F-14 Tomcat Projects

[danwild6]

Huh? the missile is on the INBOARD side of the nacelle, the landing gear is on the outboard side. Zero chance of the gear touching a missile.

I was referring to this post by asval

If that Sparrow mount intrudes on neither the tunnel carriage clearance nor the fuel tank pylon then you can probably go with another outboard mount on either nacelles. So it becomes 4x Phoenix, 4x Sparrows, 4x Sidewinders and 2x fuel tanks. Nasty loadout. Phoenix shot from high and close in hunting with the Fox 1s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was referring to this post by asval

Ah, gotcha!

I'd need to look at a real plane to confirm, but the only missile fin that might interfere would be the aft fin and even then it may be far enough away to clear.

 

[danwild6]

Though you could probably do two tandem on each nacelle inboard might interfere with the aft Phoenix's as the tunnel does narrow I believe.

 

[aim9xray]

Though you could probably do two tandem on each nacelle inboard might interfere with the aft Phoenix's as the tunnel does narrow I believe.

Too far aft and you are interfering with the the "daily" and "weekly" engine access doors which swing down and inboard.

 

[Firefinder]

Too far aft and you are interfering with the the "daily" and "weekly" engine access doors which swing down and inboard.

Which is not that big of an issue due to the fact the plane should be unarmed if you are doing maintenance least you cause another Forestall Fire. Sof if you are doing maintaince in those doors, the missile be gone. Pretty sure the F15Cs have similar blockage, and the F15E fastpacks do block the outer engine maintenance doors.

The bigger issue with those is if they can or cannot take any turbulence from the weapons in flight or if the Missile attachment parts and reinforcements get in the way of the door.

 

[aim9xray]

Well the "daily" door is called that because it is (well, was) opened daily for hydraulic fluid and other checks/servicing. Are you suggesting that the ordies download the aft missiles so you can do your daily maintenance checks on the engines?

 

[Firefinder]

Well the "daily" door is called that because it is (well, was) opened daily for hydraulic fluid and other checks/servicing. Are you suggesting that the ordies download the aft missiles so you can do your daily maintenance checks on the engines?

Are you suggesting that the planes be armed 24/7 and not 30-60 minutes til launch?

Cause everything I have read the navy does not have the planes sitting around armed in the last 60 years. Or even ten years after the F14 started design work...

So why will the ordies need to download the missiles when said missiles should be in the Magazine? Sounds like a great way to have the Ships Captain himself appear like a wraith to Murder them cause they are endangering his boat.

And why would you be doing the daily inspections after the plane is getting ready to be hooked up onto the catapult? That should have been down hours ago.


Eyeah no. Unless the plane is schedule to launch inside the next few hours its freaking empty of anything.

That is when Maintenace is done. That is when you be doing you daily servicing. And thing that results in you need to pop open the service hatches is a deadlining fault and the plane be getting unloaded to be strike down to the hanger even if the hatches are not covered by the weapons.

 

[aim9xray]

You're the expert. I've not been aboard an active carrier, not even so far as a Tiger Cruise. KMAGYOYO.

 

[SSgtC]

Are you suggesting that the planes be armed 24/7 and not 30-60 minutes til launch?

Cause everything I have read the navy does not have the planes sitting around armed in the last 60 years. Or even ten years after the F14 started design work...

So why will the ordies need to download the missiles when said missiles should be in the Magazine? Sounds like a great way to have the Ships Captain himself appear like a wraith to Murder them cause they are endangering his boat.

And why would you be doing the daily inspections after the plane is getting ready to be hooked up onto the catapult? That should have been down hours ago.


Eyeah no. Unless the plane is schedule to launch inside the next few hours its freaking empty of anything.

That is when Maintenace is done. That is when you be doing you daily servicing. And thing that results in you need to pop open the service hatches is a deadlining fault and the plane be getting unloaded to be strike down to the hanger even if the hatches are not covered by the weapons.

Soooo, may I offer a piece of friendly advice? This isn't an argument you're going to win. There are two members on this site who's knowledge of Naval Aviation operations and of the F-14 in particular, dwarfs the rest of the forum combined. Aim9 is one of those two.

