SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Was the F-14 Tomcat a success?

1303 views
37 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: USA
Was the F-14 Tomcat a success?
Posted by keavdog on Saturday, May 26, 2018 3:21 AM

I'm in the middle of building a 1/48 Hasegawa F-14A and have the Tamiya in the stash.  I've always been a big fan of the airframe - spending most of my life in San Diego next door to Miramar I've seen pleanty of them flying.  I was reading about the platform and particularly the AIM-54A Phoenix and it seems it was never really utilized.  Is this just a case of a plane built for a tactical mission that never came to be? 

Thanks,

John

  • Member since
    January, 2006
  • From: Pineapple Country, Queensland, Australia
Posted by Wirraway on Saturday, May 26, 2018 5:24 AM
Well the Iranians had some success against the Iraqis, but I'd agree that it was more a peacetime deterrent that eventuated at a time when its full capabilities didn't need to be tested. By the time the Gulf War kicked off, the Hornet was in service, and, IMHO, a better A/C.

"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional"

" A hobby should pass the time - not fill it"  -Norman Bates

 

GIF animations generator gifup.com

  • Member since
    November, 2003
  • From: Newington CT
Posted by tempestjohnny on Saturday, May 26, 2018 5:45 AM
Well the Tomcat did shoot down a couple of Libyan Su-22's. Oh and those 2 Zeros on December 7th..:)

 

  • Member since
    March, 2003
  • From: Western North Carolina
Posted by Tojo72 on Saturday, May 26, 2018 6:15 AM

It's like a great sports team or player who wasn't seriously challenged by the competition.It doesnt make them any less successful because they were not challenged.You can only beat the ones you play.

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Phil_H on Saturday, May 26, 2018 6:20 AM

tempestjohnny
Well the Tomcat did shoot down a couple of Libyan Su-22's. Oh and those 2 Zeros on December 7th..:) 

You forgot the four(?) Mig 28's, all shot down with the same missile..Cool

  • Member since
    November, 2003
  • From: State of Mississippi. State motto: Virtute et armis (By valor and arms)
Posted by mississippivol on Saturday, May 26, 2018 10:21 AM
Also 2 MiG-23s from Libya, and an Iraqi helo. I dare you to go straight to the Tamiya kit after finishing your Hasegawa kit, you won't regret it, well, except that you went through your current build, lol!
  • Member since
    November, 2003
  • From: Newington CT
Posted by tempestjohnny on Saturday, May 26, 2018 10:47 AM

Phil_H

 

 
tempestjohnny
Well the Tomcat did shoot down a couple of Libyan Su-22's. Oh and those 2 Zeros on December 7th..:) 

 

 

You forgot the four(?) Mig 28's, all shot down with the same missile..Cool

 

Oh yeah. How could I forget Mav and Ice 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Saturday, May 26, 2018 12:21 PM

I think it was very successful. Iran used them well, both in combat and as a deterrent.

The USN did all kinds of things with them both during and following DS1.

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: Sunny So. Cal... The OC
Posted by stikpusher on Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:00 PM

It’s primary mission, carrier battlegroup defense against Soviet bombers firing stand off missiles against the carrier battle group never came to pass in reality. They did fly escorts to strikes in Libya, Lebanon, against the Iranian Navy and intercepts in those couple Libyan incidents. And they did fly as escorts in Desert Storm, but it was the Eagle that ruled the skies there and was the top killer. It’s later years saw it as a bomb dropper in the Balkans and Afghanistan as they were being phased out, primarily for economics. The re engined B & D models addressed the shortcomings of the A, but it was getting older and more costly to keep on the line. And let’s face it, if the Russian or Chinese long range bomber threat were to re emerge today, the Super Hornet does not have the stand off range capability that the Tomcat had. The AMRAAM is supposed to work at max range of a bit under 60 nm head on, while the Phoenix had nearly double that range. Although the latest AIM-120D is the latest extended range version with a classified max range, so, maybe they are getting close to regaining that lost capability.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    September, 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:52 PM

And not to forget that it wasn't a white paper design, but was the *** son of the F-111B.

