What Happened to Vought?

[syscom3]

The F15 was more capable in other roles than the F14, and vice versa.

The engines for the F14's were turkeys from the beginning while the F100's for the F15 were excellent.

However, I have wondered why the AF didnt put the Phoenix missle and its fire control system into some F15's that were to be used in the air defense role.

 

[drgondog]

I believe the Cutlass was the first carrier borne AC with afterburners. Paul Thayer had an interesting experience in that AC with afterburners. During an air show he pitched up into the vertical with afterburning and the AC caught on fire. He ditched over nearby water and no one was hurt. Was kidded about a spectacular stunt. I never understood why the F14 wasn't adopted by the Air Force for the interceptor role in stead of the F15. With it's Phoenix system it would have been just as capable. It was developed before the F15 and economies of scale would have been in play. Oh well.

The F-15 was the first true air superiority fighter spec'd and ordered after the F100.. everything else in between was compromised to perform multi mission in some way. At the time the F-15 was ordered there was no Sov threat perceived that required a Mig 25 type interception that the F-4 (or F-106) was judged 'not capable for the role'

If you haven't read it, you should read "Boyd" - the autobiography of Col. John Boyd - a maverick who was both hated and loved within the USAF community - and not by the same people. He was the first real 'maverick' in the USAF to a.) demonstrate a knowledge of both theory and application of energy state in ACM and apply it to demonstrate why the Mig 21 was better air to air fighter than anything we had in the inventory, with F-8 being closest.

IIRC he was USAF Program Manager on the F-15 and F-16, or in a similar capacity and got into serious, career limiting battles with entrenched USAF leadership in Pentagon, fighting to eliminate (most) attempted multi mission compromises (bigger radar, shorter wing slipped through)..

A Gerogia Tech grad, Mustang from the ranks.. monster ego, great stick fighter pilot who was one of the early leaders of Fighter Tactics School at Nellis. USN and USMC rotated pilots through Nellis before Top Gun - and allegedly 'pirated' his doctrines in the process as basis for TG tactics training.

Only one pilot (a Marine) ever tied him (i.e Boyd failed to get on his six within 40 seconds after starting with the other pilot on Boyd's six)..

 

[drgondog]

However, I have wondered why the AF didnt put the Phoenix missle and its fire control system into some F15's that were to be used in the air defense role.

Syscom - the F-15 was single seat only in the first several models. F-14 had a RIO in back to manage the 'systems'.

 

[syscom3]

Syscom - the F-15 was single seat only in the first several models. F-14 had a RIO in back to manage the 'systems'.

If the AF wanted a phoenix equipped F15, then they would have made available a two seat version.

Nothing sophisticated about it.

 

[drgondog]

If the AF wanted a phoenix equipped F15, then they would have made available a two seat version.

Nothing sophisticated about it.

I was responding to your question re: why didn't the F-15 design incorporate Phoenix missles? I doubt that the USAF was interested in the Phoenix - and weren't very interested in a two seater - which is why they bought the F-16, not the F-18.

I agree - neither the question nor the answer is very sophisticated.. so why were you 'wondering' in the first place?

 

[renrich]

I believe I have read of Boyd before. I think he may have been part of the "Fighter Mafia" Is that not true? Interestingly, when the F15 was being developed, the SecDef asked to have a study done for a variant called the F15N. This naval version was supposed to supplement the F14 as a sort of stripped down, less expensive hot rod that would be less multi role, perhaps not as capable in some areas but more of a air superiority fighter. The F14 had gotten extremely expensive and complicated. The study was done by MCAIR and the Navy. The MCAIR study naturally gained several thousand pounds with the resulting performance penalty. The Navy study gained even more weight and the idea was dropped. The Navy tried to get the F14 adopted by the AF, but after having to adopt two AC from the Navy,(F4 and A7,) the AF was having none of that. This discussion reminds me of an earlier one about the F4U being modified and built for the AAF. Anyway, the F14, IMO, was a platform that if modified for the AF(with the resulting weight loss) and provided with the GE engines it ultimately wound up with, could have been a splendid multi role fighter superior to the F15 in many ways and only slightly inferior in a few ways, and saving our country many dollars. One of the characteristics of the F14 not widely appreciated is that since it's external stores are carried conformally, there is very little performance penalty.

 

[drgondog]

I believe I have read of Boyd before. I think he may have been part of the "Fighter Mafia" Is that not true? Interestingly, when the F15 was being developed, the SecDef asked to have a study done for a variant called the F15N. This naval version was supposed to supplement the F14 as a sort of stripped down, less expensive hot rod that would be less multi role, perhaps not as capable in some areas but more of a air superiority fighter. The F14 had gotten extremely expensive and complicated. The study was done by MCAIR and the Navy. The MCAIR study naturally gained several thousand pounds with the resulting performance penalty. The Navy study gained even more weight and the idea was dropped. The Navy tried to get the F14 adopted by the AF, but after having to adopt two AC from the Navy,(F4 and A7,) the AF was having none of that. This discussion reminds me of an earlier one about the F4U being modified and built for the AAF. Anyway, the F14, IMO, was a platform that if modified for the AF(with the resulting weight loss) and provided with the GE engines it ultimately wound up with, could have been a splendid multi role fighter superior to the F15 in many ways and only slightly inferior in a few ways, and saving our country many dollars. One of the characteristics of the F14 not widely appreciated is that since it's external stores are carried conformally, there is very little performance penalty.