 

[danwild6]

Well the "daily" door is called that because it is (well, was) opened daily for hydraulic fluid and other checks/servicing. Are you suggesting that the ordies download the aft missiles so you can do your daily maintenance checks on the engines?

Do you think there would have been room outboard either forward or possibly aft of the landing gear?

 

[apparition13]

Now I do understand this model is the product of a joke but reflecting upon the fact that Grumman borrowed alot from the A-6 wing for the F-14's, could a "pylon-ed, plumbed and wired" wing be installed on the Tomcat in place of the original wing. I'm trying to brainstorm how a Beagle Tomcat would've looked like and a wing switch seemed more easy to do than, let's say, installing hardpoints and CFTs on the nacelles.

I'd put a big CFT in the tunnel. Something like the conformal weapons carriage tank that was tested on the F-4. That had around 1000 gallons, and mounts for weapons. Assuming it didn't wreck the aerodynamics something like that could work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Do you think there would have been room outboard either forward or possibly aft of the landing gear?

That's going to be a very hot area, next to the engines. Not sure I'd want to let missiles bake there.

I'd put a big CFT in the tunnel. Something like the conformal weapons carriage tank that was tested on the F-4. That had around 1000 gallons, and mounts for weapons. Assuming it didn't wreck the aerodynamics something like that could work.

You mean like the one proposed for the F-14 AIM Improved Manned Interceptor for the USAF?

(edit: wrong acronym!)

 

[yeetmahboi]

I'd put a big CFT in the tunnel. Something like the conformal weapons carriage tank that was tested on the F-4. That had around 1000 gallons, and mounts for weapons. Assuming it didn't wreck the aerodynamics something like that could work.

Like the F-14 IMI? Absolutely, love me Tomcats and gas all days.

 

[BlackBat242]

Soooo, may I offer a piece of friendly advice? This isn't an argument you're going to win. There are two members on this site who's knowledge of Naval Aviation operations and of the F-14 in particular, dwarfs the rest of the forum combined. Aim9 is one of those two.

As a former USMC A-6E tech who was aboard a carrier (CV-61) for 2 2-month Norpac (Korea/Japan area) cruises (1986 & 1987) and one 6-month WestPac/Indian Ocean cruise (1987, Persian Gulf tanker convoy ops), what I saw on the flight deck were birds that were unarmed unless they were going flying on a "weapons required" flight within 2-4 hours (F-14 CAP flights, as well as "lets go blow up some oil platforms", and "cruise over the Gulf in case we need to blow up Iranian boats attacking tankers" flights) or were standing "alert aircraft" assignment (aircraft prepped for flight, fueled & armed, and crew either in the cockpit (5 minute & 15 minute) or in the ready room (30 minute & 1 hour) - anything longer and they would only load ordnance after the bird was tasked with a flight.

And when I spent 6 months of 1984 in MCAS Iwakuni, Japan & NAS Cubi Point, Philippines, aircraft were likewise only armed when getting ready for, or just back from, flights.

 

[apparition13]

That's going to be a very hot area, next to the engines. Not sure I'd want to let missiles bake there.


You mean like the one proposed for the F-14 AIM Improved Manned Interceptor for the USAF?

(edit: wrong acronym!)

Was that a single tank? I was under the impression it was four enlarged Phoenix pylons. If it were two tanks that could work. I wonder if they would have clearance for four Harpoons. That might allow an F-14C or Super-Tomcat to match the A-6 for range.

I was actually picturing something wider and shorter so weapons would still be somewhat within a now shallower tunnel. More like this, but between the nacelles.

 

[danwild6]

That's going to be a very hot area, next to the engines. Not sure I'd want to let missiles bake there.


You mean like the one proposed for the F-14 AIM Improved Manned Interceptor for the USAF?

(edit: wrong acronym!)

Ok so it would have to be forward not aft thanks for the reply.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Was that a single tank? I was under the impression it was four enlarged Phoenix pylons.

I believe it is a single tank, it just looks like enlarged Phoenix pylons up front.

