F-14 Tomcat Projects

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

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

 

[Archibald]

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.

Makes some sense. And then the Hornet came out of nowhere. Even without it however, the Tomcat would have been too expensive to fill the attack squadrons using A-7s.

 

[Yellow Palace]

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.

Makes some sense. And then the Hornet came out of nowhere. Even without it however, the Tomcat would have been too expensive to fill the attack squadrons using A-7s.

Not quite nowhere.

The Navy knew perfectly well by the early 1970s that replacing A-7s with F-14s wouldn't fly. They started the VFAX programme for a cheaper fighter to supplement the F-14 and replace the A-7, and received plenty of submissions. Then Congress directed that they navalise one of the ACF contenders, and that led to the F-18.

As far as I can make out, light attack and fighter squadrons were intertwined for a long time. Looking at planned air wings, it seems to have evolved something along these lines:

1. Circa 1960, the air wing had two F-4 and two A-4 squadrons.
2. One F-4 squadron would be replaced by the F6D, or eventually by the F-111B, while the other remained with F-4s. The A-7 would replace the A-4. Outcome: one F6D/F-111B, one F-4, two A-7.
3. The first iteration of VFAX would create a multirole aircraft to replace the F-4 and A-7. Outcome: one F-111B, three VFAX.
4. F-111B was cancelled and VFAX turned into VFX. The A-7 would soldier on in the light attack role. Outcome: two VFX, two A-7.
5. VFX became the F-14. After examining its options, the Navy still wanted to replace the A-7 with a multirole fighter, which in a fit of imagination they called VFAX again. Outcome: two F-14, two VFAX.
6. Congress intervened and directed the Navy to buy a derivative of the ACF instead of the VFAX. After competition, this became the F-18. They also prevented the Navy from buying enough F-14s to put two squadrons on each carrier. Outcome: one F-14, three F-18.

The Tomcat was originally aimed at that multirole VFAX requirement in Step 3, before difficulties with the F-111B saw the AWG-9/Phoenix weapons system added to the type. A version without this system would likely have been less expensive and probably lighter, making it better suited to the multirole fighter task. That's where the F-14T and F-14X come in, as options considered before the second VFAX competition.

VFAX also looks to have swallowed up the VAX programme for a successor to the A-6 and A-7, meaning that those two types lasted much longer in service than they otherwise might have done. The A-7 (VAL) was initially intended to be a stopgap until VAX came along.

 

[Archibald]

Very detailed and interesting.

 

[Cjc]

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.

Makes some sense. And then the Hornet came out of nowhere. Even without it however, the Tomcat would have been too expensive to fill the attack squadrons using A-7s.

Still would have been cheaper to upgrade to the a-7x were you get 90% of the self defense plus better strike, and whight until the 80's when you can then ithere buy more f-14s without breaking the bank (and keep the line open) or move the f-14s back to strike in exchange for a new plane.

Also dose anyone have any good pictures or data on the conformal fule tank grumman showed of for the usaf interepter program.

 

[danwild6]

Not sure if A-7X were carrier capable

 

[Archibald]

It wasn't A-7X but A-7F and it did not happened before 1985, as an USAF project.

Now, nothing prevented the USN indeed, putting the very Phantom F-4K engine (a reheated Spey) into an A-7E and create their own, NAVAL A-7F in 1965, 1970, 1975 or 1980.
Consider the fact that plain old A-7E still had 10% more range than freakkin' Hornet... plus the A-7F performance was truly awesome.

But the A-7 was always an ugly duck for both USAF and USN.

Clearly the low-end to the F-14 was not supposed to be the Hornet.
Could have been instead
- upgraded supersonic A-7
- Convair 201 / 218 VFAX (instead of NACF)
- Tomcat without AWG-9 and Phoenix, for ground attack

 

[SSgtC]

Tomcat without AWG-9 and Phoenix, for ground attack

Tomcat without AWG-9 and Phoenix defeats the whole point of replacing the A-7 with the F-14. The Navy wanted more Tomcats to boost fleet defense without losing attack capability either.

