• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

F-14 Tomcat Projects

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
1
From what I have read the original Hornet 2000 concept was really just supposed to be a larger, longer ranged replacement for the Hornet, while upgraded Tomcats or a new design (NATF, A/F-X) would fill the air superiority role. At some point the Navy abandoned that plan in favor of what has become the Super Hornet.

I like the Super Hornet, and I think it can do the job well, but in several years I think we will need a true Tomcat replacement, perhaps the F/A-XX can be that.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
TomS said:
F-14D said:
A redundant reminder: Super Tomcat 21 was never intended to be an alternative to Super Hornet (which didn't even exist when it was first proposed).
The Super Bug ancestor Hornet 2000 was basically a contemporary of Super Tomcat 21, wasn't it?
Hornet 2000 was first mooted in 1987 an attempt to convince Europe to abandon Eurofighter in favor of an F/A-18 derivative. Tomcat 21 was started about a year later. Super Tomcat 21 was a result of feedback from the fleet and was not constrained by the Tomcat 21 cap of $ 1 billion for R&D. It was intended to be far more capable than what was expected of Hornet 2000, and was aimed at a different market.
IIRC Hornet 2000 was to be a higly modified Hornet as an interim aircraft. There were 3 or 4 configurations of varying degrees of modification to the standard F/A-18. They chose one of the more radical upgrades and this became the Super Hornet.
Actually, Super Hornet could be said to be based on a combination of one of the middle configurations of Hornet 2000 (the most radical were pure deltas) and a proposed beefed-up Hornet that was rejected in favor of the A-6F. SH was not chosen by the Navy but was imposed on them by DoD.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
Lampshade111 said:
From what I have read the original Hornet 2000 concept was really just supposed to be a larger, longer ranged replacement for the Hornet, while upgraded Tomcats or a new design (NATF, A/F-X) would fill the air superiority role. At some point the Navy abandoned that plan in favor of what has become the Super Hornet.

I like the Super Hornet, and I think it can do the job well, but in several years I think we will need a true Tomcat replacement, perhaps the F/A-XX can be that.
The original late '80s plan was that the strike mission would be handled by the A-12, and fighter by NATF. When the latter disappeared. the fighter mission was to go to further developments to the F-14D, armed with AAAM, and with enhanced strike capability (later seen as F-14D Quickstrike). The Hornet was scheduled to go out of production. SH didn't show up until the cancellation of A-12 and was to be an interim aircraft until the arrival of AX-A/FX
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
F-14D said:
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
TomS said:
F-14D said:
A redundant reminder: Super Tomcat 21 was never intended to be an alternative to Super Hornet (which didn't even exist when it was first proposed).
The Super Bug ancestor Hornet 2000 was basically a contemporary of Super Tomcat 21, wasn't it?
Hornet 2000 was first mooted in 1987 an attempt to convince Europe to abandon Eurofighter in favor of an F/A-18 derivative. Tomcat 21 was started about a year later. Super Tomcat 21 was a result of feedback from the fleet and was not constrained by the Tomcat 21 cap of $ 1 billion for R&D. It was intended to be far more capable than what was expected of Hornet 2000, and was aimed at a different market.
IIRC Hornet 2000 was to be a higly modified Hornet as an interim aircraft. There were 3 or 4 configurations of varying degrees of modification to the standard F/A-18. They chose one of the more radical upgrades and this became the Super Hornet.
Actually, Super Hornet could be said to be based on a combination was based on a combination of one of the middle configurations of Hornet 2000 (the most radical were pure deltas) and a proposed beefed-up Hornet that was rejected in favor of the A-6F. SH was not chosen by the Navy but was imposed on them by DoD.
Do you have any of the drawings? I only have one small set that shows three or four of the configurations but only one has the delta/canard combo.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
TomS said:
F-14D said:
A redundant reminder: Super Tomcat 21 was never intended to be an alternative to Super Hornet (which didn't even exist when it was first proposed).
The Super Bug ancestor Hornet 2000 was basically a contemporary of Super Tomcat 21, wasn't it?
Hornet 2000 was first mooted in 1987 an attempt to convince Europe to abandon Eurofighter in favor of an F/A-18 derivative. Tomcat 21 was started about a year later. Super Tomcat 21 was a result of feedback from the fleet and was not constrained by the Tomcat 21 cap of $ 1 billion for R&D. It was intended to be far more capable than what was expected of Hornet 2000, and was aimed at a different market.
IIRC Hornet 2000 was to be a higly modified Hornet as an interim aircraft. There were 3 or 4 configurations of varying degrees of modification to the standard F/A-18. They chose one of the more radical upgrades and this became the Super Hornet.
Actually, Super Hornet could be said to be based on a combination was based on a combination of one of the middle configurations of Hornet 2000 (the most radical were pure deltas) and a proposed beefed-up Hornet that was rejected in favor of the A-6F. SH was not chosen by the Navy but was imposed on them by DoD.
Do you have any of the drawings? I only have one small set that shows three or four of the configurations but only one has the delta/canard combo.
I had some buried somewhere in something that is now in Deep Storage (i.e. I can't remember where and what box they're in). However, in the mid to late 1980s both Aviation Week and Flight International had stories on the concept, with drawings.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,779
Reaction score
200
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,367.0/highlight,hornet+2000.html
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
flateric said:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,367.0/highlight,hornet+2000.html
Cool. Much simpler than digging through boxes. I can also see that my memory was as flawed as usual in that config IV was not a pure canard delta as I thought I remembered it was.
 

