F-14 Tomcat Projects

[elmayerle]

It's strictly a "what-if" scenario, but I could just see the RAF and the Aeronavale buying TF30-powered F-14s and then looking to upgrade them with a joint Rolls-Royce/Allison & SNECMA version of the TF41 work Allison did in the late 1960's to replace the TF30's with SNECMA providing, among other bits, the nozzles which would resemble M53 nozzles. The alternative would be to go with SNECMA TF306's but, given all the development work Allison had already done, I think the TF41 variant, sold as a Spey 300R, would be preferred from time, cost, and national pride considerations. At the same time, the two countries could collaborate on other system improvements (with or without USN coordination)..

 

[helmutkohl]

an informative video posted a few weeks ago from a former F-14 pilot on the Super Tomcat (and other versions), as well as on the Hornet, Super Hornet, and Avenger

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpXyYgL4jPI

 

[fightingirish]

Ward Carroll is actually a retired F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer (RIO).

 

[GTX]

These are pure fiction though aren't they?

 

[Arjen]

These are pure fiction though aren't they?

Yes. Fiction.

 

[jsport]

for the umpteeth time, carriers do not have a capable enough aircraft on them to justify their cost. They have not had such since the F-14. Such contributing craft are not even in the plan anymore. Some have not forgot. As the vid points out swing wing is still superior characteristic.

Thinking genuine contributors are fresh air in otherwise stale air.

 

[helmutkohl]

Ward Carroll is actually a retired F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer (RIO).

really? the US Navy Institute page says he was a 15 year F-14 pilot, and in one of his videos he says he flew the X-32

Ward Carroll

Ward Carroll flew in F-14 Tomcats for fifteen years after

www.usni.org

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Ward Carroll is actually a retired F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer (RIO).

really? the US Navy Institute page says he was a 15 year F-14 pilot, and in one of his videos he says he flew the X-32

Ward Carroll

Ward Carroll flew in F-14 Tomcats for fifteen years after

www.usni.org

He openly admits he was a RIO? The X-32 thing I do not recall hearing.

 

[TomS]

Ward Carroll is actually a retired F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer (RIO).

really? the US Navy Institute page says he was a 15 year F-14 pilot, and in one of his videos he says he flew the X-32

Ward Carroll

Ward Carroll flew in F-14 Tomcats for fifteen years after

www.usni.org

The USNI page says he flew F-14s for 15 years. That's a slightly different (and rather misleading) statement. He was most definitely a RIO. He flew in F-14s but did not pilot them.

That's confirmed in this article he wrote about his transition out of the military.

The Things You Leave Behind

Change is hard; transitioning out of the military is harder. Part of making it easier is thorough prep work research and being networking-wise.

www.military.com

Because I'd been a Naval Flight Officer – a backseater – and not a pilot, the airlines weren't an option

 

[helmutkohl]

^ thanks for the confirmation!

 

[SteveO]

Ward Carroll is actually a retired F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer (RIO).

really? the US Navy Institute page says he was a 15 year F-14 pilot, and in one of his videos he says he flew the X-32

Ward Carroll

Ward Carroll flew in F-14 Tomcats for fifteen years after

www.usni.org

He interviewed the X-32 test pilot in this video but he didn’t fly it.

View: https://youtu.be/u2YFxZw7UUw

 

[Richard N]

I don't think Rowdy said anything that would help Boeing's X-32. He said that Boeing had advanced manufacturing skills and didn't think that Palmdale would do a very good job of manufacturing the F-35. It was prototyped there, but Palmdale doesn't do production. The F-35 is being built on the same floor that more than 4000 F-16s were previously built on with totally new F-35 production equipment. Even if Boeing had somehow managed to win the JSF competition, the huge program failures they've had with the 737 MAX, KC-46, and Starliner keeping them fully involved just trying fix their situation to normal along with a forced CEO replacement, there is no way they would have been able to do a better job than LM of running their JSF production.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I know this may sound daft, especially coming from a tortoise drive but, I would really like to see a bunch of pilots who know these aircraft in a 'cup of cpffee# type of setting discussing their thoughts and experience of them. Mooch barely lets the other guy talk in that.