 

[Archibald]

I see your point, but what I had in mind was @RLBH point above thread

The Tomcat was originally aimed at that multirole VFAX requirement in Step 3, before difficulties with the F-111B saw the AWG-9/Phoenix weapons system added to the type. A version without this system would likely have been less expensive and probably lighter, making it better suited to the multirole fighter task. That's where the F-14T and F-14X come in, as options considered before the second VFAX competition.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I see your point, but what I had in mind was @RLBH point above thread

The Tomcat was originally aimed at that multirole VFAX requirement in Step 3, before difficulties with the F-111B saw the AWG-9/Phoenix weapons system added to the type. A version without this system would likely have been less expensive and probably lighter, making it better suited to the multirole fighter task. That's where the F-14T and F-14X come in, as options considered before the second VFAX competition.

What's quite telling is that the USN didn't pursue that option, presumably because of cost, and started the VFAX competition instead. And even then, the F-14T/F-14X were considered against a fighter requirement, in recognition that affording even two squadrons of F-14s on the carriers might be a stretch, so one of them might need to be a cheaper/less capable aircraft. That line of reasoning led to VFAX and ultimately the F-18.

Incidentally, I don't think there's any reason to suppose the Convair bid was any more likely to win the VFAX competition than McDonnell Douglas or LTV bids at the very least.

 

[Cjc]

It wasn't A-7X but A-7F and it did not happened before 1985, as an USAF project.

Now, nothing prevented the USN indeed, putting the very Phantom F-4K engine (a reheated Spey) into an A-7E and create their own, NAVAL A-7F in 1965, 1970, 1975 or 1980.
Consider the fact that plain old A-7E still had 10% more range than freakkin' Hornet... plus the A-7F performance was truly awesome.

But the A-7 was always an ugly duck for both USAF and USN.

Clearly the low-end to the F-14 was not supposed to be the Hornet.
Could have been instead
- upgraded supersonic A-7
- Convair 201 / 218 VFAX (instead of NACF)
- Tomcat without AWG-9 and Phoenix, for ground attack

I would recommend reading the corsair 2 thread, the a-7x was a 70's program the add the f-100, f-110, reheat the tf-41 or add two f-404 when the f-18 program ran into trouble, mainly by being about as expensive as the f-14.

 

[Archibald]

Yes and I doesn't change my point.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[Cjc]

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.

Was the 722 the orgonal number wanted for vfx or was that later in the program?

 

[Archibald]

The irony is: they planned as much Tomcats as ATF a decade later: 700+ ...

 

[SSgtC]

Was the 722 the orgonal number wanted for vfx or was that later in the program?

IIRC, that was the original requirement. The plan was to put 24xF-14s in two squadrons on all 15 attack carriers (the assumption being that any Essex or Midway class carriers in the CVA role would be replaced by new Super Carriers). That would require 360 aircraft. The other 362 would be in various stages of maintenance, being flown for training, and serving as an attrition/war reserve.

 

[isayyo2]

Was the 722 the orgonal number wanted for vfx or was that later in the program?

IIRC, that was the original requirement. The plan was to put 24xF-14s in two squadrons on all 15 attack carriers (the assumption being that any Essex or Midway class carriers in the CVA role would be replaced by new Super Carriers). That would require 360 aircraft. The other 362 would be in various stages of maintenance, being flown for training, and serving as an attrition/war reserve.

Was the USMC’s buy also included in that 722 number?

 

[JFC Fuller]

722 was to have provided a force of 42 squadrons, each with 12 aircraft. That would have produced a Navy and Marine Corp fighter force consisting entirely of F-14s. In 1975 this was given as:

Navy: 24 squadrons
Marine Corp: 12 squadrons
Naval Air Reserve: 4 squadrons
Marine Corps Reserve: 2 squadrons

 

[SSgtC]

Was the 722 the orgonal number wanted for vfx or was that later in the program?

IIRC, that was the original requirement. The plan was to put 24xF-14s in two squadrons on all 15 attack carriers (the assumption being that any Essex or Midway class carriers in the CVA role would be replaced by new Super Carriers). That would require 360 aircraft. The other 362 would be in various stages of maintenance, being flown for training, and serving as an attrition/war reserve.