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
1
I know I am bringing this back from the dead, but is there any final word on what the original design here was? Was this "Tomcat II" a real project before the time when Quickstrike, ST-21, and ASF-14 were being looked at? Or is this the ASF-14 concept itself?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
Lampshade111 said:
I know I am bringing this back from the dead, but is there any final word on what the original design here was? Was this "Tomcat II" a real project before the time when Quickstrike, ST-21, and ASF-14 were being looked at? Or is this the ASF-14 concept itself?
Quickstrike, also known as the "Block IV upgrade", was a firm, fixtures (on the condition that Grumman was allowed to manage the program) offer as an interim aircraft to bridge the gap between the cancellation of the ATA to the arrival of the AX (later A/FX). This was the same reason the F/A-18E/F came into existence.

ST-21 was a real proposal to perform most of the mission of the NATF (minus super-stealth).

Both Quickstrike and ST-21 could also be remanufactured form existing F-14s that had sufficient airframe life left to make it economically feasible.

ASF-14 was a more radical response to a Navy request. Frankly, even Grumman didn't think it would be worth the cost.

Tomcat II was a concept championed by a number of parties, including Adm Paul Gilcrist, but I don't think it ever went as far as Quickstrike or ST-21.
 

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
1
Ah, so I am guessing the "Tomcat II" didn't make it much further than this sketch here. Were any concepts of the ASF-14 shown at all?

Since Quickstrike was viewed as a bridge to A/F-X can I presume the proposal was introduced somewhat later than ST-21? Although I imagine Grumman was still offering them both even after A/F-X was canceled.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
Lampshade111 said:
Ah, so I am guessing the "Tomcat II" didn't make it much further than this sketch here. Were any concepts of the ASF-14 shown at all?

Since Quickstrike was viewed as a bridge to A/F-X can I presume the proposal was introduced somewhat later than ST-21? Although I imagine Grumman was still offering them both even after A/F-X was canceled.
ST-21 chronologically preceded Quickstrike. It was a response to Navy planning inquiries about future growth for the F-14 (no one expected that SECDEF Cheney would inexplicably kill the F-14D program), and also as an alternative to NATF. It followed Tomcat-21, which was for growth versions with an R&D capped at $1 billion, while ST-21 was the thing without the cap but still had to be cost effective.

Quickstrike was an upgrade to the F-14D offered as a more effective "bridge" aircraft to the A/FX as an alternative to the F/A-18E/F. It would cost far less to develop and would be available at least half a decade sooner even if the Super Hornet had come in on its original schedule. It was not seriously on offer after the cancellation of the A/FX, since one of the reasons for the A/FX' cancellation was to save the Super Hornet (Congress indicated it would not fund both). For Quickstrike to be viable, you had to have F-14Ds (either new production or conversions) available and Cheney had put an end to that; he ordered the line destroyed, for a while the tooling was moved to other Grumman facilities, I don't know what eventually happened. Of course, after Northrop ate Grumman, there was little enthusiasm at the highest levels for pushing new F-14 derivatives.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,857
Reaction score
893
Hi,

the Grumman F-14T & F-14X were two versions proposed during
the 1970’s to reduce costs. The proposal was scrapped on a
suggestion from Israel that the USN should have the best
aircraft possible.

