F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16 (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

"The Super Tomcat 21 is a proposed multi-role adaptation of the F-14D Tomcat. It was proposed as a low-cost alternative to the Naval ATF, and drew heavily on the work done on Grumman's "Quickstrike" proposal.

Like the "Quickstrike", the Super Tomcat 21 was to have a FLIR, and was to be provided with more modes for its APG-71 radar, such as synthetic aperture and Doppler Beam Sharpening for mapping. The new multimode radar would have a two-dimensional, passive, electronically scanned array giving twice the power of AN/APG-71 of the F-14D. All of the FLIRS would be located on either side of the aircraft just below the nose. Four underfuselage hardpoints would have five munitions substations each, while the two wing glove pylons would have two substations. Navigation and targeting pods could be installed. The Super Tomcat 21 differed, however, from the Quickstrike in making an attempt to reduce its radar cross section by a significant amount. In addition, it was to have been powered by improved F110-GE-129 turbofan engines which offered "supercruise" (the ability to achieve sustained supersonic cruising speeds without the need for afterburning) and would even have included thrust vectoring capability. It was anticipated that the 35 percent increase in thrust would allow the aircraft to supercruise at Mach 1.3 with four air-to-air missiles. The Super Tomcat 21 would also have featured enlarged tailplanes with extended trailing edges giving greater area, plus newly-configured wing gloves housing additional internal fuel. It would also have featured increased-lift slotted flaps and extended-chord leading edge wing slats to allow no-wind carrier takeoffs or conventional carrier takeoffs at higher loaded weights. A new more powerful radar suite would be fitted, and the weapons delivery capability would be markedly enhanced by the adoption of helmet-mounted sights. The crew would have a single-piece canopy.

The combat radius of the Super Tomcat 21 would have been almost twice that of the F-14D. More than twice the expendables would be carried by the Super Tomcat 21, with BOZ chaff dispensers carried on LAU-7 launchers and 135 chaff/flare packets instead of 60 as carried on the F-14D. The revised airframe would have hade 25 percent greater lift and 15 percent lower landing speed.

The Attack Super Tomcat 21 was based on the Super Tomcat 21 but had thicker outer wing panels that carried more fuel. In addition, the aircraft would have provision for carrying larger external fuel tanks. Refinements to the leading-edge slats and the trailing-edge flaps were to give a 18-mph reduction in the landing approach speed. The aircraft was to have had the Norden radar that had been developed for the abortive General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II. The Attack Super Tomcat 21 has received quite a bit of attention as a potential alternative to the cancelled A-12.

However, in the present military drawdown mode, both of these Tomcat 21 proposals were never proceeded with. "

Matt is there any detail regarding the proposed change in airframe to achieve a reduction in radar cross section - or was the proposal to use radar energy absorbent materials?

Was all the Lift improvement focused on LE and Flap innovations or some mention of other approach to achieve 25% increase in lift.
 
I don't know the answer to that question. As you noticed I enclosed the above in quotes, as those are not my words. My knowledge of the Super Tomcat is nil. Sorry.
 
Thanks Matt for your post. I had a publication on the proposal by Grumman detailing much of what you posted but have lost it. The following is from memory about advantages the Strike Tomcat would have had over F18E/F. As great or greater load capacity. Mach 2.4 versus 1.8. Much longer range. Ability to launch from carrier w/o reheat. Zero WOD which Super Hornet does not have, ( Hornet cannot launch with no wind over the deck) This can be crucial when operating in the littoral. The Hornet has some stealth characteristics which the Tomcat does not. I have a book, "Pentagon Paradox," which seems to indicate there were political reasons for picking the F18 E/F program over the Grumman one. The Grumman proposal was all new manufacture with, I believe, all the latest electrical and electronic gear which would have solved some of the Tomcat maintenance factors.
 
Interesting. My timeline recollection was that the Tomcat 21 was much prior to F-18E/F decision. I found an old collection of Aviation Week publications at work about 7 years or so ago (and these publications were dated MUCH early than when I found them), that included extensive discussions of the Tomcat 21. Wish I had absconded them in hindsight. I'm sure they just were thrown away.
 