Was the USMC’s buy also included in that 722 number?

I don't believe so. Any USMC buy would be -14Cs to give them a ground attack capability and replace their Phantoms.

 

[Cjc]

Was the 722 the orgonal number wanted for vfx or was that later in the program?

IIRC, that was the original requirement. The plan was to put 24xF-14s in two squadrons on all 15 attack carriers (the assumption being that any Essex or Midway class carriers in the CVA role would be replaced by new Super Carriers). That would require 360 aircraft. The other 362 would be in various stages of maintenance, being flown for training, and serving as an attrition/war reserve.

Ok its gust that number is weird for me, the orgonal requirement for the a-12 for 15 carriers was 858 (the 620 quoted was when the navy lowered the requirement down to 12 carriers) so I wonder why the f-14 required less planes for the same number squadrons (sense they were both the same size), navy already expecting the a-12 to have higher matanince hours maby?

 

[SSgtC]

Was the 722 the orgonal number wanted for vfx or was that later in the program?

IIRC, that was the original requirement. The plan was to put 24xF-14s in two squadrons on all 15 attack carriers (the assumption being that any Essex or Midway class carriers in the CVA role would be replaced by new Super Carriers). That would require 360 aircraft. The other 362 would be in various stages of maintenance, being flown for training, and serving as an attrition/war reserve.

Ok its gust that number is weird for me, the orgonal requirement for the a-12 for 15 carriers was 858 (the 620 quoted was when the navy lowered the requirement down to 12 carriers) so I wonder why the f-14 required less planes for the same number squadrons (sense they were both the same size), navy already expecting the a-12 to have higher matanince hours maby?

Higher attrition rates, maybe? Stealth was still new. Maybe the Navy expected to lose more A-12s to enemy action and operational mishaps than they did F-14s? The Navy could also have been playing around with squadron numbers, adjusting how many planes were in each squadron. USN squadrons tended to vary from as few as 4 planes in a VAW squadron to 14 in a VF squadron (more in certain eras).

 

[Cjc]

Was the 722 the orgonal number wanted for vfx or was that later in the program?

IIRC, that was the original requirement. The plan was to put 24xF-14s in two squadrons on all 15 attack carriers (the assumption being that any Essex or Midway class carriers in the CVA role would be replaced by new Super Carriers). That would require 360 aircraft. The other 362 would be in various stages of maintenance, being flown for training, and serving as an attrition/war reserve.

Ok its gust that number is weird for me, the orgonal requirement for the a-12 for 15 carriers was 858 (the 620 quoted was when the navy lowered the requirement down to 12 carriers) so I wonder why the f-14 required less planes for the same number squadrons (sense they were both the same size), navy already expecting the a-12 to have higher matanince hours maby?

Higher attrition rates, maybe? Stealth was still new. Maybe the Navy expected to lose more A-12s to enemy action and operational mishaps than they did F-14s? The Navy could also have been playing around with squadron numbers, adjusting how many planes were in each squadron. USN squadrons tended to vary from as few as 4 planes in a VAW squadron to 14 in a VF squadron (more in certain eras).

I don't think squadron numbers were bing changed (the gao report mentions 12 plane squadrons) but attrition rates makes as much sense as anything.

BTW I think the future carrier air wing as seen in the 80's was 2×12 natf and 2×12 a-12 (the numbers the navy wanted make no sense as a silver bullet, and consdering the cancelation of the a-6f and no intention to buy more hornets until the super bug comes into the picture, pants a pretty clear picture that the a-12 was taking all the strike duties, unlike what the navy told grumman).

 

[apparition13]

Was the 722 the orgonal number wanted for vfx or was that later in the program?

IIRC, that was the original requirement. The plan was to put 24xF-14s in two squadrons on all 15 attack carriers (the assumption being that any Essex or Midway class carriers in the CVA role would be replaced by new Super Carriers). That would require 360 aircraft. The other 362 would be in various stages of maintenance, being flown for training, and serving as an attrition/war reserve.

