Was it a mistake to retire the F-14 Tomcat??...

[Luka]

The TF-30 was only one of the many problems the F-111s had to struggle with. All of the errors, misunderstandings and ignoration in naval requirements made with the multi-service fighter / fighter-bomber F-111B were eliminaneted with the F-14. This was a really and aweful dog-fighter armed with the missile they always wanted for, so as the F-15 was for the air force was. The F-111 never would have been a really dog-fighter (even it had a 20mm gun or Sidewinders). It's impressive speed made it to a perfect escaping car when bombing a target and quick disappearing after( I think, they were so fast, sometimes even the color peeled off...).

- My understanding is that the "main" purpose of the F111 was to fly into Russian airspace, following the contours of the ground...Flying just meters above it. Then, to pop up and fire/drop a single nuclear weapon on Moscow (or other russian target) and then floor it and make themselves scarce! "See you later!"
Australia liked what it saw in the F111, and went and bought some! THE most savvy defence descision we've made to date in my opinion. (We just retired the fleet - a couple of weeks ago - after more than 30 years service!) I'm sure that the F111 gave EVERYONE in our region pause for thought...

[Luka]

To optimise the utility of the WSO and to improve the co-operation and tactical awareness it was thought better to put them side by side rather than in individual cockpits. Important in a tactical and nuclear bomber. It also simplified the escape requirements - the entire F111 cockpit became an escape capsule.

F-14 was designed from the outset to be an air superiority machine - as such the better aerodynamic solution was tandem seating. The F-14 didn't become the 'Bombcat' until the F-14B or D version. The F-14 and F111 apart from the swing wing design and carrier origins also shared the powerplant (TF-30's - also on the C5A & B Galaxy's too!). The TF-30 was a bugger on the F-111's - even worse on the F-14's - many many flameouts caused during manouvreing as the TF-30's were very sensitive to airflow disruptions. This changed when the TF-30's were switched for the superior F110's

- Shite! And i thought i knew something about these aircraft! Makes perfect sense now.

[DAIRD]

The TF-30 was only one of the many problems the F-111s had to struggle with. All of the errors, misunderstandings and ignoration in naval requirements made with the multi-service fighter / fighter-bomber F-111B were eliminaneted with the F-14. This was a really and aweful dog-fighter armed with the missile they always wanted for, so as the F-15 was for the air force was. The F-111 never would have been a really dog-fighter (even it had a 20mm gun or Sidewinders). It's impressive speed made it to a perfect escaping car when bombing a target and quick disappearing after( I think, they were so fast, sometimes even the color peeled off...).

[SYDCBRWOD]

Thanks SYDCBRWOD - Explained it quite nicely, i really didn't know!
DAIRD - Thanks man, i had know idea how close the F111 and F-14 were/are! Wonder why they swapped from "in-line" to side-by-side in the F-111?

To optimise the utility of the WSO and to improve the co-operation and tactical awareness it was thought better to put them side by side rather than in individual cockpits. Important in a tactical and nuclear bomber. It also simplified the escape requirements - the entire F111 cockpit became an escape capsule.

F-14 was designed from the outset to be an air superiority machine - as such the better aerodynamic solution was tandem seating. The F-14 didn't become the 'Bombcat' until the F-14B or D version. The F-14 and F111 apart from the swing wing design and carrier origins also shared the powerplant (TF-30's - also on the C5A & B Galaxy's too!). The TF-30 was a bugger on the F-111's - even worse on the F-14's - many many flameouts caused during manouvreing as the TF-30's were very sensitive to airflow disruptions. This changed when the TF-30's were switched for the superior F110's

[DAIRD]

Good question, Luka. All of the competitors from TFX were quite similar in size and layout: Boeings model 818 had a dorsal air intake above the wings and a side-by-side cockpit, while Republic showed a huge model with a swing-wing design and ramp intakes, which had its cockpit arranged like an airliner. McDonnells Model 156 came in its basically layout close to the F-111.

[Luka]

Thanks SYDCBRWOD - Explained it quite nicely, i really didn't know!
DAIRD - Thanks man, i had know idea how close the F111 and F-14 were/are! Wonder why they swapped from "in-line" to side-by-side in the F-111?

[Curtis Malone]

Obviously there is no need for such a missile in current conflicts, but the next conflict is never like the last.

But it's a lot like the one before last, as you seem to be insinuating?

[Charles022]

And for the B-52 also

The B-52 is projected to stay in service till 2040

[seahawk]

IŽd say such a long range missile makes even more sense today. With Link16 the fighter could use off board sensors for the midcourse up-dates which would allow the fighter to turn around directly after launch. Obviously there is no need for such a missile in current conflicts, but the next conflict is never like the last.

[Peter Kesternich]

A long range active homing AAM is a good thing. (...)

Hmmmmm - in my opinion a long range, active homing AAM was a good thing. There really isn't a scenario these days, where it would be useful.

The METEOR missile shows that the need for such a weapon is still real.

Just because a piece of equipment is being built doesn't mean it is a) useful or b) really needed. I think the F-22 is a good example.

And if you do not need the AIM-54 for a mission, the F-14D or better still has plenty of range and load carrying capability.

... and is stilll big, complex and expensive...