Matt, my memory may be faulty but I believe the Tomcat 21 was a proposal which preceeded the Strike Tomcat. I remember that the NY senator named D'amato or something, a Republican, was fighting to get the Strike Tomcat over the MD proposal and Cheney was the SecDef. After the government took the MD proposal Grumman shut their doors and merged with Northrup and D'amato either retired or was defeated, I think, by the jerk, Schumer.
 
sort of begs the question...was the f-14 defeated in the air, or was it defeated on the ground, in the US senate. Wouldnt be the first time the Navy has suffered its worst defeat at the hands of a pro-air force government...thats basically how the RAN lost its carrier in '83
 
sort of begs the question...was the f-14 defeated in the air, or was it defeated on the ground, in the US senate. Wouldnt be the first time the Navy has suffered its worst defeat at the hands of a pro-air force government...thats basically how the RAN lost its carrier in '83
None of the above - If the CNO really wanted the aircraft, he would of gotten it but would have had to given up something. It isn't a matter of taking something away from the Navy and giving it to the Air Force.
 
The Navy got the Super Hornet so they really did not lose out except possibly got a less capable aircraft. I still believe that it was a decision based on politics and perhaps to keep MD in business. That is just an opinion and maybe based on a fondness for the F14 and Grumman and not on reality. I hope I am wrong!
 
None of the above - If the CNO really wanted the aircraft, he would of gotten it but would have had to given up something. It isn't a matter of taking something away from the Navy and giving it to the Air Force.


Conceded that the air force did not gain from the Navy's loss, but I am not so sure that it was within the CNO's power to avert the cancellation of the F-14D program (and presumably beyond that the super tomcat). The decision to discontinue the F-14 program was made at the instigation of Cheney wasnt it? And, as I recall werent the Navy brass repeatedly making attempts to reinstate at least some of the program, and were repeatedly overruled. It looks a lot like somebody did not like the Navy, or grumman or both...you have to admit that Cheney does not wash up as the cleanest looking politician of all time...Meanwhile to what extent were the air force programs being cut back? I admit I dont know, but it would not surpise me to learn that their cutbacks were a lot less than the Navy's, or at least proportionally a lot less.

theories only, but at least plausible dont you think?
 
The Navy got the Super Hornet so they really did not lose out except possibly got a less capable aircraft. I still believe that it was a decision based on politics and perhaps to keep MD in business. That is just an opinion and maybe based on a fondness for the F14 and Grumman and not on reality. I hope I am wrong!
I do know this much - it was rumored in the industry that in the 80s and 90s some folks from Grumman pissed off some DoD folks. In the end it may of played into the Northrop take over, but we'll never know the details. Since the mid 80 the Joint Chiefs have a lot more to say on high dollar procurement items than before and I think this was in response to Jimmy Carter killing the B-1 even though the Air Force wanted the aircraft.

Right now the USAF is dumping a lot of programs so it could pay for both the F-22 and F-35. Look how quickly the F-117A was dumped - BTW the entire -117 fleet was just refurbished a few years ago. The cost to keep operating the aircraft gave additional funding to the other pet projects listed.
 
I do know this much - it was rumored in the industry that in the 80s and 90s some folks from Grumman pissed off some DoD folks. In the end it may of played into the Northrop take over, but we'll never know the details. Since the mid 80 the Joint Chiefs have a lot more to say on high dollar procurement items than before and I think this was in response to Jimmy Carter killing the B-1 even though the Air Force wanted the aircraft.

Right now the USAF is dumping a lot of programs so it could pay for both the F-22 and F-35. Look how quickly the F-117A was dumped - BTW the entire -117 fleet was just refurbished a few years ago. The cost to keep operating the aircraft gave additional funding to the other pet projects listed.

The DoD budget has major reviews (as you know) on Systems, Spares/Maintenance, Personnel, Facilities and Future Programs above and Beyond War Fighting/Deployment. Each service puts it's own priotized plan together - usually based on prior year budget but encouraged to show some basis on zero base budget.

Whether we think Rumsfeld sucked or had good ideas, the integration between services in Mission was better IMO during his custody and will have to go even farther over next couple of years.

If we think Carter was Bad wait til we get Barack. DoD will probably get hit immediately and have to cut back ~ 50% if the Blue Dog Dems will line up with Obama. Future Programs? Bet major cuts in F22 and bigger in F-35.