Has anyone more info about them ?.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/grumman-f-14-tomcat.htm
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
47
Interesting that F-14X is linked to Israel on the Aeroflight page. See also:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10333.msg97176.html#msg97176

Seems like there may have been a whole raft of -X Israeli aircraft in the 1970s. Presumably after the Yom Kippur War of 1973, which was a close run thing, provoking the US to export better kit to Israel.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
629
Reaction score
6
I believe one of the models had a reduced capability radar, while the other lost the Phoenix capability entirely. I also read that one of these "reduced cost" proposals was referred to as the F-14D (as B and C were already reserved).
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
12
Isn't there an old story about how Israel was interested in an advanced interceptor and an IAF pilot went to Andrews AFB outside of Washington, DC and then flew in both the F-14 and F-15? The story is that after the demonstrations, he walked around both aircraft and counted the number of flight control systems on each. Because the F-15 had fewer moving external parts, he decided it would be more reliable and picked the F-15.

Dunno if it is a true story, however.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
100
F-14T and F-14X
Both version of the Tomcat was proposed in the 70's when the Tomcat's cost seems to be hindering the program. Both versions involve the Tomcat carrying fewer missiles and have less avionics capability. The T version would have only sparrows and sidewinders, having not much superiority over the crusaders and phantom.

The X version would carry either Phoenix or none at all and have its radar capability downgraded. But both plans were scrapped after Israel suggested that the US Navy should equip themselves with the best plane possible.
Link: http://www.tomcattersassociation.org/F14/f14-variants.htm
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,598
Reaction score
25
Colonial-Marine said:
I beleive one of the models had a reduced capability radar, while the other lost the Phoenix capability entirely. I also read that one of these "reduced cost" proposals was referred to as the F-14D (as B and C were already reserved).
There is a reduced LO Tomcat, but it isn't related to either of those design studies. Those were conducted far earlier in the Tomcat program, in the 70's, whereas the LO Tomcat was around the late 80's early 90's, though I don't have the exact date for it. I posted a top view of it in the F-14 thread here from Flight Journal.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
57
Using the search function I could not find a thread a thread on this topic, so I thought I would start one.


Back when there were 722 aircraft (almost entirely Bs as production would have shifted to that aircraft after 2 years), at $11.5 million a piece, in the F-14 programme there was also a proposed F-14C (not part of the 722 number). This would have used the same airframe and Pratt and Whitney F-401-P400 engine of the F-14B but with enhanced avionics that would supposedly have given the aircraft the same all-weather attack capability as the A-6 intruder alongside the existing A2A capability of the B. The FY71 budget had $5.2 million for development of the "advanced avionics" of the C variant though this seems to have been moved into the B programme to cover cost-overruns (I do not know how much was spent prior to this). The aim seems to have been for the F-14B to enter service in the mid-70s and the C in the late 70s with the A series aircraft (probably only 54 to be built) being converted to the B standard. The programme died about the same time the FY71 money was transferred and the F-14 programme was scaled back to 301 of the A variant.


Does anybody know anything about this proposed avionics upgrade beyond the usual "miniaturisation" and "solid-state electronics" statements?


Thank you in advance,


sealordlawrence
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,443
Reaction score
744
Advanced F-14 variants (from the late Gary Morlock ("elider").
 

Attachments

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
overscan said:
Advanced F-14 variants (from the late Gary Morlock ("elider").

Thanks, haven't seen that poster for nigh on (does anyone still say that?) 20+ years. It was part of the pitch for the F-14D Quickstrike as an interim a/c pending the arrival of AX. The idea was that if you restored the F-14D to production, you had a building block approach to the earlier more advanced Super Tomcat 21 proposals as needed. All the versions could be new production or rebuilt from existing F-14Ds with enough airframe life left except for ASF-14 (hence the "Revolutionary" vs. "Evolutionary" description) which would require from -scratch production.


