Tag:

F14

Ex Tomcat RIO explains how a trained F-14 crew could face 5 F-4 Phantoms

by Till Daisd May 22, 2023

“As the Phantom neared the end of twenty-five years as a front-line fighter with the U.S. Navy, its aircrews wanted to show they still had it. Meanwhile, we Tomcat crews wanted to demonstrate the superiority of our still-new fighter,” Dave “Bio” Baranek, a Tomcat RIO with twenty years of experience

F-14 Tomcat Vs F-4 Phantom.

Early in the 1980s, US defense analysts were seriously concerned about the Soviet-built MiG-23 Flogger. The MiG-23 outperformed the MiG-17 and MiG-21 in a number of crucial areas, including radar, missiles, and top speed. The Flogger was a very capable interceptor, and because it was among the first threat aircraft types that could fire missiles against American aircraft while being tracked by radar, the threat it posed was significantly increased.

Its somewhat limited maneuverability was a drawback. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the MiG-23 was starting to appear more frequently in the air forces of possible American enemies, and because it was the first time fighter pilots faced that possibility, their capacity to fire missiles at American aircraft prior to the merging generated significant worry.

Former Tomcat RIO explains how a well trained F-14 crew could face alone 5 gutsy F-4 Phantoms — MiG-23 Flogger

West Coast F-14 Tomcat squadrons (at the time based at the Naval Air Station Miramar) undertook a series of flights for the “Rising Fighter” research effort to combat the danger posed by MiG-23s. Project Rising Fighter was designed to investigate strategies for combating the new Flogger.

Rising Fighter consisted of 2vUNK scenarios: two Tomcats doing intercepts versus an unspecified (UNK) number of F-4 Phantoms from regular Navy Squadrons, according to Tomcat RIO with twenty years of experience Dave “Bio” Baranek in his book Before Topgun Days: The Making of a Jet Fighter Instructor. All of the jets could use their radar to simulate firing missiles during the intercepts; successful launches would result in kills. The opposing formations would meet, and any remaining aircraft would engage in a dogfight.

In December 1982, Bio participated in a number of flights for Project Rising Fighter.

He recalls: “I’d been in the Fleet (VF-24 Fighting Renegades) for twenty months and had about 800 flight hours in the F-14 – a good amount of experience. More importantly […] it was only two months after completing the Topgun class. […] My pilot would be the same one I flew within Topgun: Jaws. We had honed our crew coordination to a sharp edge during challenging scenarios fighting the Topgun instructors. Now we would get another chance to practice our craft. […] It was an all-out, aggressive scenario that would require Jaws and I to use all of our skills.”

All of the sorties were conducted on the instrumented TACTS (Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System) Range near Yuma, with superior intercept control, and in real-time kill removal, as stated by Bio: “That meant that a good missile shot by either the fighters (Tomcats) or the bogeys (Phantoms) resulted in an aircraft being called ‘dead’ and immediately disengaging. Based on tactical thinking at the time, we Tomcats used only Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, the same as the Phantoms. These missiles were roughly similar to a Flogger’s missiles, so our F-14s had little advantage in this category.”

At least for Project Rising Fighter, Baranek said that F-4 Phantoms offered a good simulation of several MiG-23 characteristics. “No restrictions were placed on tactics used by either side, so we were facing well-trained U.S. Navy pilots and RIOs. The missiles that both sides launched would be simulated, but as the Phantom neared the end of twenty-five years as a front-line fighter with the U.S. Navy, its aircrews wanted to show they still had it. Meanwhile, we Tomcat crews wanted to demonstrate the superiority of our still-new fighter.”

Tomcat crews were typically outnumbered in Project Rising Fighter sorties; their main advantages were the F-14’s superior radar, which allowed them to establish situational awareness (SA) during the intercept, and the Tomcat’s superior maneuverability “once we got to the merge. The hard part was getting there. These guys could shoot us in the face and kill us,” Bio points out.

The odds were 2v4, 2v5, or 2v6 for at least two intercepts to engagements in the majority of flights. Nonetheless, as Bio notes, “that was only how the intercept started. With the aggressive pre-merge shots and kills, both sides suffered casualties. […] Seared into my memory forever are snapshot images from a flight that started as a 2v6 and turned into a long 1v5 engagement.”

That time, during the intercept, the Tomcats killed one Phantom, but just before the merging, the F-14, which was being piloted by Cowboy and Ice (the other VF-24 aircrew that, along with Jaws and Bio, was participating in Rising Fighter), was also kill-removed.

Five Phantoms were left to be fought by Jaws and Bio alone. The furball’s most thrilling moments are relived in Bio. “It was a day with a high layer of thick clouds, softening the browns and grays of the desert during those microseconds I registered the terrain for orientation. We were flying about 450 knots when we merged with the Phantoms, and they were the same, maybe faster. I had used my radar effectively to describe their formation, and Jaws started seeing them at eight miles. ‘Tally two F-4s. Looking for the others.’

“As we flashed past their formation at 1,000 knots closing speed, Jaws immediately cranked our jet into a crushing 6.5-g left turn to get into position to take the first shots. He said, ‘Watch the guys on the right!’ The Phantoms scattered out of their formation. ‘Tally three. No threat,’ I replied.

“Through my visor, I noticed our wings sweep forward automatically as our speed decreased due to the hard turns. The high-lift leading-edge slats deployed, trembling under high g forces and turbulent airflow while we stressed our fighter in max-performance turns. At that fuel state, we weighed more than twenty-five tons.