 

[Richard N]

Sometimes you just need to be at the right model club meeting at the right time with the right people. I was at an IPMS Fort Worth club meeting where Phil Oestreicher and Paul Metz had a half hour discussion about the planes they flew. I was inches away from them as Phil said how much he liked doing F-111 low altitude max dynamic pressure runs over the Gulf and didn't like how much B-58 engines moved around on their pylons and Paul talked about his flights in the F-22 and F-23. I knew Phil from seeing him at model flying events and have seen Paul Metz do a couple of aviation presentations in Fort Worth and Dallas. Helps to be in the same neighborhood as these guys.

 

[SteveO]

Cool CGIs:

This Is What Grumman's Proposed F-14 Super Tomcat 21 Would Have Actually Looked Like

If the Super Hornet hadn't been built, Grumman's next-gen Tomcat may have become a reality. We forensically recreated it in these awesome renderings.

www.thedrive.com

Just had another look at this and fell in love with the Tomcat again! The seriously impressive Super Tomcat artwork is available at the Hanger B website. The USN really missed out on this one. I wonder if Australia would have brought some to replace the F-111 and the original F/A-18s?

https://hangarb.artstation.com/projects/e0rPXP?album_id=1548495

 

[donnage99]

Some may find this interesting:

https://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=32834&sid=5cf25c255a420a17205920294d8976e7

Anyone knows if the version on the right of the tomcat ii also feature nose chines like most stealth aircraft or it's just regular f-14 nose with an enlarged LEX like that of the super hornet?

 

[F-14D]

Some may find this interesting:

https://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=32834&sid=5cf25c255a420a17205920294d8976e7

Anyone knows if the version on the right of the tomcat ii also feature nose chines like most stealth aircraft or it's just regular f-14 nose with an enlarged LEX like that of the super hornet?

Remember, Tomcat II was a refinement of one of a number of Grumman hypothetical concepts the company decided not to pursue (cost, for one thing). They settled on Super Tomcat-21, so all the details of this were never finalized. This was closer to the proposed "Advanced Strike Fighter-14", which was in reality a new aircraft that resembled the F-14, not a new model of the Tomcat. Sort of like Hornet vs, Super Hornet. They'd also try to shoehorn in more stealth. Even Grumman itself wasn't that sure it would be that cost -effective relative to a totally clean sheet design.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I do like the glove vane arrangement on the Tomcat II more than the ST-21.

 

[F-14D]

The idea on ST-21 was to gain the aerodynamic advantages of the glove of the F-14A with the vane extended without the complexity and maintenance issues of the movable version. As an estra benefit, it would allow space for more fuel and, depending on whether you're talking about Super or Attack Super Tomcat, provide space for moving the IFF assembly from the nose.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

One thing to point out about the Tomcat in general, was that it was limited to usually two catapults on most carriers at the time, usually 1 and 4 cat (starboard forward, and outboard waist). This was because it required a special, much larger jet blast deflector than other aircraft. This JBD had an associated 1200 gpm fire pump to keep the JBD from melting due to the heat from the engines.

 

[F-14D]

For the F-14A, the TF30s put out more than the J79s of the F-4/RA-5C. for budget reasons, as the Tomcat was first being fielded, I'm not sure all the JBDs on each carrier were upgraded on carriers built before F-14 was fielded, although I believe eventually three cats were. Interestingly, the F414s on the Super Bug put out more than the TF30s, but the ships were already ready for them. Then of course there were then the more powerful F110s in the Tomcat B/D, but in a lot of cases those birds departed in military thrust for a number of reasons..

One has to wonder what would have been necessary had the NATF entered service with their much more powerful F119s. One of the considerations for NATF was that the distance from the nozzle's aft end to the JBD could not be less than that of the F-14.

Actual launch at 1:20

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQIYAJvzNxY


Another view here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-KOLsmhzbQ

 

[Manuducati]

No need to wonder, JBD had to be upgraded for the F-35C engine as well.

"Nimitz and Ford Carriers Need Upgrades to Deploy With F-35Cs - USNI News" https://news.usni.org/2019/06/06/nimitz-and-ford-carriers-need-upgrades-to-deploy-with-f-35cs

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The idea on ST-21 was to gain the aerodynamic advantages of the glove of the F-14A with the vane extended without the complexity and maintenance issues of the movable version. As an estra benefit, it would allow space for more fuel and, depending on whether you're talking about Super or Attack Super Tomcat, provide space for moving the IFF assembly from the nose.