...one more post to go...
 

northerndancer2000

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
F-14D


I have a recollection from the time that a major reason the Navy went with the F-18 was a perceived concern over maintenance. IIRC, F-14 maintenance man hours per flight hour were startlingly high and this was a major reason that the Navy had to go the F-18 route. These figures were almost entirely based on F-14A hours with increasingly old analogue avionics and the TF-30 engines. The radar alone required a very large portion of those maintenance hours.


However, at the 11th hour it came out that the F-14D maintenance hours from (one of the first?) (the first?) F-14D squadrons with digital avionics and the much improved F-110 engines were dramatically lower. They might have been even lower than F-18 maintenance hours.


Again, this is a recollection from the day. I can't find any of the old news stories. And there were a lot of charges and counter-charges being thrown around by supporters of both the F-14 and the F-18 so it might have been from some lobbyist talking point instead of a fair analysis.


You're obviously very knowledgable about the F-14 program and what was going on around it. Could you share any recollections of this issue?


Thank you.
 

Lauge

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
437
Reaction score
0
Orionblamblam said:
.....declared that it's an evil horrible transmitter of malicious software.
Well, yes, it is. It's called the "Internet". ;)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
northerndancer2000 said:
F-14D


I have a recollection from the time that a major reason the Navy went with the F-18 was a perceived concern over maintenance. IIRC, F-14 maintenance man hours per flight hour were startlingly high and this was a major reason that the Navy had to go the F-18 route. These figures were almost entirely based on F-14A hours with increasingly old analogue avionics and the TF-30 engines. The radar alone required a very large portion of those maintenance hours.


However, at the 11th hour it came out that the F-14D maintenance hours from (one of the first?) (the first?) F-14D squadrons with digital avionics and the much improved F-110 engines were dramatically lower. They might have been even lower than F-18 maintenance hours.


Again, this is a recollection from the day. I can't find any of the old news stories. And there were a lot of charges and counter-charges being thrown around by supporters of both the F-14 and the F-18 so it might have been from some lobbyist talking point instead of a fair analysis.


You're obviously very knowledgable about the F-14 program and what was going on around it. Could you share any recollections of this issue?


Thank you.

Remember, the Navy didn't choose the Super Hornet (I presume we're just talking about that), DoD did.

To answer your question on mmh/fh, those numbers were used as part of the response to criticism of the decision to abandon the F-14 in favor of the SH. There was a lot of smoke and mirrors going on with this. As you state, mostly F-14A numbers were used by SH proponents to make the Tomcat look bad in comparison. In reality though, the choice was not between SH and F-14As, between SH and F-14Ds, so those where the ones who should properly be compared.

Pure F-14D data was available as it was now in service. Actually, the info didn't come in at the 11th hour, it was already predicted, but now there was actual real world experience. to verify the predictions. The back end of the Fire Control System was the APG-71, essentially a more powerful version of the APG-70 in the F-15E. For the front end, the Navy deliberately retained the transmitter and antenna form the AWG-9 because they could push much more power through it and coupled with the large antenna they could get really great range, very high resolution and they could burn through just about any known jamming system. I do not know if it was tested against the SR-71's DEF, though. Aside from the TF30s and the older AWG-9, another big maintenance headache was the wiring in the A and B. This was redone in the D, and a number of reliability and maintainability features originally intended to be in the production version of the F-14 (the original B, the A was not meant to go into production) were incorporated

During that period when it was still receiving full support and there were full spares in the logistics train, mmh/fh for the F-14D were 17 and trending downward. This was not as low as the SH and in fact would have never got as low as the SH. The SH also had the advantage of being having less to maintain, sensor and otherwise, and was a new aircraft, not an upgrade of an existing one, so it could benefit from more "clean sheet" stuff. One sort of countervailing thing, FWIW: on the Tomcat you fixed some subcomponents while on the SH you replaced them. The latter is usually faster and often easier, but makes you more dependent on spares, so it's a mixed bag both ways.

The other thing to keep in mind was that these kinds of comparisons were not done in order to decide which way to go, they were thrown out to try and explain and justify a decision that had already been handed down.