Ok its gust that number is weird for me, the orgonal requirement for the a-12 for 15 carriers was 858 (the 620 quoted was when the navy lowered the requirement down to 12 carriers) so I wonder why the f-14 required less planes for the same number squadrons (sense they were both the same size), navy already expecting the a-12 to have higher matanince hours maby?

The figure I've seen is 620 for the USN (with 20 per carrier), 238 for the USMC (which results in 858 for the Navy and Marines), with an additional 400 possible for the USAF to replace the F-111s. I haven't seen figures for the RAF who looked at it as a possible Tornado replacement.

 

[isayyo2]

with an additional 400 possible for the USAF to replace the F-111s.

F-111s or F-106s?

 

[Yellow Palace]

I don't believe so. Any USMC buy would be -14Cs to give them a ground attack capability and replace their Phantoms.

The F-14A/B were originally supposed to have day attack capability comparable to the A-7 - which is comparable to what the USMC got in the F-18 and better than what they had in the F-4. While cost was the main reason they dropped plans for the F-14, the abandonment of the day attack capability was also a factor.

That's not to say the USMC wouldn't have liked the F-14C's all-weather attack capability, but they didn't replace their A-6s until the F-18D came along in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

On numbers, it's actually fairly straightforward to work forward from squadron strength. The numbers are in the MPSNA studies elsewhere on here: 30% of frontline strength in training and development squadrons gives you your total operational aircraft. Then add 10% to that for the maintenance pipeline, and 3% per year for attrition. With a 15 year life, that works out at buying two aircraft to maintain one in a frontline squadron.

722 was to have provided a force of 42 squadrons, each with 12 aircraft. That would have produced a Navy and Marine Corp fighter force consisting entirely of F-14s. In 1975 this was given as:

Navy: 24 squadrons
Marine Corp: 12 squadrons
Naval Air Reserve: 4 squadrons
Marine Corps Reserve: 2 squadrons

That works out at:

• 12 operational and two reserve carrier air wings, with two fighter squadrons in each
• three active duty Marine Air Wings with four fighter squadrons,
• one reserve Marine Air WIng with only two fighter squadrons.

That's consistent with force planning in the early 1970s; it wasn't until Reagan that the number of planned carrier air wings increased to fifteen or sixteen.

With the figures from above, and 12-aircraft squadrons, that complement comes out at 721 aircraft with no attrition reserve - which is a very good match to the 722 aircraft.

The 620 aircraft planned for th A-12 program works out pretty close to 15 air wings with 15 years of attrition on the same basis. 238 for the Marines works out to 120 front-line aircraft, which implies that they'd go from four fighter and one all-weather attack to three fighter and two all-weather attack squadrons.

 

[JFC Fuller]

For the A-12, this is from the DoD comments on the GAO report "NAVY A-12 - Cost and Requirements", December 1990:

The A-12 inventory requirement, as stated in the December 31, 1989 Selected Acquisition Report, was for 858 A-12s to fill
14 active and 2 reserve Navy Roosevelt Air Wings (20 A-12s each) and 5 Marine Squadrons (10 A-12s each) for 30 years. The Secretary testified during the Major Aircraft Review that about 620 A-128 would be required for 12 carriers with no Marine Corps requirement, but no specific schedule for reducing to 12 carriers was provided and the Secretary left open the option to revisit carrier force structure.

The Roosevelt Air Wing was a 1980s plan to reconfigure to the TACAIR component of the carrier Air Wing from five squadrons of twelve aircraft to six squadrons of ten, this would uplift the VA aircraft complement from 12 to 20 whilst reducing the VF and VFA complements to 20 from 24 each.

This might be better in the A-12 thread.

 

[apparition13]

with an additional 400 possible for the USAF to replace the F-111s.

F-111s or F-106s?

400 A-12s to replace the F-111s and eventually Strike Eagles.

For the A-12, this is from the DoD comments on the GAO report "NAVY A-12 - Cost and Requirements", December 1990:

The A-12 inventory requirement, as stated in the December 31, 1989 Selected Acquisition Report, was for 858 A-12s to fill
14 active and 2 reserve Navy Roosevelt Air Wings (20 A-12s each) and 5 Marine Squadrons (10 A-12s each) for 30 years. The Secretary testified during the Major Aircraft Review that about 620 A-128 would be required for 12 carriers with no Marine Corps requirement, but no specific schedule for reducing to 12 carriers was provided and the Secretary left open the option to revisit carrier force structure.