Why not arrange it like how it is on the "Tomcat II" sketch? It seems like it would offer even greater volume for fuel or sensors.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

For the F-14A, the TF30s put out more than the J79s of the F-4/RA-5C. for budget reasons, as the Tomcat was first being fielded, I'm not sure all the JBDs on each carrier were upgraded on carriers built before F-14 was fielded, although I believe eventually three cats were. Interestingly, the F414s on the Super Bug put out more than the TF30s, but the ships were already ready for them. Then of course there were then the more powerful F110s in the Tomcat B/D, but in a lot of cases those birds departed in military thrust for a number of reasons..

One has to wonder what would have been necessary had the NATF entered service with their much more powerful F119s. One of the considerations for NATF was that the distance from the nozzle's aft end to the JBD could not be less than that of the F-14.

Actual launch at 1:20

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQIYAJvzNxY


Another view here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-KOLsmhzbQ

Well, on the older carriers the two cats were modified and the fire pumps to run cooling water were added. 1200 gpm is a lot of water to move and those pumps normally weren't cross connected into the fire main but rather just supplying the JBD's.

 

[F-14D]

The idea on ST-21 was to gain the aerodynamic advantages of the glove of the F-14A with the vane extended without the complexity and maintenance issues of the movable version. As an estra benefit, it would allow space for more fuel and, depending on whether you're talking about Super or Attack Super Tomcat, provide space for moving the IFF assembly from the nose.

Why not arrange it like how it is on the "Tomcat II" sketch? It seems like it would offer even greater volume for fuel or sensors.

Actually, "Tomcat II"/ASF-14 wouldn't need to put fuel there, it was a new aircraft with more room for internal fuel. It was also somewhat draggier, so would require whichever engine was selected for ATF. Also the Super Tomcat 21 glove follows the outline of the standard glove with the vane extended, wheras this is a whole new mold line and would require significantly more work (and money). Unlike Super/Attack Super Tomcat 21, it couldn't be remanufactured from F-14s, just like you can't remanufacture a Classic into a Super Hornet

 

[piko1]

i think this would be interesting to every tomcat fan out there

and on the topic of microprocessors and tomcat
|

 

[fightingirish]

Advanced F-14 variants (from the late Gary Morlock ("elider").

In colour or just recoloured.
Source: Cradle of Aviation Museum, Garden City, NY

 

[isayyo2]

Does anyone have further insight into the F-14C's proposed radar (phased array?), and what the term"dual confirm detection logic" refers to?

Department of the Navy

www.google.com

 

[SSgtC]

Does anyone have further insight into the F-14C's proposed radar (phased array?), and what the term"dual confirm detection logic" refers to?

Department of the Navy

www.google.com

View attachment 679684
View attachment 679685

While I can't say for certain, I know that the AWG-9 had a problem when in track-while-scan mode. Namely that there was a delay of, I think, 2 or 3 seconds when updating the RIO's display. This could cause it to look like targets that were being tracked were turning in on you even when they weren't. The fact that this "dual confirm logic" is mentioned while discussing the TWS mode of the AWG-9 would seem to indicate that it was related to radar operation in that mode.

 

[F-2]

Electronically scanned array? So it’s a PESA? Maybe it’s the electronically agile radar they developed for the FB-111? Or something like it.

 

[_Del_]

Does anyone have further insight into the F-14C's proposed radar (phased array?), and what the term"dual confirm detection logic" refers to?

Noise is a variable, which can become a problem when dealing with long-range return signals (Inverse square law).
The easiest most straight forward method to deal with noise is to set a threshold for the signal return.
We want the radar to show a return when there is a real target, and not when there isn't. We want to set a threshold high enough to avoid a false positive from noise.
But we also do not want a weak return from a real target to get missed because we set the threshold too high and noise+return was lower than the threshold.
Because signal noise is a variable, this is going to result in a probability of detection regardless of how well we set this up. If we increase the threshold, we decrease the probability of a false alarm, but increase the probability of missing a valid target. It is going to be a trade off.