 

[aim9xray]

As a former USMC A-6E tech who was aboard a carrier (CV-61) for 2 2-month Norpac (Korea/Japan area) cruises (1986 & 1987) and one 6-month WestPac/Indian Ocean cruise (1987, Persian Gulf tanker convoy ops), what I saw on the flight deck were birds that were unarmed unless they were going flying on a "weapons required" flight within 2-4 hours (F-14 CAP flights, as well as "lets go blow up some oil platforms", and "cruise over the Gulf in case we need to blow up Iranian boats attacking tankers" flights) or were standing "alert aircraft" assignment (aircraft prepped for flight, fueled & armed, and crew either in the cockpit (5 minute & 15 minute) or in the ready room (30 minute & 1 hour) - anything longer and they would only load ordnance after the bird was tasked with a flight.

And when I spent 6 months of 1984 in MCAS Iwakuni, Japan & NAS Cubi Point, Philippines, aircraft were likewise only armed when getting ready for, or just back from, flights.

Thank you all. I stand sit corrected. As I said, I have no USS Boat time. I was scheduled for some in October/November 2001, but that was OBE, to say the least.

Facts talk, bullshit walks.

 

[DesScorp]

As a former USMC A-6E tech who was aboard a carrier (CV-61) for 2 2-month Norpac (Korea/Japan area) cruises (1986 & 1987) and one 6-month WestPac/Indian Ocean cruise (1987, Persian Gulf tanker convoy ops), what I saw on the flight deck were birds that were unarmed unless they were going flying on a "weapons required" flight within 2-4 hours (F-14 CAP flights, as well as "lets go blow up some oil platforms", and "cruise over the Gulf in case we need to blow up Iranian boats attacking tankers" flights) or were standing "alert aircraft" assignment (aircraft prepped for flight, fueled & armed, and crew either in the cockpit (5 minute & 15 minute) or in the ready room (30 minute & 1 hour) - anything longer and they would only load ordnance after the bird was tasked with a flight.

And when I spent 6 months of 1984 in MCAS Iwakuni, Japan & NAS Cubi Point, Philippines, aircraft were likewise only armed when getting ready for, or just back from, flights.

This mirrors my experiences on CVN-65 in the late 80's: most aircraft on deck were not armed unless they were scheduled to launch. Perhaps this was a policy resulting from the Forrestal/Enterprise incidents, and lessons learned. Zunis were gone, but why tempt the Accident Gods when you didn't have to?

 

[PappyVF477]

This mirrors my experiences on CVN-65 in the late 80's: most aircraft on deck were not armed unless they were scheduled to launch. Perhaps this was a policy resulting from the Forrestal/Enterprise incidents, and lessons learned. Zunis were gone, but why tempt the Accident Gods when you didn't have to?

And lets be frank and honest here, Putting weapons on a bird, esp one at sea when not needed is wasteful due to most weapon systems having a "Time on rack" life measured in days and a time in bunker in years. I don't know what the actual military term for these times are but I do know that flying the weapons on aircraft when not needed is excessive wear for both the aircraft and the munitions.

 

[zjz]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Erj6dlR2Q

 

[Kalarz]

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings/GT1985/79382/V001T01A004/235938
A paper from '85 from GE and Grumman about the benefits of the F110 in the F-14. Most of the figures appear to be taken from slides or something. I'll admit I can't particularly understand it, but maybe someone will find it enlightening.

 

[jsport]

Vie w: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Erj6dlR2Q

If not for bad decisions a 5th Gen upgrade to the ASF-14 would still be making CVNs worth the money today.

 

[whatismoo]

If not for bad decisions a 5th Gen upgrade to the ASF-14 would still be making CVNs worth the money today.

They're still worth their money? Though this is part of the frustration with faxx being stalled

 

[Scott Kenny]

They're still worth their money? Though this is part of the frustration with faxx being stalled

Nothing says "Excuse me sir, what do you think you're doing to my friend?" quite like having 100,000 tons of diplomacy showing up off your coast.

 

[Scorpion82]

I'm currently writing a summary of the F-14 Tomcat Projects, consolidating the fragmented information from this thread and augmenting them with the results from my complementary research into the subject matter. The objective is to create a complete overview of the individual projects, establishing a timeline and working out the triggers, differences and chronological order.

I have thus far covered the timeframe from VFX contract signature in January 1969 to 1984, when F-14A+ development started.