Rich - I don't know if Fighter Mafia was a term used for Boyd, but he made a lot of very powerful enemies at the Pentagon.

You are right about USAF totally rejecting the F-14, but he comment of F-14 being superior (say F-14D to F-15C) would be hard pressed to justify? They were the same speed at altitude, but I believe the F-15C could do 1.2Mach on deck plus, as noted below had an edge in really important ratios..

The USAF had finally gotten a Air Speriority fighter and, while multi-role was still an added value, they weren't gonna take a broken down kitty like a warmed over Tomcat to their new toy - any more than the USN was taking the F-16 or the F-15.

From Wikipedia the F-14D climbed at 45K/minute, had a combat radius of 500 miles, had a W/L of 113 and a T/W ratio =.91:1

Same source has F-15C at 50K/Min, combat radius of 1000+mi, W/L of 73 and T/W of 1.12:1..

If true a substantial energy, range and manueverability advantage seems to go F-15C - a 50% advantage of wing loading and 20% Thrust to weight ratio indicates the 14 should not be able to do well against the F-15.. all things equal. It should be able to accelerate, climb, turn (to pilot limit), go higher and farther, - usually one of those will work to your advantage.

I couldn't find comparable specs on the radars but I know the 15 had a big target acquisition radar.. which from Boyd's persepctive reduced the air to air agility (big radar=bigger profile, more weight, more drag)... but with missle systems available today it has to be a huge advantage now as far as stand off capability.

 

[renrich]

Bill, as we speculated during the discussion about F4U and in the earlier information about what happened when the study was done for F15N, the F15 gained several thousand pounds when adapted for carrier use. Would it not be true then that a F14 adapted for AF use might lose several thousand pounds thus perhaps yielding an increase in performance? I know the F14 had a big radar and my earlier comment about it's ability to carry external stores without losing much if any performance might be an advantage. My reference here which is "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes," shows the F14 and this is the early model with PW engines, to have an empty weight of 39921 lbs, Vmax at altitude of Mach 2.34, SL Vmax of Mach 1.2, SL rate of climb-30000 fpm, service ceiling of 56000 ft, max range of 1740 nm. Same reference gives Vmax of F15C as Mach 2.5 but does not give SL Vmax, service ceiling is 65000 feet and max ferry range is 3000 miles with FAST packs. It would be interesting to compare performance of a denavalised F14 with the GE engines and a full combat load of ordnance and a F15 with comparable combat load. Of course this is all theoretical but my bet is that the numbers would be surprising. I have spoken to Navy F14 drivers(of course they are not prejudiced) that said they felt good about ACM with the GE engined F14 against any AC in the world. Also talked to a F15 pilot who said that a cat launch in a F14 as an exchange pilot was one of the most exciting things he had ever done. He inadvertantly was screaming into an open mike when they took off and the bridge heard every word he said and kidded him about it later.

 

[drgondog]

Bill, as we speculated during the discussion about F4U and in the earlier information about what happened when the study was done for F15N, the F15 gained several thousand pounds when adapted for carrier use. Would it not be true then that a F14 adapted for AF use might lose several thousand pounds thus perhaps yielding an increase in performance? I know the F14 had a big radar and my earlier comment about it's ability to carry external stores without losing much if any performance might be an advantage. My reference here which is "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes," shows the F14 and this is the early model with PW engines, to have an empty weight of 39921 lbs, Vmax at altitude of Mach 2.34, SL Vmax of Mach 1.2, SL rate of climb-30000 fpm, service ceiling of 56000 ft, max range of 1740 nm. Same reference gives Vmax of F15C as Mach 2.5 but does not give SL Vmax, service ceiling is 65000 feet and max ferry range is 3000 miles with FAST packs. It would be interesting to compare performance of a denavalised F14 with the GE engines and a full combat load of ordnance and a F15 with comparable combat load. Of course this is all theoretical but my bet is that the numbers would be surprising. I have spoken to Navy F14 drivers(of course they are not prejudiced) that said they felt good about ACM with the GE engined F14 against any AC in the world. Also talked to a F15 pilot who said that a cat launch in a F14 as an exchange pilot was one of the most exciting things he had ever done. He inadvertantly was screaming into an open mike when they took off and the bridge heard every word he said and kidded him about it later.

Rich - I honestly don't know what was involved in the Grumman concept.

If it was a complete re-design which implies stripping landing gear carry through structure as well as arresting gear and beefed up bulkheads/carry through structure it might yield the benefits.. as well as redesign the wing if necessary depending on whether the landing loads exceeded the aerodynamic loads.

Net answer - I don't have a clue but suspect that a F-14 MODIFIED, not re-designed, would not shed enough weight to make a difference. Remember the USAF didn't need the swing wing structure to enable variable sweep for low(er) speed carrier landing .. still I just don't know.

 

[renrich]

Interestingly, my reference states that one target for the design of the F15 was the Mig 23, a swing wing design. The other was the Mig 25. Would the variable geometry wing of the F14 give the AC better maneuverability at high altitudes? Why did the Soviets use that type of wing on the Mig 23? Isn't it interesting that most of the ACM kills of the Tomcat were against Mig 23s?

 

[davparlr]

The engines for the F14's were turkeys from the beginning while the F100's for the F15 were excellent.

I think that there are alot of smoking holes with F-16 parts thrown about because of early versions of that engine. I don't know if the F-15s engines were more reliable, but, since, if I remember correctly, the initial correction was to run the engines for the F-16 so many hours in a F-15, indicates that they must have had problems too.