Detection logic is simply how you tell the radar to determine whether it has a target (valid return pulse). Example: "If Signal is greater than Threshold display target. If Signal is lower than Threshold ignore signal".

I'm not familiar with "dual confirm" in this context, but it seems pretty straightforward. They have added a new process or variable to the logic. Or there are now two methods of logic and they both need to agree.
If we know the probability of a false alarm for our threshold, for example, we can look at how many false alarms we would expect in a given period of time and compare it to what we have experienced. "If number of returns over threshold in period of Time is greater than probability of false alarm over period of time, treat as real target."

What the particulars are in this case, I do not know.

 

[Yellow Palace]

As the F-14C has floated up again, I've just had a flash of the obvious.

It's extensively reported that the F-14C would have had all-weather attack capability comparable to the A-6. But, when that upgrade was on the table, the A-6 was a lot less capable - TRAM and laser-guided bombs didn't come along until 1979; Harpoon not until the 1980s.

While the F-14C might well have had comparable capability to the A-6 with gravity bombs and unguided rockets, and was probably a platform for the AGM-53 Condor, I doubt very much it would have the same capability as the later A-6E with TRAM.

 

[Manuducati]

Does anybody have more pictures (this one is from F-14D member, from the following thread) of the F-14 with thrust vectoring and/or the NASA report about the test phase?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/grumman-fv-14-oblique-wing-aircraft.3170/post-78042

 

[flateric]

You may need to find a friendly SETP member to ask for
"F-14A Yaw Vane Technology Demonstration Program”
31st Symposium Proceedings , Society of Experimental Test Pilots , Sept. 1987 , pp . 187–200

 

[flateric]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19880003073/downloads/19880003073.pdf

 

[Manuducati]

Thank you flateric!

A Tomcat with General Electric F-110 GE-429 and AVEN thrust vectoring nozzles (as envisioned for potential upgrade) would have been an interesting sight. Well maybe more suited to airshow than to operational needs, but that's another debate.

And for those who thought the Tomcat was an hydraulic nightmare with its variable swept wings, what about... three sets of those?
Grumman studies, patent dated 92, but drawings dated 94...

US5312070A - Segmented variable sweep wing aircraft - Google Patents

A segmented variable sweep wing for an aircraft has a plurality of wing segments. A structural device movably affixes the wing segments to the fuselage of the aircraft adjacent each other at their root areas. The structural device moves the segments conjointly to a power position where the...

patents.google.com

 

[Yellow Palace]

And for those who thought the Tomcat was an hydraulic nightmare with its variable swept wings, what about... three sets of those?

Further reinforcing the point that an idea doesn't have to be good to get a patent. It just has to be novel and not obviously impossible.

 

[_Del_]

Still just one hydraulic jackscrew (or piston, or electrical even, as the patent doesn't specify. "A motion imparting device ...comprises a motor of any suitable known type, such as, for example, an electric or hydraulic motor.")

More mechanical bits there, for sure, considering the variable camber aspect.

 

[Manuducati]

And for those who thought the Tomcat was an hydraulic nightmare with its variable swept wings, what about... three sets of those?

Further reinforcing the point that an idea doesn't have to be good to get a patent. It just has to be novel and not obviously impossible.

So true.

This one isn't bad either, but not from Grumman and the Tomcat front fuselage most probably for illustration purpose only.

US6382559B1 - Thrust vectoring mechanism - Google Patents

A thrust vectoring mechanism to vector thrust and control discharge throat area includes four or more vanes mounted across the outlet of a nozzle in a cascade arrangement. The mechanism further includes a rod to control pivoting of each of the vanes that may be selectively rotated with one or...

patents.google.com

 

[apparition13]

Does anyone have further insight into the F-14C's proposed radar (phased array?), and what the term"dual confirm detection logic" refers to?

Department of the Navy

www.google.com

View attachment 679684
View attachment 679685

That finally answers my question about whether the C was an enhanced B with attack capability or an attack aircraft lacking Phoenix. It's still a fleet air defense aircraft with Phoenix, it just has a radar that can handle attack modes as well so it can do both attack and fighter roles. Which also explains why the Navy wanted it to replace the A-7 since a carrier could then carry more F-14s for FAD while still retaining attack capability. The A-6s would still be around for their mission.