“It wasn’t easy, but Jaws and I were in our element. We had refreshed the ‘contracts’ we developed when we went through the Topgun class, such as who looked forward and who looked back. Our weapons system use and inter-cockpit comms (ICS) were spot-on, based on practice, candid debriefs, and constant improvement. We used every system available on our Tomcat. In my general experience, the use of radar warning equipment had not been emphasized, but it was a priority for Jaws and me. I used a ‘bypass’ function so it would alert us if an F-4’s radar – which was categorized as friendly, not a threat – locked us up in preparation for a missile shot.

“We pulled more than 6 g almost constantly in the fight, but this wasn’t a problem after all of the dogfighting I had done in the past few months. Jaws called an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile shot on one Phantom and the controllers declared him killed, so he climbed away from the fight.

“A moment later Jaws called an AIM-7 Sparrow on another Phantom. Another kill. We were now 1v3.

“This memorable contest was a tight turning engagement approaching two minutes’ duration. I had to suppress my inclination to watch the ‘dogfight action’ over Jaws’s shoulder; my responsibility was the defensive lookout, behind us. Over my right shoulder, I picked up a Phantom slicing through a descending turn, a few seconds from becoming a threat, as we pursued another Phantom through a left turn. Over the ICS I told Jaws, ‘Approaching, right four (o’clock) high. Okay, hard right.’

“As Jaws broke off his attack on the jet in front of us, the irritating screech from our warning equipment announced that the Phantom had taken a radar lock. He was about to launch a missile. I made an awkward reach with my right hand to launch a few rounds of decoy flares and chaff in anticipation of the shot. We used simulated missiles, but real chaff and flares. The chaff broke his radar lock as our hard right turn neutralized his approach. We traded updates on the F-4s remaining in the fight and Jaws returned to pursuing our original target. In a few more seconds he called another missile shot and we notched another kill.

“Checking our fuel, we realized we needed to leave the area, to bug out. No Phantoms were threatening, so we headed to the southwest and extended out of their missile range. With radio calls of ‘Knock it off,’ the engagement was over.”

Bio concludes: “In the contest of Rising Fighter, it was just another event, a series of data points. When we returned to Miramar we reported the usual information – range of first radar detection, the range at initial missile launch, etc. – and objectively debriefed the engagement.

“But for me personally it has remained one of the more memorable missions from more than 3,000 hours of flying fighters.”

Photo by Dave “Bio” Baranek; MiG-23 photo: U.S. Air Force

May 22, 2023 0 comment

Cold War

B-52 Vs F-14

by Till Daisd April 20, 2023

written by Till Daisd

“The F-14, however, flown by “nasal radiators,” kicked our ass. Most incredibly, the Tomcat got immediately on our ‘six’ despite coming at us head-on and having to turn 180 degrees for his initial approach, while the Air Force interceptors had arrived from behind, to begin with, a great advantage,” Jay Lacklen, former B-52 pilot

Jay Lacklen is a former B-52 pilot with 12,500 flying hours and the author of two books, Flying the Line: An Air Force Pilot’s Journey and Flying the Line: An Air Force Pilot’s Journey Volume Two: Military Airlift Command.

Dancing with Interceptors, 1975

One of the few times we got to maneuver forcefully at high altitudes was during intercepts by Air Defense Command interceptor fighters, which included the F-102 and F-106 from the USAF, and the F-14 from the U.S. Navy.

Later, in the C-5, I had intercepts run on me, without maneuvering, by NATO fighters that were usually F-16s or British Tornadoes as we flew across Europe. I enjoyed the American intercepts in the B-52 because we got to “dance” with the fighter boys. As the interceptor checked in on frequency, I would tell him we were ready and “had our dancing shoes on.”

Former BUFF driver tells the story of the most unusual dogfight: B-52 Vs F-14

As the intercept began, the EW would call the range and clock position of the fighter, such as “eight o’clock, ten miles,” so I would know where he was and when to maneuver. The F-102s and F-106s proved the easiest to shake. They would come smoking in on us at high speed, but below Mach 1, and line up directly behind us at our six o’clock position, which is the missile launch or cannon firing position.

I would push our speed up to three hundred knots or so to keep him at high speed as he approached. When the EW called his position about three miles at a high rate of closure, I would roll into forty-five degrees of bank, pull the throttles to idle, and raise the speed brakes. Then I would pull hard, putting the bomber into a tight decelerating turn. This would invariably cause the F-102 or F-106 to badly overshoot, since, with swept wings, designed for high speed, they had greatly degraded turning capability. The long B-52 wings and airbrake deployment allowed a far tighter turn than the F-100 series fighters could manage, and we invariably “lost” them with this maneuver.

F-14 Tomcat Vs F-15 Eagle: the pilots' perspective

The Navy F-14, however, flown by “nasal radiators,” kicked our ass. The Tomcat could sweep its wings forward to nearly seventy degrees from its swept-wing, high-speed configuration and match my best turn, which infuriated me. Most incredibly, the Tomcat, of the movie Top Gun and “Maverick” fame, got immediately on our “six” despite coming at us head-on and having to turn 180 degrees for his initial approach, while the Air Force interceptors had arrived from behind, to begin with a great advantage. As the F-14 swung behind us and approached, my EW, Buddy, called his position “six o’clock, three miles.” Going into my maneuver, I racked the B-52 into a steep turn, groaning at the g-forces I put on the plane.

The EW, however, made the maddening call, “Target six o’clock, one mile,” repeatedly from the time I broke into the turn until I rolled out, defeated. The Tomcat stayed in perfect formation with me one mile behind in perfect shooting position. At this point, had I been in a B-1 perhaps, I could have gone to the afterburner and left the F-14 far behind. The standard complaint about the F-14 was poor acceleration from low speed, as the wings were swept back for high speed from the extended position. The ratio of relatively low power to relatively high aircraft weight made acceleration an all-day thing in a dogfight. The added weight was necessary to provide beefed-up landing gear structures for punishing carrier landings, but it hampered acceleration from low speed.