Again, it's all academic now.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,779
Reaction score
200
http://www.google.com/patents?id=VykdAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
32
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
Orionblamblam said:
FYI: Trend Micro went bonkers when I tried to open that page, and declared that it's an evil horrible transmitter of malicious software.
The link doesnt work simply because I am not using szm.sk free web service since 2009. Its fixed now. It can be also a recall for everybody: save files that interest you, because internet is a living organism that changes every day :)
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
629
Reaction score
6
F-14D said:
This was redone in the D, and a number of reliability and maintainability features originally intended to be in the production version of the F-14 (the original B, the A was not meant to go into production) were incorporated
Now I've always read the F-14A was indeed intended for production, but only some 70 aircraft were planned to be built before production switched over to the definite F-14B with the F401 engines. Those F-14As would be upgraded rather quickly. What are these reliability and maintainability related features you refer to?

Regarding the costs of the F-14D, were the bulk of the aircraft expected to be new production or rebuilt F-14As? Were they rebuilt to a "0 hour" standard, or was it less extensive than that?
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,598
Reaction score
25
Wow, thanks. I don't recall ever seeing cockpit shots of this design. I never would have expected the side stick controller.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
Colonial-Marine said:
F-14D said:
This was redone in the D, and a number of reliability and maintainability features originally intended to be in the production version of the F-14 (the original B, the A was not meant to go into production) were incorporated
Now I've always read the F-14A was indeed intended for production, but only some 70 aircraft were planned to be built before production switched over to the definite F-14B with the F401 engines. Those F-14As would be upgraded rather quickly. What are these reliability and maintainability related features you refer to?

Regarding the costs of the F-14D, were the bulk of the aircraft expected to be new production or rebuilt F-14As? Were they rebuilt to a "0 hour" standard, or was it less extensive than that?
Sorry for the delay, been away (again) and didn't stumble across your question until now.

The intention was that there would be a maximum of 69 but maybe as little as 13 F-14As built. The original plan was that these would be used for most of the flight testing, initial workup and training. This would serve to get the aircraft into service faster. Bs would have had some changes in wiring and hydraulics, more optimized subcomponents, etc. and probably an APU in the starboard nacelle. When the B was abandoned, it was proposed to incorporate some of those features into the version that was being built. However the NAVAIR and ASO bureaucracy looked at it as "Those are F-14B features and we are not building the F-14B". Also, with the Tomcat program in serious trouble, mostly not of its own making, a number of subcontractors that were expected to be producing the upgraded systems informed the Navy that given the perilous state of the program they were not willing to invest the money to stand up capability to produce things for a program that may never fly. So, the Navy decided to stick with an essentially unchanged F-14A for many, many years.

Regarding F-14D, the planned fleet size would be 527. Originally, they were to be almost totally new construction with an expected airframe life of 25-30 years/ 9,000 hours. However, it was expected at this time that the NATF would be arriving in the next decade and so there would not be a need for F-14Ds that would last that long, so the focus was changed towards a percentage of rebuilds which would be cheaper, but would have a shorter, but acceptable for the purpose, airframe life. In 1986 the plan was 304 new and 223 re-manufactured As and A s. This later became 127 new and 400 rebuilds. The proportions bounced around a bit until in 1989 SECDEF Cheney announced he was killing all new production F-14Ds. By then it became apparent that the NATF was going to be further off in time and cost a lot more than what the Navy originally thought. So they requested that the money planned for re-manufactured F14s in FY 91 and 92 instead be used for new builds, figuring they could get two new, which would last longer, for the cost of three rebuilds.

So as not to embarrass the SECDEF, who was popular and more importantly an ex-Congressman, Congress authorized the production of another year's production of new F-14Ds on the condition that Grumman agree not to lobby for more new production. The SECNAV, though, wanted further new production (132 to be exact) because of NATF delays. At this point, Cheney came in and said that not only would there be no new production beyond what was already contracted, but the re-manufacture program was terminated, including those already in production.

This had the effect of destroying the 18 Tomcats that were on the re-manufacture production line. Congress got upset and restored fund to complete them and ordered the program continued for another year. At this point DoD announced that the Navy would "choose" to instead order the development of what would become the Super Hornet and the rest is disappointing history
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
Grumman Guy said:
http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/forums/index.php?topic=3729.0

Pictures of the proposed cockpit of the Super Tomcat 21.
Reminds me of an F-35.
In the early '90s Aviation Week on one of the news pages (it was not associated with an article) in the front of the magazine published two photos of the detailed mockups of the front and rear cockpits of the Super Tomcat-21. I'm been trying to find them ever since, but I can 't remember what issue it was in.