I've known two aviators who flew them and loved the airplane.

Not mentioned here is the one that shot down an A-4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP9b7McyAk

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: Sunny So. Cal... The OC
Posted by stikpusher on Sunday, May 27, 2018 12:18 AM

Yes, the Admiral in charge of the Navy side of the F-111 project had the engines, radar, and Phoenix system flight tested in the F-111B, that were all incorporated into his baby, the F-14.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: USA
Posted by keavdog on Sunday, May 27, 2018 2:43 AM

Wirraway: I did read about the Iranians – some accounts are in question no?
 
Tempestjohnny – the gulf of sidra incident is definitely a win – I did an inflight poorly scaled diorama back when I was in my early 20s
 
Tojo72 – agree.  All dressed up and nowhere to go.
 
Phil_H – this is the credibility issue regarding the Iranian reports
 
Mississippivol – ha, I’ve had this Hasegawa kit for years, half butchered for the Verlinden super details sets to complicate things.  The Tamiya kit OOB I’m sure will be a breeze
 
Stickpusher – that’s what I’m talking about.  An amazing weapon system that never got challenged.  Bad subject title I suppose.  IIR the Tomcat could simultaneously track and kill multiple targets at long range.
 
GM: I am a Tomcat fan, met a couple pilots in my years as well.  Jester didn’t have a chance, but Maverick broke the rules lol
 
GM and Stick – I didn’t know about the F-111 lineage.  Interesting for sure.

Thanks,

John

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Phil_H on Sunday, May 27, 2018 2:47 AM

stikpusher

Yes, the Admiral in charge of the Navy side of the F-111 project had the engines, radar, and Phoenix system flight tested in the F-111B, that were all incorporated into his baby, the F-14.

 

The TF-30 engines and what would evolve into the AWG-9 radar and Phoenix missile systems were actually a holdover from the late '50s F6D Missileer concept aircraft. This was essentially a subsonic missile truck with a long loiter time which was intended to create a picket at a long distance from the fleet it was defending. The navy didn't like the idea but kept the core components for the F-111B and eventually, the F-14.

Numerically, the F-14 didn't achieve a great number of kills, but I'd put that down to lack of opportunity rather than any sort of design deficiency. The scorecard from the actual engagements speaks for itself, as does its tenure (35+ years) as a front-line combat aircraft.

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • From: Central Florida
Posted by plasticjunkie on Sunday, May 27, 2018 10:06 AM

Phil_H
 Numerically, the F-14 didn't achieve a great number of kills, but I'd put that down to lack of opportunity rather than any sort of design deficiency. The scorecard from the actual engagements speaks for itself, as does its tenure (35+ years) as a front-line combat aircraft.
 

Ditto. It was an awesome weapons platform. This is my favorite modern jet and have built over a dozen in 1/48 and 1/72. 

 GIFMaker.org_jy_Ayj_O

 

 

Too many models to build, not enough time in a lifetime!!

  • Member since
    June, 2014
  • From: New Braunfels , Texas
Posted by Tanker - Builder on Sunday, May 27, 2018 2:33 PM

Hey !

Youse guys talking about my favorite bird ? I loved it when the Monogram kit came out and still love it now . I have the Hasegawa and Tamiya in the stash . Both looked good to me .

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • From: Central Florida
Posted by plasticjunkie on Sunday, May 27, 2018 6:21 PM

TB

I have done several Revellograms that build up nice but do need lots of putty, sanding and TLC. The Tamiya kit will blow you away at how well the parts fit and the outstanding detail quality. Even the missiles are better detailed than Hasegawa's. Would love to see a Bobcat or D from Tamiya in 1/48.

 GIFMaker.org_jy_Ayj_O

 

 

Too many models to build, not enough time in a lifetime!!