B-52 Vs F-14: former BUFF driver tells the story of an unusual bomber V fighter dogfight

But for purposes of this combat exercise, the F-14 would have shot us down easily, had our gunner not shot him down first. If he used a missile from ten miles or so behind us, he’d have nailed us; if he had to come into cannon range, however, our fifty-caliber rear cannon might have nailed him first. This is another reason why we knew we would fly our nuke mission low level, so the fighters would have a difficult time even finding us against the ground clutter.

Photo by U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy

April 20, 2023 0 comment

Cold War

How the F-14 and F-15 fighters were able to down the SR-71 in simulated combat

by Till Daisd April 10, 2023

written by Till Daisd

Under specific circumstances, F-14 and F-15 fighters were capable of simulating SR-71 kills

The SR-71 Blackbird collected intelligence during the course of its 24 years of service in some of the world’s most hostile environments. The Blackbird avoided every one of the 4,000 missiles aimed at it, and it continues to be the only USAF aircraft never to lose a crew member, either in the air or on the ground.

The Blackbird was built to operate at high speeds and altitudes; in fact, it could survey 100,000 square miles of the Earth’s surface per hour from an altitude of 80,000 feet. Therefore any enemy fighter would have had a very tough time getting a radar lock on it (although as we have explained Swedish Air Force JA-37 fighter pilots have several hot intercepts against the SR-71 to their credit).

The (simulated) kills achieved by F-14 and F-15 fighters against the SR-71 Mach 3 spy plane

Col. Richard H. Graham, USAF (Ret. ), a former Blackbird pilot, details in his book The Complete Book of the SR-71 Blackbird: The Illustrated Profile of Every Aircraft, Crew, and Breakthrough of the World’s Fastest Stealth Jet, the SR-71 pilot “could fly the aircraft anywhere in the world and return safely. […] On one occasion, as Don [Don Emmons who was Graham Reconnaissance System Officer or RSO, the Blackbird back seater] and I approached Soviet airspace off the southern end of the Kamchatka Peninsula, I could see three Soviet fighters streaming their contrails off in the distance. The contrails showed them in a clockwise circular orbit. As we approached closer I could see their contrails as they came out of their orbit and headed directly toward us. They were in trial with each other about two to three miles apart. As soon as I saw contrails disappear, I knew the fighters had gone to full afterburner and were initiating their climb in an attempt to intercept us. Knowing there were Soviet planes out there that would try to shoot you down if they were so ordered heightened your senses as they approached. I often wondered how they felt, knowing we were up there, and their inability to do anything about it. Nothing ever came of their attempts, and I smiled to myself, realizing their frustration and dilemma.”

Yet, according to Graham, there were two fighters who, under specific circumstances, could pull off (simulated) SR-71 kills. “Don and I, as well as many other crewmembers, had flown numerous ‘Tomcat Chase’ and ‘Eagle Bait’ sorties against our best fighters – the Navy’s F-14s and the Air Force’s F-15s. We flew the SR-71 to provide the fighters practice at finding, tracking, locking on, intercepting, and simulated firing of their sophisticated F-14 Phoenix missiles and the F-15’s Sparrow missiles at a high altitude, high-speed target. The Tomcat Chase missions were flown over the Pacific Ocean and Eagle Bait missions in the Nellis AFB training area, north of Las Vegas, Nevada.”

Graham continues. “To maximize scarce, high altitude/high-speed intercept practice for the fighters against the SR-71, we stacked the deck in their favor to avoid a multitude of missed intercepts, and consequently, wasted time. The intercepts were conducted in a very controlled environment, favoring a successful outcome by the fighters. Both the SR-71 and fighters were on a common ground control intercept (GCI) frequency, so the fighters could be vectored for the head-on intercept and we could talk to each other to help set it up. We flew a precise straight-line track that was communicated to the GCI controller and fighters well in advance of our arrival. All aircraft had their transponders on for positive radar identification, and no DEF systems [the Defensive Electronic systems that were designed to jam or spoof any radar or SAM system as necessary and were carried in SR-71’s chine bays] were to be used. We kept the SR-71 at a constant altitude, airspeed, and heading as the fighters maneuvered for their head-on attack. GCI controllers provided constant range and bearing for the fighters to their target (the SR-71) so they could search for us on their radar. Even under these highly controlled flying conditions, the F-14s and F-15s had extreme difficulty achieving a satisfactory SR-71 kill.

“The majority of missed intercepts for the fighters were because of two parameters that influence the intercept geometry greatly: the altitude difference between the SR-71 and the fighters, and the extreme closing velocity between the two aircraft. At the start of Eagle Bait missions, the F-15s discovered that their fire control system speed gate (the computed closing velocity between two aircraft) was not large enough to accommodate their extreme closing velocity against the SR-71. Software changes to their computers solved that problem. If the fighters decided not to climb and remained at twenty-five thousand feet, for example, their missiles found it very extremely difficult to climb up fifty-five thousand feet (against gravity) to achieve a kill against the SR-71. Another factor in our favor was the small guidance fins on their missiles. They are optimized in size for guiding a missile to its target in the thicker air from the ground up and around forty thousand feet. At eighty thousand feet the air is so thin that full deflection of the missile’s guidance fins can barely turn it.”