I haven't seen anyone from the Left Wing Community who think NASA is worth doing either.

Clinton was bad - Obama will be unimaginable.
 
The DoD budget has major reviews (as you know) on Systems, Spares/Maintenance, Personnel, Facilities and Future Programs above and Beyond War Fighting/Deployment. Each service puts it's own priotized plan together - usually based on prior year budget but encouraged to show some basis on zero base budget.

Whether we think Rumsfeld sucked or had good ideas, the integration between services in Mission was better IMO during his custody and will have to go even farther over next couple of years.

If we think Carter was Bad wait til we get Barack. DoD will probably get hit immediately and have to cut back ~ 50% if the Blue Dog Dems will line up with Obama. Future Programs? Bet major cuts in F22 and bigger in F-35.

I haven't seen anyone from the Left Wing Community who think NASA is worth doing either.

Clinton was bad - Obama will be unimaginable.

Spot on Bill - this is 1976 all over again - I'm growing my hair long and getting out my polyester leasure suit!
 
You wont get any argument out of me that the democrats have the military hardware budget in their sights. What worries me is if they continue to sent US forces into battle even after the cuts. Casualties will skyrocket if they do...at least carter had the sense to avoid major conflict. i think the US cant avoid a warlike time in the near future....and they will be doing it with 2nd and 3rd rate equipment, and equipment that is worn out

Its bad for Australiaq as well. We have contributed about Aus $1bn to the F-35 program and need it no later than 2015. Our F-111s are nearly grounded, and our F-18s are looking very long in the tooth. The defence white paper put out about two years agao expressed the opinion that our air defences will be completely outclassed unless the JSF is ioperational by that time. Our near neighbours are starting to receive Mig-29s and SU-37s, and their operational rates are starting to improve, and here we are, with the best pilots in the region flying some of the oldest airframes
 
Spot on Bill - this is 1976 all over again - I'm growing my hair long and getting out my polyester leasure suit!

That was just about the time I got out of the airframe biz for good - too many cyclical layoffs. I never felt particularly threatened but it was always there in back of mind when layoffs were coming.

Obama will not be able to remotely come close to balancing a budget but he can reduce us to 'all or nothing' in context of Triad remain, but Tactical capability will 'Go Away' - down to bare bones
 
at least carter had the sense to avoid major conflict.
It was a very different world when he was president and during the only time he attempted to flex military muscle it turned out to be a disaster because of the state of the military while he was president for 3 years.

As far as those currently deployed - I doubt they will see any affects of this in the short term. If equipment maintenance and procurement of new material is cut back then they'll eventually see the effects as happened to Carter's little fiasco in the Iranian desert.
 
As far as those currently deployed - I doubt they will see any affects of this in the short term. If equipment maintenance and procurement of new material is cut back then they'll eventually see the effects as happened to Carter's little fiasco in the Iranian desert.

Not to derail this thread, but the "fiasco in the Iranian desert" basically came down to a lack of Interservice cooperation; the individual units knew what they were doing (in particular Delta), but the Naval aviators weren't used to flying in the desert, especially at night, and they rarely (if ever) flew Special Ops missions with other services. Combine that with the long distances required for the mission, and you're asking for failure. IMO, they should've launched the mission out of eastern Turkey (though mission security might've been compromised) using Army aviators and CH-53's.
 
On the F14 subject, the Tomcat driver I had the conversation with at the air show in Gunc had a F14D(or B, whichever one had the GE engines) there, he had flown over from Fallon. This was about the summer of 93. He said the Tomcat could handle the SU27 or Mig 29, easily! (What else would you expect him to say?) Also have a friend who is retired Navy Captain, in the attack community, and also skippered the Lexington( the old carrier used for CarQuals.) This gentleman flew A6s and A4s in VN, etc. and he said he believed the government made a big mistake choosing the FA 18 E/F over the Strike Tomcat.
 
he said he believed the government made a big mistake choosing the FA 18 E/F over the Strike Tomcat.
In all fairness there was a lot of benifits in the "Bombcat," but it's easy to make this statement when you're not fixing the thing either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back