Also, never seem to get a reply from Tomcat Sunset when I try to join... Hmm, guess their standards aren't low enough.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
27
F-14D said:
Colonial-Marine said:
F-14D said:
This was redone in the D, and a number of reliability and maintainability features originally intended to be in the production version of the F-14 (the original B, the A was not meant to go into production) were incorporated
Now I've always read the F-14A was indeed intended for production, but only some 70 aircraft were planned to be built before production switched over to the definite F-14B with the F401 engines. Those F-14As would be upgraded rather quickly. What are these reliability and maintainability related features you refer to?

Regarding the costs of the F-14D, were the bulk of the aircraft expected to be new production or rebuilt F-14As? Were they rebuilt to a "0 hour" standard, or was it less extensive than that?
Sorry for the delay, been away (again) and didn't stumble across your question until now.

The intention was that there would be a maximum of 69 but maybe as little as 13 F-14As built. The original plan was that these would be used for most of the flight testing, initial workup and training. This would serve to get the aircraft into service faster. Bs would have had some changes in wiring and hydraulics, more optimized subcomponents, etc. and probably an APU in the starboard nacelle. When the B was abandoned, it was proposed to incorporate some of those features into the version that was being built. However the NAVAIR and ASO bureaucracy looked at it as "Those are F-14B features and we are not building the F-14B". Also, with the Tomcat program in serious trouble, mostly not of its own making, a number of subcontractors that were expected to be producing the upgraded systems informed the Navy that given the perilous state of the program they were not willing to invest the money to stand up capability to produce things for a program that may never fly. So, the Navy decided to stick with an essentially unchanged F-14A for many, many years.

Regarding F-14D, the planned fleet size would be 527. Originally, they were to be almost totally new construction with an expected airframe life of 25-30 years/ 9,000 hours. However, it was expected at this time that the NATF would be arriving in the next decade and so there would not be a need for F-14Ds that would last that long, so the focus was changed towards a percentage of rebuilds which would be cheaper, but would have a shorter, but acceptable for the purpose, airframe life. In 1986 the plan was 304 new and 223 re-manufactured As and A s. This later became 127 new and 400 rebuilds. The proportions bounced around a bit until in 1989 SECDEF Cheney announced he was killing all new production F-14Ds. By then it became apparent that the NATF was going to be further off in time and cost a lot more than what the Navy originally thought. So they requested that the money planned for re-manufactured F14s in FY 91 and 92 instead be used for new builds, figuring they could get two new, which would last longer, for the cost of three rebuilds.

So as not to embarrass the SECDEF, who was popular and more importantly an ex-Congressman, Congress authorized the production of another year's production of new F-14Ds on the condition that Grumman agree not to lobby for more new production. The SECNAV, though, wanted further new production (132 to be exact) because of NATF delays. At this point, Cheney came in and said that not only would there be no new production beyond what was already contracted, but the re-manufacture program was terminated, including those already in production.

This had the effect of destroying the 18 Tomcats that were on the re-manufacture production line. Congress got upset and restored fund to complete them and ordered the program continued for another year. At this point DoD announced that the Navy would "choose" to instead order the development of what would become the Super Hornet and the rest is disappointing history
"and the rest is disappointing history." is right.
 

Grumman Guy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Also, never seem to get a reply from Tomcat Sunset when I try to join... Hmm, guess their standards aren't low enough.
Give them another try, it's a nice forum for all things Tomcat and I think you'll be able to contribute alot. According to the poster the mock up of the Tomcat 21 cockpit is at the Cradle of Naval Aviation Museum. The navy really missed out when the whole Tomcat program was cancelled.
 

Harry64

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi,


again some time is over since the last post, so I want to ask about new infos about the ASF-14.
Maybe someone find a sketch or photo of the planned look in the meantime from the ASF-14.
It is for me a fascinating project.


Harry
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
11
An article on the Super Tomcat courtesy of Jalopnik.


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142/1575885611/+matthardigree
 
Top