Photo by Airman John Linzmeier, Tech. Sgt. Matthew Plew and Senior Airman Devin Nothstine / U.S. Air Force, Edwards History Office file photo, Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Lauren Booher and Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Christopher B. Long U.S. Navy

April 10, 2023 0 comment

History

Why the F-14 Tomcat is still a very divisive aircraft 50 years after its first flight

by Till Daisd February 13, 2023

written by Till Daisd

Contrary to popular belief, the F-14 engaged in more combat than all other “teen fighters” put together, including the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18

December 2020 marked the 50th anniversary of the Grumman F-14 Tomcat’s inaugural flight or the type’s 50th birthday.

The F-14 was always a hotly debated topic since it was sophisticated, expensive, and offered capabilities that were essentially unheard of in earlier periods despite being partially created for a purpose it never carried out in practice. It was the final example of what you can refer to as a “muscle plane” because, although being the first aircraft to ever have microchips installed, it lacked fly-by-wire and had problematic original engines (and a few other vices). Contrarily, its weapons system handily outperformed anything in use from the 1970s through the 1990s.

It’s obvious that ground crews servicing the type have had (and still have) their own opinions regarding the type. Regardless of whether positively or badly, it’s unlikely that the Tomcat has ever failed to impress anyone.

In fact, the F-14 engaged in more combat than all other “teen fighters” put together, including the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, did. Alone during the 1980s, it was used by the US Navy off Iran (Iran hostage crisis), Libya (two air combats and dozens of “close calls”), Lebanon and Syria (reconnaissance “only”), Somalia (reconnaissance). During the eight years of intense combat operations during the Iran-Iraq War, it saw its first kill ever (a gun kill against an Iraqi Mi-25 attack helicopter).

The II Persian Gulf War, which took place in 1991, was the final combat in which it participated in its initial role as a “pure” interceptor. Later, it was used by the US Navy in Bosnia (1992-1995), over Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001-2006), and Iraq as a strike aircraft, as well as during the Iran-Azerbaijan standoffs in the 1990s (2003-2006).

We don’t know exactly how many aerial victories different F-14 aircrew have scored over time because we are still comparing all the Iranian claims that are relevant to this. The crews of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) alone are aware of more than 160 claims, and the crews of the US Navy are aware of about half of them. Nevertheless, this does not indicate that all of the claims made by the crews of both services are known or have been thoroughly cross-examined. In the same way, not all F-14 losses have been exhaustively investigated and their causes established.

(You wouldn’t be surprised if, once all the necessary work is done, at some point in the future, it turns out the total is bigger than the sum of the confirmed kills by F-15 and F-16 put together.)

Regrettably, in 2006, the US Navy stopped using its Tomcats. The IRIAF still possesses roughly 60 of these and is maintaining 40 of them in service, demonstrating that Grumman’s final cat has a lot of life remaining in it.

More interesting F-14 stories written by Tom Cooper are featured in Helion & Company’s In the Claws of the Tomcat.

Photo by U.S. Navy and Imperial Iranian Air Force

February 13, 2023 0 comment

History

A monument for the F-14 fighter used by the US Navy and the 68 Naval Aviators who perished

by Till Daisd December 7, 2022

written by Till Daisd

The memorial will honor the renowned Grumman fighter plane in addition to the people who manufactured and maintained the aircraft flew it and gave their lives doing so

A monument honoring the F-14 Tomcat fighter plane will be erected on Virginia Beach’s oceanfront, according to The Virginian-Pilot on May 25, 2020. The memorial will honor the renowned Grumman fighter plane in addition to the people who manufactured and maintained the aircraft, flew it and gave their lives doing so.

A granite obelisk with four sides will serve as the memorial. A variety of pictures of the aircraft in use will be shown on panels along with information on how it was used and who maintained it. In actuality, a panel will remember the 68 pilots who lost their lives.

The F-14 Tomcat operated as an advanced interceptor and air superiority fighter, capable of striking six enemy aircraft simultaneously at a range of over 100 miles with the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. It is arguably the most well-known US Navy fighter because of its starring role in Top Gun.

A fleet defense fighter that could engage high-altitude bombers from well beyond visual range was necessary because Soviet long-range patrol and bomber aircraft during the Cold War had advanced. The famous F-14 Tomcat, according to the National Naval Aviation Museum, was Grumman’s response. With this hefty load, an interceptor’s fast speed was required, therefore Grumman created the F-14’s very effective variable-sweep wing, which allows it to fly at a variety of airspeeds.

The Navy’s search for an advanced carrier-based air superiority fighter led to the evaluation of General Dynamics’ F-111B, an aircraft that would promote the Department of Defense’s aim of commonality with the Air Force and its F-111A. When the F-111B was found to be too heavy for carrier operations after being upgraded to fulfill Navy mission requirements, the contract was terminated in April 1968. The Navy then launched a new design competition for what was known as the VFX program, with McDonnell Douglas and Grumman serving as its two main rivals.

Grumman’s Model 303 suggested a variable-geometry, two-seat, twin-engined design centered on the Hughes AWG-9 weapons system while McDonnell Douglas studied a navalized version of the F-15. Grumman’s earlier XF10F Jaguar, which had only been constructed as a prototype, had given it significant experience with “swing-wing” technology. The selection of Pratt & Whitney TF-30 turbofans, which are comparable to those used in the F-111, was required by the necessity for quick development and fielding of the aircraft.

The new “Tomcat,” which continued Grumman’s practice of naming its aircraft after felines, took to the skies for the first time in December 1970. The first F-14As were delivered to the Navy in June 1972 after going through a number of modifications during flight testing, with Fighter Squadron (VF) 124 being assigned the responsibility of crew training. VF-1 and VF-2 were the first operational squadrons to receive the new aircraft on the West Coast, while VF-14 and VF-32 were the first squadrons assigned to the Atlantic fleet on the East Coast. The Marine Corps was getting ready to launch VMFA-122 at NAS Miramar in 1974 when it was decided to stick with modified variants of the trusty F-4J Phantom II.

