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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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...).

[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.

[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...

[DAIRD]

Well, that's what they finally made out of it: a deep penetration bomber covered with F-designation. I suppose, they made it to confuse the Russians. Best of all decisions McNamara made, was to unify the military aircraft designations in 1962...
F-14's were build to intercept large Soviet-bombers before they could launch a nuclear-head-missile and perish a complete carrier group.
A last word to your: "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!"
Thats theory. Running down the carpet by by terrain-following-radar to bomb a target with nuclear weapons definitely means doomsday is knocking on your door. The F-111s had the same chance to survive as a snowman in hell has. Its a one-way ticket, not more. Also French Airforce using the large Mirage IV: this aircraft was only dedicated for nuclear - bombing just behind the French borders, never expected to survive or even coming back. We exercised a lot of different scenarios (with or without nuclear threat) during Cold War in the 1980s (in the 1970s I was to young for it). Result: we all would be dead now (since 25 years in my case).

[tsv]

I would ask "Was it a mistake to build the F-14". The US had no credible threat to it's Sovereignty before, during or after the arrival of the F-14. And it wasn't exported in significant numbers.

So just a drain on tax payers $ IMO, dollars which many US citizens would probably like to have back in their pockets right about now

[DAIRD]

I would ask "Was it a mistake to build the F-14". The US had no credible threat to it's Sovereignty before, during or after the arrival of the F-14. And it wasn't exported in significant numbers.

So just a drain on tax payers $ IMO, dollars which many US citizens would probably like to have back in their pockets right about now

So it was a mistake to sell it to the Imperial Iran Airforce in the 1970's.

[Peter Kesternich]

So it was a mistake to sell it to the Imperial Iran Airforce in the 1970's.

Well, that would depend on your point of view. From an economical standpoint it's never a mistake to sell something and make some money. Politically, noone could have known that the ally Iran of the 60s and 70s would turn into a major adversary by the 1980s. But then again would the US rather have Iran be in possesion of a fleet where it is easy to get spare parts? *lol... Under these circumstances it's better that Iran has the F-14s which become less and less a threat every day.

[SYDCBRWOD]

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.

Peter, your assessment is based on existing threats. The assets that could be employed against the Taliban could be as simple as an armed trainer (Embraer Super Tucano) or the OV 10X proposal. Meanwhile other powers such as China are developing 4th and 4+gen airframes.

How long do you think the gestation period is to developand field say the F-22 you are currently slating? Try around 15+ years. How much notice do you think the Chinese would give the world if they tried to retake Taiwan by force. Maybe 15 days of suspicious increased activity and 15 hours worth of combat. How many F-22's could have been developed in 15 days?

Err... That's right Peter, zero. Game over.

All through history countries have been caught with their pants down when it comes to defence. Australia had bugger all at the start of the second world war - basically Darwin was defended by a squadron or 2 of obsolete aircraft against Japanese bombers. England was almost defeated due to the Chamberlain government sticking its head in the sand for far too long prior to WWII.

Even training a competent infantryman takes 8 months at a minimum. The US or any nation cannot just sit back and train and equip for a low intensity conflict lest another country opens up elsewhere with a high intensity conflict. Military equipment does not just grow on trees nor does the experience and training and interoperability of todays combined battlefield work without regular training, development and excercising of skills and equipment.

Defence forces are not 'instant - dehydrated just-add-water' constructs. They are a nations insurance policy against being suddenly colonized by some other nation. During peacetime they are easy meat to have their budgets cut, defence spending plans whittled away as the public see the defence forces as having no real role. Then when a threat looms, the public and politicians scream to be protected without any true appreciation of the situation they have allowed develop. You as a German should have more reason than most to understand this idea - the Whermacht's Panzer Divisions (Sukhoi T50's) cut through the polish horse mounted cavalry (Super Tucano's) during WWII like a hot kniife through butter, and the result was as predictable as the consequences for the Polish Cav.

[Curtis Malone]

Peter, your assessment is based on existing threats. The assets that could be employed against the Taliban could be as simple as an armed trainer (Embraer Super Tucano) or the OV 10X proposal. Meanwhile other powers such as China are developing 4th and 4+gen airframes.

How long do you think the gestation period is to developand field say the F-22 you are currently slating? Try around 15+ years. How much notice do you think the Chinese would give the world if they tried to retake Taiwan by force. Maybe 15 days of suspicious increased activity and 15 hours worth of combat. How many F-22's could have been developed in 15 days?

Err... That's right Peter, zero. Game over.