The only ambiguity revolves around the original RF-14. The passage of my summary currently reads:

Already around 1969/1970 the RF-14 reconnaissance variant emerged. It seems to have not been included in the VFX contract and was proposed to be centred around the Airborne Integrated Reconnaissance System (AIRS) and to succeed the RF-8, RA-5C and RF-4. The project seemed to have been suspended when funding for AIRS was cancelled in FY1971. The designation RF-14 was later re-used for the TARPS equipped Tomcat from ca. 1977 onwards, but was not adopted as an in-service designation. 49 F-14A were being modified to use TARPS, starting in 1981.

Any additional comments on that section are welcome. As stated, the RF-14 was apparently an afterthought and not part of the VFX contract itself. The question is, how genuine this was, or whether it was just Grumman internal study work, or whether there was at least a request or study contract being issued. Some have argued that the RF-14 was cancelled in favour of the podded solution (TARPS), but given the timelines they appear to be unrelated, i.e. RF-14 was cancelled for cost reasons (AIRS funding removed from FY71 budget request) and TARPS only emerged later on. The argument that TARPS was supposed to be an interim solution to bridge the gap until the arrival of the RF-18 back this assumption, as the Hornet was not a thing before 1975.


The next section I'll be working on is the F-14D.
For the F-14D Super Tomcat as we know it today, it was entering the planning stage in 1981 with the advent of the F101DFE. I have found no specific info though, when full scale development started though. There has been funding, at least since FY82 and it seems that in 1986 the F-14D design was essentially frozen and contracted. Any more exacting dates on that are welcome.

Finally, most abiguities revolve around the Advanced Tomcat Projects
I have currently established the following sequence: Tomcat 21 => Super Tomcat 21 => Attack Super Tomcat 21 => F-14D Quickstrike (Block IV Upgrade) => Advanced Strike Fighter 14 => Tomcat II

Based on the sources that I have found and the statements made, not all of which are traceable and backed with sources, study/preliminary conceptual work on a F-14D follow on started in 1987. In 1988 the Navy made a planning inquery, requesting a Grumman proposal for a future F-14 upgrade with an R&D cost limit of 1 bln USD. The response was the Tomcat 21. The Navy was apparently not satisfied with the (undisclosed) scope of that upgrade, hence Grumman followed up with the Super Tomcat 21 based on USN feedback and with the 1 bln USD R&D cost cap being removed. Public sources allow to trace back the ST21 to ~April 1989. The big question is, when did the AST21 emerge? Was it concurrent or was it an afterthought when ATA and NATF got cancelled in 1991? F-14D Quickstrike emerged after ATA got cancelled, as a cheap and quickly available precision strike upgrade to the F-14D that had been planned for anyway, to some extend. It's said, when Grumman learned about McD's work on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet it followed up with the ASF-14. It might well be that AST21 was a lesser concurrent proposal based on the ST21. Ofcourse we have seen the "evolutionary" chart, but that seems to stem from ~1991. Tomcat II in turn, seems to have been an even later concept ~1993 when the A-X / AF-X was still a thing and the Clinton administration signalled the willingness to revive the F-14, which didn't happen.

I will cover some specific technical aspects on the Advanced Tomcats in the next post.

 

[Scorpion82]

Continuation from here

As announced in the previous post, I'd like to briefly discuss some of the technical aspects of the Advanced Tomcats, especially ST21.
Super Tomcat 21 is actually the most comprehesively covered variant, yet there seem to be quite some misconceptions!

The ST21 is often associated with the cockpit layout shown here, but if you read the text in the article it's clearly talking about the Advanced Strike Fighter (ASF-14) and hints at A12 being cancelled already (=1991!).

If you read through the Grumman slides on the ST21 (actually abbreviated STC21) you have almost ALL relevant information available! The first slide on Displays and Controls, augmented with the info on the radar from the same slide states:
- DD /PTID - Deleted - Function included in MFD
- MFD 5in x 5in (3 = quantity of MFDs) - (replaced with) 4 x color MFD (6x6) and 3 x color MFD (5x5)

In other words, DD/PTID and the three monochrome 5x5 MFDs on the F-14D (front and aft cockpit) are replaced with 7 color MFDs on the ST21! This correlates well with the "Sim Lab" cockpit photo from the Grumman News Letter April 29, 1989.