In August 1981, two Libyan Su-22 planes were shot down by an F-14 over the Gulf of Sidra. It saw considerable duty in the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In 2006, the final F-14s were taken out of service.

Photo by U.S. Navy

December 7, 2022 0 comment

History

Testbeds for the NASA F-14 Tomcat

by Till Daisd September 19, 2022

written by Till Daisd

The F-14s’ spin issue made it difficult for them to engage in a dogfight successfully

A line of post-Vietnam fighters began with the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and included the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and F-18 Hornet.

These aircraft, known as “teen fighters,” were built to be maneuverable in air-to-air combat.

Since the F-14s tended to diverge from a controlled flight at the high angles of attack that typically occur in close-range engagements, this caused challenges for its ability to engage successfully in a dogfight. After being introduced to the fleet for the first time in October 1972, the Navy’s F-14s started to suffer from out-of-control mishaps. It became out that the aircraft’s analog automatic flight-control system had a straightforward control-law architecture that, under specific flight conditions, induced departures from the desired flight path. A number of aircraft and crews were lost as a result of the control system’s failure to give the pilots complete control authority (flight-control-surface deflections) for recovering from spins and other departures.

According to Ruby Calzada on NASA.gov, a collaborative NASA/Navy/Grumman program used NASA 991—a U.S. Navy Tomcat with serial number 157991 that was actually designated “F-14 (1X)” and served as Grumman’s experimental testbed—at Dryden Flight Research Center between 1979 and 1985 to address this issue. The F-14’s handling at high angles of attack, spin resistance, “wing rocking” (i.e., tilting from side to side), and aircraft recovery when it deviated from the controlled flight were all examined (e.g., entered a spin).

As seen in the photos, NASA 991 was equipped with a number of unique modifications for high-angle-of-attack and spin-recovery research. These modifications included a battery-powered auxiliary power unit, a flight test nose boom, and a unique spin recovery system that included forward-mounted, hydraulically actuated canards and an emergency spin chute. The NASA/Navy/Grumman team successfully limited departures and provided recoveries from spins by developing new control laws with an aileron/rudder interconnect (ARI).

The F-14 with the new control laws proved to be “very responsive and maneuverable above 30 degrees angle-of-attack, with no abrupt departure or spin tendencies.”

Among the 212 flights completed for this research project, Calzada claims that the F-14 tested a flush air data system for gathering information about airspeed, provided an updated aero model, which was used on Navy F-14 training simulators, created baseline data for natural laminar flow for many of NASA’s later laminar flow programs, and tested low altitude, asymmetric thrust.

View of the cockpit of NASA’s F-14, tail number 991.

Despite the program’s undeniable success, the Navy delayed implementing the new control regulations in its F-14s due to a lack of resources. Mishaps with the Tomcats kept happening as a result. Finally, the Navy hired GEC Marconi Avionics of the UK to implement the control laws into a digital flight-control system with minimal changes. This system was installed in fleet F-14Ds aboard the USS Kitty Hawk and USS Roosevelt in March 1999, reducing the risk of uncontrollable flight and significantly enhancing the safety of powered approaches to carrier landings. The NASA Exceptional Service Medal had already been awarded to Dryden research pilot Einar Enevoldson in 1980 for his work as a project pilot on the F-14 stall and spin resistance tests.

Instead, the Variable-Sweep Transition Flight Experiment at Dryden in 1986 and 1987 employed NASA 834, another U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat (VSTFE). This program investigated high subsonic laminar flow on variable-sweep aircraft. Because of its variable-sweep capability, Mach and Reynolds number capability, availability, and advantageous wing pressure distribution, an F-14 aircraft was selected as the carrier vehicle for the VSTFE program.

Natural laminar flow gloves were added to the F-14’s variable-sweep outer panels so that they would not only have smooth surfaces but also airfoils with a wide variety of pressure distributions whose transition points could be identified under different flight situations and sweep angles. Glove II was created to produce specific pressure distributions at Mach 0.7, whereas Glove I was designed to “clean up” or smooth the basic F-14 wing (seen mounted on the upper surface of the left wing in the image above).

A research program on the NASA 848 F-16XL, a laminar flow experiment that uses a wing-mounted panel with millions of tiny laser-cut holes to pull out turbulent boundary layer air with a suction pump, continues laminar flow research at Dryden.

Source: NASA; Photo by NASA

September 19, 2022 0 comment

F-14 Tomcat History

The F-14 Tomcat: From Air Force to Hollywood

by Till Daisd May 12, 2022

written by Till Daisd

Even though the F-14 Tomcat was designed for the U.S. Navy, it became one of the most popular fighters in Hollywood history. With its sleek design and impressive maneuverability, it’s not hard to see why this fighter jet was used in many high-octane action films throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

The F-14 Tomcat, from its first flight in 1970 to its retirement in 2006, spent more than 3 and a half decades making history. Many who witnessed it will never forget the aircraft’s debut in 1972 on the USS Enterprise. Others have watched it on film or television and been impressed by the plane’s sleekness, size, and agility. It is one of the Navy’s most beloved jets ever commissioned—and for good reason.

The F-14 Tomcat was designed as a replacement for another legendary Navy jet: the F4 Phantom II. Like its predecessor, the Tomcat is multirole—able to do many things well-meaning that pilots can engage targets at long range as well as short-range (when equipped with heat-seeking missiles). The plane has two modes of operation: air superiority mode (for air combat) and strike mode (for ground attack).