The Roosevelt Air Wing was a 1980s plan to reconfigure to the TACAIR component of the carrier Air Wing from five squadrons of twelve aircraft to six squadrons of ten, this would uplift the VA aircraft complement from 12 to 20 whilst reducing the VF and VFA complements to 20 from 24 each.

That would be 20 NATF, 20 F/A-18, and 20 A-12?

This might be better in the A-12 thread.

It works in either, but the information should be in both, since the planned Air Wing is relevant to both projects.

 

[hesham]

The history of development

 

[danwild6]

Apparently Grumman did look at an dedicated air-superiority variant with the G-303G.

HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!

www.anft.net

No Phoenix capability because of reduced avionics but still structural capable maybe
Still a two seater I believe any additional information would be welcome.

 

[Manuducati]

Apparently Grumman did look at an dedicated air-superiority variant with the G-303G.

HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!

www.anft.net

No Phoenix capability because of reduced avionics but still structural capable maybe
Still a two seater I believe any additional information would be welcome.

It was a study to determine the impact of the AW9/AIM-54 combo on the overall performance. The design 303G was indeed slightly smaller and lighter but the performance gains were marginal.

 

[lolek]

Model 303G was basically 303E stripped of the Phoenix-related systems, and equipped with the AWG-10/Sparrow combination (I would expect that AWG-10 would be enlarged to match the volumetric capabilities of Tomcat's nose). There were these famous drawings of different Model 303 alternatives (although I have some doubts about how accurate they are, for example, the 303F drawing looks completely different from the available photos of Grumman's model):



Further information can be found in a book by David Baker "Grumman F-14 Tomcat" from Crowood Aviation Series:



The cited differences in weight are surprisingly small, as 727 kg seems to be a pretty negligible difference. However, the alternative sources are stating even smaller values, e.g. looking into Congressional Records and the statement of Senator Cannon, who was (I think) the chairman of the special Tactical Airpower Subcommittee, we can find (18.09.1969):



I would expect that these values might not be exact, as probably it wasn't in Grumman's best interest to show that removing Phoenix from F-14 would result in a much better-performing aircraft. On the other hand, one of the main differences between F-111B and F-14 was that in the latter the Phoenix missiles were considered as overload conditions (see e.g. Tommy Thomason's blog), with most of the Phoenix-supporting systems being placed in the external pallets. Consequently, F-14 was already tailored from the viewpoint of structure's strength for the fighter escort configuration (with Sparrows), which is the same as in the case of Model 303G.

 

[hesham]

The history of development

Very important Infos.

 

[danwild6]

Kinda a shame we didn't end up with A VFAX based on the G-303-1. I think this would have been an excellent Medium fighter to compliment the F-14 Heavy fighter. Its nose is more akin to the F-15 and F-18 than the F-14 which the VFAX would evolve into. It's the top one in the picture and had its vertical stabilizers canted outward like the YF-17, F/A-18

 

[danwild6]

The lightened Tomcats seem like a half measure. If you wanted a dedicate Air-Superiority than a single seat Tomcat variant would probably save a more significant amount of weight

 

[Archibald]

Kinda a shame we didn't end up with A VFAX based on the G-303-1. I think this would have been an excellent Medium fighter to compliment the F-14 Heavy fighter. Its nose is more akin to the F-15 and F-18 than the F-14 which the VFAX would evolve into. It's the top one in the picture and had its vertical stabilizers canted outward like the YF-17, F/A-18

View attachment 683440

Very interesting ! Although VG wings tends to drive cost and weight upwards, not ideal for a LWF in the F-18 class. The Hornet itself traded VG wings for a digital FBW, not a bad tradeoff.