This cockpit layout features 3 x MFDs in the front cockpit and a WAR HUD like on the F-16 Blk 40/42. The RIO station would thus have featured 4 x MFDs.

The ST21 Drawing from Aviation Week also includes some additional details, not described in the Grumman slides, especially on airframe changes. These correspond well with the colored version of the evolution chart (notice the yellow highlights!).

In any case the engine would have been the F110-GE-429 (Tomcatized F-110-GE-129 in lieu with F110-GE-100 based F-110-GE-400). ATF engines were more a thing for an all new ASF-14 and not for a retrofit.

Fly-By-Wire and TVN may have been options / growth prospects, but the ST21 baseline lacked them and featured a "High Authority Digital Control Augmentation System - HADCAS" which seems to be a DFCS like, digitized solution.

I may write a complete ST21 specfic summary at some point.

BR
Scorpion

 

[apparition13]

"While F-14A prototype construction continues, F-14B and F-14C engineering development is progressing. As mentioned earlier, planning calls for the F-14As to be operational by April 1973. As the 67th F-14A comes off the line, production is scheduled to switch to the more powerful B-version. First introduction of the F-14C all-weather air-to-ground weapon delivery version with an advanced avionics system for improved fire control will not take place until at least 1976, and probably later. Grumman is also doing some preliminary investigation on an RF-14 reconnaissance version as a possible replacement for RF-4Bs and RA-5Cs late in the 1970s."

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-interavia.htm

That's earlier than I thought for C model; I was under the impression it wasn't due until 1980 or so.

 

[Jacky]

@Scorpion82 Sir, I suggest you interview former Grumman staff to obtain more details, such as Sir @aim9xray who registered on this forum.


Personally, there are numerous unsolved mysteries about the F-14 program:

1. Weight inconsistency. According to records from the 1970 congressional hearing, the actual empty weight of the F-14A was around 36,000 pounds. The 1974 hearing documented the original F-14 empty weight at 35,979 pounds with 14,391 pounds of internal fuel. Its practical empty weight back then hit 38,648 pounds, carrying 16,200 pounds of internal fuel. Data posted on ED Forum shows that the weight of F-14A rose continuously starting from Block 60, with the final weight reaching 42,000 pounds. Relevant pictures are attached.

2. Engine mounting adaptation. The originally planned F-14B kept the F-14A airframe and was configured with F401-PW-400 engines. Yet Pratt & Whitney’s official data indicates the F401-PW-400 is shorter than the TF30 engine. As is known, the F110-GE-400 was fitted with an extended afterburner section to match the F-14 engine bay. It remains unclear how the F401-PW-400 resolved this dimensional mismatch.

3. Maximum speed discrepancy. The F-14A was officially rated for a top speed of Mach 2.35. Nonetheless, all performance manuals for F-14A/B/D released after the 1990s list the maximum speed limited to Mach 1.8. I wonder how this speed restriction was technically enforced.

 

[isayyo2]

3. Maximum speed discrepancy. The F-14A was officially rated for a top speed of Mach 2.35. Nonetheless, all performance manuals for F-14A/B/D released after the 1990s list the maximum speed limited to Mach 1.8. I wonder how this speed restriction was technically enforced.

I've seen this question answered three different ways.
1. The variable intake ramps enable speed above Mach 1.8 were incredibly maintenance heavy and they were "fixed" in place in the 90s as a cost savings. Though perhaps they are conflating the intake ramps with the glove vanes?

2. With the F-14Bs higher airflow F110engines they re-profiled the intake ramp geometry for the additional air flow at the cost of top end speed.

3. The Mach 1.8 limit was more structural longevity/safety. The thermal stress above Mach 2 would delaminate the canopy and stress the skins.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Grumman.F14.Tomcat/posts/3428469360727461/

 

[Scorpion82]

That's earlier than I thought for C model; I was under the impression it wasn't due until 1980 or so.

The C designation was re-used in 1981 for an upgrade with TF30-P414, digitized AWG-9, TCS and AIM-54C compatibility. It was scheduled to be procured from FY84 onwards.