All through history countries have been caught with their pants down when it comes to defence. Australia had bugger all at the start of the second world war - basically Darwin was defended by a squadron or 2 of obsolete aircraft against Japanese bombers. England was almost defeated due to the Chamberlain government sticking its head in the sand for far too long prior to WWII.

Even training a competent infantryman takes 8 months at a minimum. The US or any nation cannot just sit back and train and equip for a low intensity conflict lest another country opens up elsewhere with a high intensity conflict. Military equipment does not just grow on trees nor does the experience and training and interoperability of todays combined battlefield work without regular training, development and excercising of skills and equipment.

Defence forces are not 'instant - dehydrated just-add-water' constructs. They are a nations insurance policy against being suddenly colonized by some other nation. During peacetime they are easy meat to have their budgets cut, defence spending plans whittled away as the public see the defence forces as having no real role. Then when a threat looms, the public and politicians scream to be protected without any true appreciation of the situation they have allowed develop. You as a German should have more reason than most to understand this idea - the Whermacht's Panzer Divisions (Sukhoi T50's) cut through the polish horse mounted cavalry (Super Tucano's) during WWII like a hot kniife through butter, and the result was as predictable as the consequences for the Polish Cav.

So, again, like seahawk you're suggesting preparing for a conflict similar not to the last one, but the one before last. What good would the F-22 do in your Taiwan scenario exactly?

[SYDCBRWOD]

So, again, like seahawk you're suggesting preparing for a conflict similar not to the last one, but the one before last. What good would the F-22 do in your Taiwan scenario exactly?

Establish an air defence perimeter/fight for and gain air superiority.

The air war today is not and will not be fought like the air wars of the recent past. Equipment from the past is well suited to the past. The F-22 and F-35 will be able to take the fight forward.

What's your aeronatical solution to that scenario?

[Curtis Malone]

Establish an air defence perimeter/fight for and gain air superiority.

The air war today is not and will not be fought like the air wars of the recent past. Equipment from the past is well suited to the past. The F-22 and F-35 will be able to take the fight forward.

What's your aeronatical solution to that scenario?

Only that it HAS no aeronautical solution, which was precisely my point. I rather doubt the Chinese will need air superiority to retake Taiwan and I further doubt anyone will truly try to stop them, especially since the US, for one, has for quite a long time now maintained a One China policy.

[SYDCBRWOD]

- 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...

The use of terrain following radar worked well in the 1970's and 1980's as the advantages were:

1. The surprise factor - ground based Anti-air assets had too little time to get a lock and firing solution.

2. The soviets lacked radar with a 'look down, shoot down' ability. By that I mean that a Russian fighter aircraft could not orbit an area of likely ingress of a strike package, pick up the F111 as it jinked down valleys. Even if it did pick up the presence of a fast low flying aircraft could not get a radar lock amid the gound clutter.

Disadvantages are:

1. Fuel burn is horrendous at low altitude, reducing range.

2. A TP profile set to maximum attack is a very savage ride - fatiguing for the airframe and the crew.

3. Now with Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS), the bad guys do not function independently - sure the first radar site may not have a lock for long enough to send up a missile or cue a gun, but it can now in real time pass that info onto another battery downrange and that will be waiting...

4. The bad guys now have both AWACS and fighter aircraft with radars that can discriminate against the radar clutter at gound level - and ping the F111.

Back in the 1970's when the pigs became operational, and through the 80's they were untouchable in our region. In the 90's and particularly the naughties, the F111's would have to be escorted by our F/A -18's into defended airspace which largely nullifies their amazing range as they are now tied to the shorter ranged fighters.

Their time has come in an Australian context. Which is a pity because I too have a soft spot for them. I remember standing on the side of a hill watching a firepower demo on Puckapunyal range back in the early 90's. It was about 8pm, dark as buggery, in late May (so bloody freezing) when an F111 came in from our left at a high subsonic speed, dropped its bombs on the target hill which erupted with multiple explosions - and was gone even before the sound of the aircraft hit us. Just to prove that it was an F111 out and about and that the demo hadn't been rigged with high explosive being placed under the target, the aircraft completed another run doing a dump and burn. We then went from being awed to envious when, as we stood ankle deep in mud on the side of a hill in intermittent sleet in mid winter Victoria we got news from the pilot that they would be back in Amberly 1,200 km away eating dinner in a nice warm Officers Mess around 75 minutes time....

Official retirement, 3 December: http://www.boeing.com/global/Austral...fdProgram.html