[Curtis Malone]

OK, forgetting all of the Top Gun movie nostalgia for this fighter, given it's excellent performance in combat, was it not a mistake to retire this fighter??

I'm sorry, what excellent combat performance are you referring to? In what war? Do you mean two Lybian MiG-23s shot down over the Med?

[DAIRD]

@Luka: Swing wing was a "fashion" during the 1950's and 1960's, when jetfighters were fere fitted with either straight or swept wings (e.g.F-9 Cougar and Panther, F-84 Thunderstreak). Each configuration has its advantages and disadvantages, so engineers looked for a solution which covered all steps of flight with only one wing-configuration.
Today, the "fashion" leads to smaller (not small) leight-weight fighter / fighter bombers, which should be agile and hard to detect by radar. A solid mechanism which moves the wings from 16 to 72 degrees increases only the weight and size of this aircraft. All of the swing-wing designs were not small: F-14, F-111 or Tornado. Even earlier Soviet jetfighters or bombers with swing wings had their limitations, mainly in size. But, let me take a short look back to understand the origins of the F-14:
Without the 1960 TFX-programme for a Multi-Service fighter (the same type should serve with Navy and Air Force) there never would have been a F-14. This multi-service fighter was the F-111, with a Navy-version F-111B. This was a F-111A with shortened wings and a shorter nose, designed to carry the (new) developed AIM-54 and equipped with the AWG-9 radar. Problems with increasing weight and different other failings led to the cancellation of this project after 1968. The seven prototypes made more 1700 hours and 1100 flights and Grumman took all results into its new F-14, a single-service fighter which contained all knowledge and experience the F-111B collected.
All fighters and bombers developed or build during Cold War, had their time and after nearly 40 years its time to say good-bye to F-14. And for the B-52 also.

[seahawk]

Honestly, why would the USN need any AIM-54-capable aircraft at all?

A long range active homing AAM is a good thing. not only for the US. We must not forget that the US did not invest much into the F-14 since the early 1990ies. A modern F-14 would have an AESA (probably better than what the F-22 has as the F-14 has more room in the nose and power supply would be no problem when replacing the AWG-9) and an up-dated AIM-54 with a new rocket motor, improved mid-course up-dates and a even better seeker.

The METEOR missile shows that the need for such a weapon is still real.

And if you do not need the AIM-54 for a mission, the F-14D or better still has plenty of range and load carrying capability.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Heres a question though...If the swing wing idea worked such as in the F-14, F-111 (Now theres a bomber - gives me a chubby just thinking about it) and Vigilante...even the Tornado, why was the idea never repeated in the future? Especially with aircraft just getting faster and the need for shorter runways greater?

Swing wing designs add weight, complexity (not just wing sweep mechanisms, but also pivoting the angles of any pylons) and particularly in these days where Low Observability and airframe shaping is so important, having a major part of the airframe changing the carefully managed angles, as well as having to allow gaps and slots to allow wing sweep make the swing wing an anachronism.

Aircraft have not been getting faster really since the 1980's. That was the heyday with the Mig25/31, F14 and F15 capable of well over Mach 2.3. This speed was only achievable at massive fuel cost and so was only used in a tiny number of situations. The design compromises forced on an airframe optimised for a high dash speed usually ruined agility. These days empasis is on the ability to supercruise, and accelleration rather than ultimate top speed. Despite looking like a real fat boy next to an F16 the F35 can show it a clean set of heels in high subsonic accelleration. Often chase plane pilots in F16's during the F35 testing have had to use reheat to stay in touch whilst the F35 has just been using military power. For all that the F35 isn't a real speedster - Mach 1.6-1.8 tops IIRC - slower ultimately than the Mach 2+ F-16.

The other reason why top speed is being de-empasised is that designs with high speed usually require variable intakes - again, complexity, cost, maintenance and radar cross section issues.

Shorter runways - again not really a recent issue - back in the 60's and 70's because the engines compared with today were not that powerful, to achieve decent speeds aircraft were designed with fairly highly loaded wings requiring high take-off speeds (think F104 et al). With todays engines developing massive power and wing designs being optimised for agility rather than speed, todays fixed wing machines like the F15 can be off the deck in something like a couple of hundred meters (lightly loaded) rather than the couple of thousand of their forebears. Or you can design in a thrust vectoring suystem that will help also.

[Luka]

The F-14 is/was my favourite aircraft, Grumman is the goods when it comes to design and quality.
The multiple target arrangement wasn't JUST for bomber formations...it also enables multiple targeting of anything! No matter what altitude, speed or direction, the computer could compute a solution for all of them almost simaltaneously, and so give itself a good chance of escape from multiple bogies. Reports of 30 plus targets at once from a sketchy memory! (Pointless if you only have 5-6 missiles...but hey!)
It was the avionics not the aircraft that made this possble.

I think the F-18 was a better replacement than most thought it would be. I consider the 18 to be one of the few genuine Fighter Bombers going around - proved itself in Gulf2. The 18 is as beautiful and dangerous as the 14 - whoever designed them is certainly in the right job!

Heres a question though...If the swing wing idea worked such as in the F-14, F-111 (Now theres a bomber - gives me a chubby just thinking about it) and Vigilante...even the Tornado, why was the idea never repeated in the future? Especially with aircraft just getting faster and the need for shorter runways greater?