A Navy F-14 was shot down during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979 when it accidentally crossed over Iranian airspace while flying a mission in Iraq. The crew ejected safely and were rescued by an HH-3E Jolly Green Giant helicopter.

HH-3E-Jolly-Green-Giant — HH-3E Jolly Green Giant

In 1972, the U.S. Air Force took a look at the F-14, but it was too pricey to maintain if they were going to keep the F-15 and F-16. The plane was not in service with the USAF and would never be. The aircraft had been designed for carrier landings and takeoffs, but could only land at specific airfields due to its landing gear that couldn’t handle crosswinds, a problem that wouldn’t be resolved until 1982 with the release of the Grumman F-14D Super Tomcat.

F-14D-Super-Tomcat — Grumman F-14D Super Tomcat

The F-14 Tomcat soon found itself in action during Operation Desert Storm, the United States military operation to end Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait. In support of Operation Southern Watch, which enforced a no-fly zone in southern Iraq, two squadrons were deployed to the Gulf to fly combat air patrols over Iraq. There were several notable actions against the Iraqi air force on January 17 and February 4, 1993 (Operation Southern Watch). During one strike, an F-14 shot down three MiG-21s with a single missile while another scored two kills with its cannon.

During Operation Desert Storm itself, F-14Bs from VF-2 and VF-31 flew escort for strike missions over Baghdad and then directed strikes against ground targets using their LANTIRN pods. They also flew long-range deep strike missions into southern Iraq using their Phoenix missiles to destroy radar sites that supported Iraqi air defenses.

The F-14 also had several known issues, but most of them could be resolved. One of Tomcat’s more serious problems was its engine. The engines were known to suffer catastrophic failures and fire right off the factory floor, and that didn’t get any better once they were put into service. The hydraulic system was unreliable and also prone to failure. These two factors combined to cause maintenance costs and downtime to skyrocket, with the cost of each hour of flight time exceeding $10,000 per hour—a full order of magnitude higher than other aircraft in service at the time.

As you can imagine, this was a big problem for an air superiority fighter that needed to be up in the air as much as possible to remain relevant on the battlefield. Luckily for Navy aviators, Grumman made some key improvements over time such as building a much-improved version (the F-14B) and increasing reliability by overhauling its hydraulics with new parts that eliminated these problems.

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat was designed to attack Soviet bombers over the Pacific in case of nuclear war. Thankfully, this scary scenario never came to fruition, but the Tomcat’s abilities were put on full display during the Iran hostage crisis by protecting U.S. naval vessels from Iranian Air Force fighter jets. Its rugged looks and powerful engines made it a natural fit for one of the most memorable movie moments in history (i.e., flying closer than 18 inches from an adversary aircraft and yelling “You’re dead!”). And its popularity forced Congress to continue funding the production of new F-14s long after production lines had been shut down.

This jet is best known for its starring role in the movie Top Gun, but it was also an important part of naval history. While it did get some upgrades throughout its two decades of service, this jet remained more or less unchanged. Over 800 were made during that period, which included desert operations and other wartime missions. The F-14 Tomcat was truly a powerful fighter jet that remains beloved today.

The plane also appeared in several television shows and video games, as well as countless comic books—so much so that it became better known as a movie plane than an actual plane. Because so many people remember seeing Tomcats blasting across their televisions and theater screens all those years ago, they still tend to think of it as a modern weapon of war. But its popularity with Hollywood’s elite didn’t keep the F-14 in service much longer.
The F-14 Tomcat, the signature fighter jet of the United States Navy’s Fleet Carrier Air Wings in the late 20th century, is considered a classic “Alpha” jet. The model used in the movie Top Gun is on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation.

In conclusion, the F-14 Tomcat has cemented itself in history as one of the air force’s most beloved jets. While it’s no longer in use, the jet is still a favorite among military personnel and continues to be revered by aviation enthusiasts and those interested in military history.

May 12, 2022 0 comment

History

Joe “Hoser” Satrapa, an F-14 pilot who successfully scored two simulated gun kills on USAF F-15s

by Till Daisd February 17, 2022

written by Till Daisd

As he moved through missile ranges to get close enough to fire his 20 mm cannon, Hoser soon scored two gun kills. He completely outmaneuvered the F-15 pilots in round two, resulting in two additional gun kills

Announcing Joe “Hoser” Satrapa’s passing “after a Simple, Honest and Brave Life,” veteran F-14 Tomcat Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) David “Hey Joe” Parsons posted on Facebook on March 17, 2019, that Satrapa was a legendary figure in naval aviation.

No dissertation on modern section tactics or naval aviation in general, according to George Hall’s Top Gun – The Navy’s Fighter Weapons School could be deemed complete without a pair of Hoser stories. A few renowned gonzo maniacs bubbled to the surface in the micro-world of maybe 400 Tomcat pilots. Joe “Hoser” Satrapa, a young and utterly fearless F-8 pilot who frequently carried a good forty pounds of lethal ammo, leaning toward small automatic weapons and hand grenades, in case he was suddenly compelled to leave his aircraft and carry the battle directly to the small bad guys in the jungle, was already well-known in Vietnam.

In the air, Hoser preferred using guns; he piloted the four-gun Crusader in Southeast Asia, which many Navy pilots still consider to be the [deleted] machine of all time, and he had never been forced to exclusively use missiles like his Navy Phantom colleagues. Hoser was forced back into the front seat of the Tomcat as a RAG guns instructor after a series of talks that would put the NFL draft to shame. This came about as a result of personal appeals from the highest echelons of government, among them Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, a Reserve naval aviator.