 

[Desertfox]

Kinda a shame we didn't end up with A VFAX based on the G-303-1. I think this would have been an excellent Medium fighter to compliment the F-14 Heavy fighter. Its nose is more akin to the F-15 and F-18 than the F-14 which the VFAX would evolve into. It's the top one in the picture and had its vertical stabilizers canted outward like the YF-17, F/A-18

View attachment 683440

Do you have more information on both of these concepts? I can't seem to find anything on them.

 

[danwild6]

Kinda a shame we didn't end up with A VFAX based on the G-303-1. I think this would have been an excellent Medium fighter to compliment the F-14 Heavy fighter. Its nose is more akin to the F-15 and F-18 than the F-14 which the VFAX would evolve into. It's the top one in the picture and had its vertical stabilizers canted outward like the YF-17, F/A-18

View attachment 683440

Very interesting ! Although VG wings tends to drive cost and weight upwards, not ideal for a LWF in the F-18 class. The Hornet itself traded VG wings for a digital FBW, not a bad tradeoff.

Yeah I don't agree with the concept of the trade between VG wings and FBW they really don't have anything to do with each other as they can be used on the same airframe or either one on a airframe. This aircraft wouldn't be in the light fighter class basically a aircraft like a navalized F-15 but as a compliment to the Phoenix carrying F-14 Heavy Fighter rather than a replacement

 

[danwild6]

Kinda a shame we didn't end up with A VFAX based on the G-303-1. I think this would have been an excellent Medium fighter to compliment the F-14 Heavy fighter. Its nose is more akin to the F-15 and F-18 than the F-14 which the VFAX would evolve into. It's the top one in the picture and had its vertical stabilizers canted outward like the YF-17, F/A-18

View attachment 683440

Do you have more information on both of these concepts? I can't seem to find anything on them.

Unfortunately no they were a couple of Grumman designs for the first VFAX which was to compliment the F-111B. I do think they were to be light enough to fly off the Midway Class carriers as by that time Vietnam had decimated the budget as to the fact there was no way to replace them with new Supercarriers in the foreseeable future. So I'm thinking weight would be somewhere between a F-14 and a the navalized F-15 concept(not the phoenix armed ones though)

 

[hesham]

The history of development

Very important Infos.

Generally,I never heard about F-14X at that earlier time ?.

 

[danwild6]

Model 303G was basically 303E stripped of the Phoenix-related systems, and equipped with the AWG-10/Sparrow combination (I would expect that AWG-10 would be enlarged to match the volumetric capabilities of Tomcat's nose). There were these famous drawings of different Model 303 alternatives (although I have some doubts about how accurate they are, for example, the 303F drawing looks completely different from the available photos of Grumman's model):

View attachment 682779

Further information can be found in a book by David Baker "Grumman F-14 Tomcat" from Crowood Aviation Series:

View attachment 682780

The cited differences in weight are surprisingly small, as 727 kg seems to be a pretty negligible difference. However, the alternative sources are stating even smaller values, e.g. looking into Congressional Records and the statement of Senator Cannon, who was (I think) the chairman of the special Tactical Airpower Subcommittee, we can find (18.09.1969):

View attachment 682781

I would expect that these values might not be exact, as probably it wasn't in Grumman's best interest to show that removing Phoenix from F-14 would result in a much better-performing aircraft. On the other hand, one of the main differences between F-111B and F-14 was that in the latter the Phoenix missiles were considered as overload conditions (see e.g. Tommy Thomason's blog), with most of the Phoenix-supporting systems being placed in the external pallets. Consequently, F-14 was already tailored from the viewpoint of structure's strength for the fighter escort configuration (with Sparrows), which is the same as in the case of Model 303G.

Yeah I would think pallets would add additional weight and not make much sense from a structural point of view.
But I think it was likely Grumman was fudging the numbers a bit. I mean the F-15 is a very similarly sized aircraft from a area point of view and to make it a minimum carrier capable would require would add 2300 pounds roughly 9% increase in weight and to get the navy to use it would require a 3055 pound increase over the basic F-15A. These are still only sparrow armed. A truly Phoenix armed Sea Eagle with that massive radar for the FAD role would require 10000 pounds of increased weight. So a gross take-off weight of roughly 56000 pounds compared to the Tomcats 61000 pounds.