At the same time the F-14D designation was re-used for an upgraded variant with digital avionics, F101DFE engines and possibly a 30in fuselage plug for more fuel. This F-14D was planned to be procured from FY87 onwards. However, the F101DFE was eventually rejected and the re-engining program cancelled, until being revived when the F101DFE had evolved into the F110 and the problems resolved. Digital avionics took longer, so the F-14A+ was phased in on an interim basis.


While the TF30-P414 was fitted to F-14As from 1983 onwards and the TCS being added as well, the designation F-14C wasn't formally adopted and the digitized radar didn't emerge before the F-14D's APG-71. The fuselage plug was obviously not realized though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The fuselage plug was obviously not realized though.

Are there any pictures/drawings/plans of this?

I'm not doubting, I'm trying to visualize this stretch and failing.

 

[exclaimedleech8]

Does the Tomcat have a stereo that permanently plays Highway to the Danger Zone on a continuous loop?

 

[Scorpion82]

Are there any pictures/drawings/plans of this?

I'm not doubting, I'm trying to visualize this stretch and failing.

Not that I know, the info stems from this posts content: Post in thread 'F-14 Tomcat Projects' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f-14-tomcat-projects.589/post-594553

 

[Jacky]

The C designation was re-used in 1981 for an upgrade with TF30-P414, digitized AWG-9, TCS and AIM-54C compatibility. It was scheduled to be procured from FY84 onwards.

At the same time the F-14D designation was re-used for an upgraded variant with digital avionics, F101DFE engines and possibly a 30in fuselage plug for more fuel. This F-14D was planned to be procured from FY87 onwards. However, the F101DFE was eventually rejected and the re-engining program cancelled, until being revived when the F101DFE had evolved into the F110 and the problems resolved. Digital avionics took longer, so the F-14A+ was phased in on an interim basis.


While the TF30-P414 was fitted to F-14As from 1983 onwards and the TCS being added as well, the designation F-14C wasn't formally adopted and the digitized radar didn't emerge before the F-14D's APG-71. The fuselage plug was obviously not realized though.

According to Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Ninety-First Congress, First Session, Part 3, 1969, the originally planned F-14C was to share the same airframe and engines as the F-14B, but its multifunction radar would adopt an electronically scanned array antenna paired with a new central processing unit; its ECM suite would also be upgraded. These modifications would grant the F-14C an all-weather air-to-ground weapons delivery capability.

PS: According to the 1970 congressional hearings, due to delays in its development, the ESA radar intended for the F-14C would not mature (become operational) until 1978 or beyond.


Additionally, regarding the so-called 30-inch fuselage plug: I have not yet located official documentation to substantiate this claim, and I recommend further verification of this assertion.

 

[Jacky]

I've seen this question answered three different ways.
1. The variable intake ramps enable speed above Mach 1.8 were incredibly maintenance heavy and they were "fixed" in place in the 90s as a cost savings. Though perhaps they are conflating the intake ramps with the glove vanes?

2. With the F-14Bs higher airflow F110engines they re-profiled the intake ramp geometry for the additional air flow at the cost of top end speed.

3. The Mach 1.8 limit was more structural longevity/safety. The thermal stress above Mach 2 would delaminate the canopy and stress the skins.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Grumman.F14.Tomcat/posts/3428469360727461/

I think point 3 is probably right. According to the 01-F14AAA-1.1(15 May, 1995), the top speed of the F-14A was also limited to approximately M1.8 by NATOP. However, I don’t know what happened, because I don’t have manuals from the 1970s for comparative analysis.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think point 3 is probably right. According to the 01-F14AAA-1.1(15 May, 1995), the top speed of the F-14A was also limited to approximately M1.8 by NATOP. However, I don’t know what happened, because I don’t have manuals from the 1970s for comparative analysis.

Let me try something... I'm in the NAMP (naval aviation maintenance procedures) FB group, I'll ask if there's any old-timers with copies of the old F-14 flight manuals.

 

[apparition13]

According to Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Ninety-First Congress, First Session, Part 3, 1969, the originally planned F-14C was to share the same airframe and engines as the F-14B, but its multifunction radar would adopt an electronically scanned array antenna paired with a new central processing unit; its ECM suite would also be upgraded. These modifications would grant the F-14C an all-weather air-to-ground weapons delivery capability.