Many active pilots and RIOs well remember Hoser’s delivery of manic harangues to fuzzy-cheeked newcomers from the RAG. In his patented Yosemite Sam voice he would whip the lads, and invariably himself, into a lethal frenzy: “Pull on the pole till the rivets pop and the RIO pukes! No kill like guns kill! A Lima up the tailpipe is too good for any Gomer! Close with the miserable Commie [deleted] and put a few rounds of twenty-twenty-mike-mike through his canopy! If he hits the silk, gun his ass while he swings!” Hoser would then pace the corridor, bumping into hapless petty officers, muttering oaths, and trying to re-align his internal INS.

Hoser also knew a thing or two about the element of surprise. During the much-maligned AIMVAL-ACEVAL fighter trials of a decade ago, Hoser was put in a 1v1 against a Navy Aggressor flying an F-5. As the two combatants sat side-by-side on the Nellis runway, awaiting tower clearance for a second takeoff, Hoser looked over at his opponent, reached his hand up over the control panel, and mimicked the cocking of machine guns in a World War I Spad. A thumbs-up came from the other cockpit- guns it would be, the proverbial knife fight in a phone booth, forget the missiles. Both jets blasted off.

No Kill like a Guns Kill! Remembering Joe “Hoser” Satrapa, the F-14 Driver who scored two simulated gun kills on USAF F-15s for two times in the same mission

In the area, the fighters set up twenty miles apart for a head-on intercept of underground control. Seven miles from the merge, with closure well over 1000 knots, Hoser called “Fox One” – Sparrow missile away, no chance of a miss. As they flashed past each other, the furious F-5 driver radioed, “What the hell was that all about?” “Sorry.” said Hoser, “lost my head. Let’s set it up again. Guns only, I promise.”

Remember Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football? Again the two fighters streaked towards the pass, again at seven miles Hoser called “Fox One.” The Aggressor was apoplectic; he was also coming up on bingo fuel state, a common situation in the short-legged F-5.

Hoser was first back to the club bar, nursing an end-of-the-day cold one as the flushed Aggressor stomped in. “Hoser, what the hell happened to credibility?” fumed the F-5 jock. Said Hoser, with accompanying thumb gestures, “Credibility is DOWN, kill ratio is UP!” It’s a popular Top Gun story, and its moral isn’t lost on students or teachers. From 1v1 to forty-plane furball, expect anything. But never expect your enemy to be a sweet guy.”

According to Alvin Towley’s book Fly Navy: Discovering the Extraordinary People and Enduring Spirit of Naval Aviation, Hoser was scheduled to engage in two-versus-two combat with two U.S. Air Force (USAF) F-15 Eagles on another occasion. Hoser’s wingman encountered mechanical problems and was unable to fly while they were on the tarmac, but Hoser made the decision to fly anyway and take advantage of the situation. Hoser and his Tomcat NFO (a backseat Radar Intercept Officer, or RIO, as they were known in the F-14 community) took off. They began impersonating two airplanes on the radio. The F-15 Eagles, who expected two adversaries, became distracted as they searched for the “other” Navy jet on their radar screens. Hoser quickly bagged two gun kills, maneuvering through missile ranges until he was close enough to trigger his 20 mm cannon. In round two, he flat-outmaneuvered the air force pilots for two more gun kills. And as he always said, “There’s no kill like a guns kill.”

Lt. Commander Satrapa pretended to be a junior-grade lieutenant during the mission debrief, which was conducted over the phone, to further add insult to his opponents’ injury. The air force pilots believed a student pilot had beaten them up.

To read the entire account of Joe “Hoser” Satrapa’s famous F-15 kills, click here.

Photo by U.S. Navy

February 17, 2022 0 comment

History

An E-3 AWACS crew member describes how a U.S. Navy F-14 came dangerously close to shooting down a U.S. Navy A-6

by Till Daisd October 11, 2021

written by Till Daisd

“The F-14 pilot came back and said in an excited voice, ‘Target, nose, 12 miles [19.31km] hot, am I cleared to engage?’ and again the E-2 stuttered ‘Sta-Sta-Standby’ just as my Mode 4 sweep came back as friendly! The F-14’s immediate response to the E-2’s transmission was ‘Fox 1’,” Bill Richards, former E-3 “Sentry” Airborne Warning and Control Systems weapons officer with 552nd Air Control Wing

The E-3 Sentry is an airborne warning and control system, or AWACS, aircraft equipped with a platform for surveillance, target recognition, and tracking under integrated command and control battle management, or C2BM. The aircraft gives the Joint Air Operations Center a precise, real-time depiction of the battlespace. In the course of joint, allied, and coalition operations, AWACS provides situational awareness of friendly, neutral, and hostile activity, command and control over a designated area of responsibility, battle management of theater forces, all-weather surveillance of the battlespace, and early warning of enemy actions.

The E-3 demonstrated its superiority as the world’s top C2BM aircraft during Operation Desert Storm, the campaign that took place between Jan. 17, 1991, and Feb. 28, 1991, with the goal of liberating Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion.

17 NATO and USAF E-3As participated in Operation Desert Storm, which started on January 17, 1991. Of these, 11 were stationed in Riyadh, three at Incirlik, and five RSAF E-3s were also positioned there. A fourth reserve aircraft was in the air to serve as an immediate airborne replacement should one of the three primary aircraft fail due to a lack of serviceability or an inability to refuel. The same three orbits that had been flown during Operation Desert Shield were maintained on a regular basis. In case communication with the Tactical Air Control Centre was lost for whatever reason, the USAF E-3s were equipped with an Airborne Command Element, a five-person team.