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Phil_H on Sunday, May 27, 2018 6:39 PM

plasticjunkie
Would love to see a Bobcat or D from Tamiya in 1/48.

A D is coming, with bombs 

http://www.tamiya.com/japan/newstopics/2018/0509newitem/index.html

 

  • Member since
    May, 2018
  • From: Commonwealth of Virginia
Posted by VA Spartan on Sunday, May 27, 2018 9:15 PM
I would say the F-14 was a success but I think the purpose it was designed for is probably taken over by surface vessels acting in the air defense role defending the carrier battle group from Air interdiction. It wasn’t engineered for multi-role either so wasn’t really cost effective like the Hornet and Super Hornet. The Navy also had to free up money for F-35. As an asside, I know a number of Navy pilots who say it was stupid to retire the Tomcat and go with the Super Hornet as the later lacks the range and air to air capacity of the former.

On the workbench: 1/35 Takom T-54B, 1/350 AFV Club TypeVIIC, 1/35 Tamiya Char B1bis w/French Infnatry

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: Sunny So. Cal... The OC
Posted by stikpusher on Sunday, May 27, 2018 9:32 PM

The F-14 and the surface ship escorts complimented one another. It was a multi layer defense of the carrier battle group with the Tomcat/Phoenix being the outermost layer, all connected by data link. Any aircraft and missiles penetrating those layers would be engaged by the Aegis equipped ships, then finally with the shorter range  systems of Sea Sparrow and then CIWS.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    September, 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, May 28, 2018 10:18 AM

stikpusher

Yes, the Admiral in charge of the Navy side of the F-111 project had the engines, radar, and Phoenix system flight tested in the F-111B, that were all incorporated into his baby, the F-14.

 

A polite way of say that they were the only useful components ( other than the aviators) of a poorly conceived original design.

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • From: Central Florida
Posted by plasticjunkie on Monday, May 28, 2018 1:56 PM

Phil_H
 
plasticjunkie
Would love to see a Bobcat or D from Tamiya in 1/48.

 

A D is coming, with bombs 

http://www.tamiya.com/japan/newstopics/2018/0509newitem/index.html

 

 

 

Oh wow Phil, thanks! Can't wait to get that baby!!

 GIFMaker.org_jy_Ayj_O

 

 

Too many models to build, not enough time in a lifetime!!

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: Sunny So. Cal... The OC
Posted by stikpusher on Monday, May 28, 2018 1:57 PM

GMorrison

 

 
stikpusher

Yes, the Admiral in charge of the Navy side of the F-111 project had the engines, radar, and Phoenix system flight tested in the F-111B, that were all incorporated into his baby, the F-14.

 

 

 

A polite way of say that they were the only useful components ( other than the aviators) of a poorly conceived original design.

 

 

It was a compromise pulled into differing directions by each service. The Air Force wanted one thing, a long range all weather low level strike aircraft, while the Navy wanted a carrier based fleet defense missile armed interceptor. Both services compromised in their specs and requirements to get the aircraft into final designs. While in the end, the Air Force did get a great aircraft eventually, the Navy did not. The F-35 has similar problems. But a third service was added to the mix and their requirements added further compromises and conflicts. 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Phil_H on Monday, May 28, 2018 8:43 PM

GMorrison

 

stikpusher

Yes, the Admiral in charge of the Navy side of the F-111 project had the engines, radar, and Phoenix system flight tested in the F-111B, that were all incorporated into his baby, the F-14.

 

 

A polite way of say that they were the only useful components ( other than the aviators) of a poorly conceived original design.

 

The F-14 didn't reach its full potential until it was re-engined with the GE F110's. More thrust, better range, better payload and impotantly, more reliable.

  • Member since
    September, 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, May 28, 2018 9:47 PM

Someone mentioned the F-35. It's always the same; DoD sells a program based on a concept of universal usefulness. The F-111 was a really good AF bomber, but as a carrier capable bomber, no.

This was also in the tailwind of the various forces all looking for nuclear weapon capability.