PS: According to the 1970 congressional hearings, due to delays in its development, the ESA radar intended for the F-14C would not mature (become operational) until 1978 or beyond.

That's interesting. The *ESA radar (I presume PESA, but I've think I've seen hints it might have been AESA, which would be really early for active, and the record is cagey on it) slipped not because of trouble with its development but because the funds (it looks to be around $45m each year over 2 years, which is why it slipped from '76 to '78) allocated for it were shifted to trying to fix the F401.

 

[isayyo2]

Additionally, regarding the so-called 30-inch fuselage plug: I have not yet located official documentation to substantiate this claim, and I recommend further verification of this assertion.

Here's a start with Post #289
From Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 21, 1981

Navy Sets F-14 Reengining Schedule
Washington—The Navy is planning to begin reengining production Grumman F-14 air-superiority fighters with the General Electric F101 DFE derivative fighter engine in Fiscal 1987 and is considering extending the Tomcat's fuselage with a 30-in. plug to increase fuel capacity.

The 30-in. fuselage plug would permit another 2,000 lb. of fuel to be added to the 19,600 lb. usually carried by the F-14. The plug, according to Navy officers, may actually improve the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft, “but the tactical advantage is the real boost, permitting loiter on combat air patrols for another 22-25 min. with two AIM-7FS, two AIM-9s and two Phoenix missiles.”

 

[SCAT-15F]

I think point 3 is probably right. According to the 01-F14AAA-1.1(15 May, 1995), the top speed of the F-14A was also limited to approximately M1.8 by NATOP. However, I don’t know what happened, because I don’t have manuals from the 1970s for comparative analysis.

Point 1 is correct, 2 and 3 are not.

On point 2, The Tomcat's inlets were designed for a 30,000 lb thrust engine from the start. (Sandboxx's info is wrong on this point).
On point 3, the F-14 airframe and the canopy in particular was designed for mach 2.4+. I've certainly never heard or seen anything to suggest there were delamination/structural issues from mach 2+ flight, and I worked on the Tomcat.

The F-14A was flown to mach 2.41 in official testing, and the top speed with TF30's installed was always listed as mach 2.4. Also, there are at least two pilots who flew the operational A-model to mach 2.5; "Charlie" Brown being one of them. Only a stripped-down F-15 has managed to hit that number, so in reality the F-14A is just as much a mach 2.5 aircraft as the F-15 is.
In fact, the TF30 performs better at that speed than the F100 (look no further than the F-111F; a more honest mach 2.5 aircraft than the F-15. It even had built in airframe temperature sensors to specifically limit time at mach 2.5).

The F401, BTW underwent a 24 hour simulated test at mach 2.4 specifically for the Tomcat installation.

The F110-GE-400 installation did have somewhat higher drag. That was intentional as they evaluated 3 tailpipe lengths and chose the middle length as a compromise. The longer one had the lowest supersonic drag and the short one had the lowest subsonic drag.

Regarding weight, the F-14A was supposed to be 36,000 lbs empty but was overweight from the first protoype. With the TF30-P-412's it weighed 40,100 lbs. That grew to 43,500 lbs in the D.

Recall the F-35A was supposed to be 26,000 lbs but ended up at over 29,000.

With the F401 engines installed, the F-14 empty weight was the lowest of any variant at approximately 38,600 lbs. Ship number 7 (now on the Intrepid) flew with the F401's in 1973, and in that non-weapon system equipped test configuration was likely right around 36,000 lbs empty.
This was by far the highest performance Tomcat ever flown. In 1973. It also had the ability to pull 7G at mach 2+ because it had the wing glove vanes, which the B, D and ST-21/variants deleted.

The ST-21/variants would have been at least 46,000 lbs empty even with added use of composites, and with the added drag from the modified wing gloves (to say nothing of all the air to ground paraphernalia) would have completely erased any gains from the -429 engine (or even a -432, for that matter).
The F119 idea made much more sense, but only if they also turned the Tomcat into a full-FBW aircraft actually reducing weight and enabling greater internal fuel without bulging out the wing gloves.