A RSAF E-3 was also flying in the area of Riyadh to coordinate, if necessary, the capital’s final line of air defense. In addition, an E-3 was sent from Incirlik to guard Turkish airspace and keep an eye on the assault aircraft moving around the Proven Force AOR. Sentry crews were also in charge of the aerial refueling tow lines, which they used to direct damaged and fuel-critical aircraft toward the closest tanker so they could return to base. In the event that a Coalition aircraft is shot down and its crew ejects, AWACS crews also coordinated the first stages of combat search and rescue (CSAR).

E-3 AWACS crew member explains how a U.S. Navy F-14 nearly shot down a U.S. Navy E-2 during the first night of Operation Desert Storm

Bill Richards, former E-3 “Sentry” Airborne Warning and Control Systems weapons officer with 552nd Air Control Wing, recalled a mission during the first night of the war in Ian Shaw and Sergio Santana Beyond the Horizon The History of AEW&C Aircraft:

“My first mission (one of three I flew in the first 64 hours of the war) was to the western AOR. Several exciting things happened. The first involved the E-2Cs from the Red Sea and two Navy packages that hit the H-2/H-3 complex of airfields. Both were supposed to be controlled by the E-2s with AWACS as a backup. The first package generated some MiG activity as they ingressed and two MiG-21s got airborne. The E-2 controllers did not call them out until I initiated unknown tracks on them (E-2 radar over land really sucked). As soon as they saw the tracks they started calling out the bogies and two [McDonnell Douglas] F/A-18s engaged and shot them both down.

“Tracking friendlies over the target area was tough as they were attacking from all directions and thus egressing in all directions at high speed. This all set the scene for the next strike package. As they approached the target area they used the same tactic of attacking from different directions at once; they obviously knew that MiGs had been launched against the previous package. As they ingressed to the target there were no MiGs launched but the friendlies once again began to be difficult to track. An F-14 was capped about 20 miles [32km] south of H-2 and he picked up a radar-only track departing H-2 at high speed and he called it out on the radio. The surprising response from the E-2 was `Sta-Sta-Standby!’ I realized this wasn’t going well so I took a Mode 4 sweep of the radar-only target that was about eight to 10 miles [12.8-16.1km] south of H-2. A second later the F-14 pilot came back and said in an excited voice, ‘Target, nose, 12 miles [19.31km] hot, am I cleared to engage?’ and again the E-2 stuttered ‘Sta-Sta-Standby’ just as my Mode 4 sweep came back as friendly! The F-14’s immediate response to the E-2’s transmission was ‘Fox 1’. I grabbed every frequency I had at my console and screamed ‘Cease-Fire South of H-2. Friendlies only that area!’ I have no idea what occurred after that and hoped that if the F-14 really had fired a Sparrow that he heard me and broke the radar lock. I know several Navy aircraft did not make it back from that attack but have never found out if they were lost to ground fire or fratricide.

“The next event from that first mission was as the second package was egressing [and] they had to hit a tanker on the way out. The E-2 was never able to get them to the tanker and four of the A-6s declared emergency fuel. So I picked them up on 243.0 (Guard) and started vectoring them to Arar airfield. I was able to contact a US air traffic controller in the tower on Guard and was able to brief him and the A-6s on the situation. At that point, I split the A-6s up and gave them individual vectors to Arar, and set up a nice little sequence. Meanwhile, all my traffic on Guard attracted a US F-111 with a hydraulic failure and an RAF Jaguar with a generator out. Both requested vectors to Arar. So now I had six emergency aircraft on guard and on vectors to land at Arar. Thankfully they all made it in safely. I did get a little ribbing the next couple of days for hogging Guard that night and playing ATC.”

Photo by Kelly White / U.S. Air Force; PH3 Jeffrey Loshaw and Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class Nathan Burke / U.S. Navy

October 11, 2021 0 comment

History

Awsome promotional video demonstrates the advanced skills of the F-14 Tomcat

by Till Daisd August 30, 2021

written by Till Daisd

The AWG-9, a powerful weapons system that was able to support the AIM-54 Phoenix’s unheard-of 100-mile range, was installed on the F-14 Tomcat

The stunning video in this post, titled One Of A Kind, was produced by Grumman to promote the F-14 fighter program. It demonstrates how the formidable Tomcat could operate autonomously in tactical situations with its state-of-the-art Phoenix missile weapon system.

Due to its prominent role in Top Gun, the storied Grumman F-14 is arguably the most well-known Navy fighter. The American teen-series aircraft debuted in that conflict, including the Tomcat as its first model and were built to simulate air battle with MiG fighters during the Vietnam War.

The design of what may be the most well-known fighter of the modern age was the consequence of a failed standardization effort.

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) launched a design competition for a new air superiority aircraft after a Navy variant of the F-111 failed to meet strict specifications for a carrier-based fighter.

The end product was the F-14 Tomcat, an engineering marvel with a distinctive variable-sweep wing.

Despite the F-14’s superior dogfighting abilities, the Tomcat stood out for its use in fleet air defense. The AWG-9, a powerful weapons system that could support the AIM-54 Phoenix, which had an unheard-of 100-mile range and a small onboard radar to direct the missile to the target during the last phase of flight, was installed on the aircraft to carry out this operation.

The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II was replaced by the F-14 in December 1970, and the F-14 made its maiden deployment in 1974 with the US Navy aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65). The F-14 served as the main platform for the U.S. Navy’s fleet defense interceptor, maritime air superiority fighter, and tactical reconnaissance operations. It started carrying out precise ground-attack sorties in the 1990s after adding the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod system.

Photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Steven King / U.S. Navy

August 30, 2021 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts