisions of Hornets and Tomcats as the preferred employment option. The only advantage that the F-14 had over the FA-18 was in the fleet air superiority mission with targets in the 100-40 mile range. Inside 40 miles, the FA-18 was superior in every facet of any mission.
I would take the words of legendary hero Dale "Snort" Snodgrass who flew both fighters over some internet warrior any day of the week. I could post many videos of HUD from the F-14 getting gun kills on the F-18 SH. It is a FACT that the F-14 A/B/D all the advantages except at very low speeds manoeuvrability and better throttle authority at high angle of attack. They are all available to the public. The fact that you don't even ADMIT that the F-14 flew faster. it could climb faster and could add energy going vertically up (while the F-18 lost energy going vertically up due to high wing loading) and the fact that it could accelerate faster and had a better turning at high speed, tells me you are nothing but a troll.