And of course the Tomcat needed to be sold to Iran to sell Congress.

Make no mistake, in the late '60s Iran was a very important ally.

A good friend of mine served 20 years in Iran on the border working SIGINT against the USSR.

But I digress. The F-14 may well be along with the F-15 the apogee of US fighter design.

 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, May 28, 2018 10:17 PM

El Dorado Canyon was a very heroic mission. Today we can remember Ribas and Lorenc.

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: Sunny So. Cal... The OC
Posted by stikpusher on Monday, May 28, 2018 10:19 PM

The Navy never wanted the F-111 as a strike aircraft. They already had the A-6 for that role. The F-111 gave the Air Force the all weather low level capability that the Navy already had. Just in a Mach 2 airframe, as opposed to subsonic.

And yes, until the Shah fell in ‘79, Iran was a very important ally. And one with lots of money. The Kidd class destroyers were what the USN wanted on the Spruance hull and could not quite afford, but Iran could. The Challenger MBT was made by Britain to Iranian for the Shah‘s army. The list goes on.

The F-14/F-15 are the epitome of our combat tested air superiority fighter designs, but I suspect that the F-22 can put both to shame if need be one day. As things stand today, it is our last pure air superiority design. 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Phil_H on Monday, May 28, 2018 10:29 PM

GMorrison
The F-111 was a really good AF bomber, but as a carrier capable bomber, no.

The F-111B wasn't planned as a bomber. It was intended to be a long-range fleet defense interceptor armed with advanced missiles. Then they wanted dogfighting capability, then they wanted this and that. Each time a design goal was achieved, the Navy moved the goalposts. Weight blew out to 80,000+ pounds and it still couldn't do all of what they wanted, so it was cancelled.

  • Member since
    August, 2005
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Phil_H on Monday, May 28, 2018 10:33 PM

stikpusher
The F-14/F-15 are the epitome of our combat tested air superiority fighter designs, but I suspect that the F-22 can put both to shame if need be one day. As things stand today, it is our last pure air superiority design.

Keep in mind that the F14 and F-15 are/were essentially '60's technology, both types entering service in the early '70s. That makes them all the more remarkable... 

  • Member since
    September, 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, May 28, 2018 10:37 PM

Totally a bunch of worthless opinions on my part:

(Except here) Most successful USN carrier aircraft was in fact the FM-1 Wildcat. Make you like Grumman.

Best carrier aircraft in WW2: Grumman F6F Hellcat.

Best post WW2 USN carrier aircraft: hard to say but the Panther, the Tiger and the Cougar are all good choices. Umm... Grumman.

Best Vietnam era carrier aircraft. Give one to Douglas, but also Intruder and Hawkeye.

Bad ass carrier aircraft from that era: F4.

My favorite esoteric aircraft off of Navy decks: Vigilante.

No one has one like this ever AWARD: F-14 Tomcat (Get the drift on heritage?)

 

Current best ever and probably useful for a long time. F-18.

 

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: Sunny So. Cal... The OC
Posted by stikpusher on Tuesday, May 29, 2018 12:43 AM

Phil_H

 

 
stikpusher
The F-14/F-15 are the epitome of our combat tested air superiority fighter designs, but I suspect that the F-22 can put both to shame if need be one day. As things stand today, it is our last pure air superiority design.

 

Keep in mind that the F14 and F-15 are/were essentially '60's technology, both types entering service in the early '70s. That makes them all the more remarkable... 

 

The ‘teen series fighters are indeed remarkable. Although they actually did not enter operational service until the mid 70’s with the F-14 making its first cruise on Enterprise to cover the evacuation of Saigon in ‘75, and the F-15 entering service a year later. The F-16 and F/A-18 closed out the 70’s with their development.

After those four types, the RFP/Design/Development & Flight Test/Production process slowed down glacially with their replacements. While the Tomcat is now gone, the Eagle is entering its fifth decade of front line service with the USAF. Remarkable indeed.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS

FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.