F-22 Vs. F-14

I would have loved to seen upgraded Tomcats still in service, though if given a choice between a F-14E and a 5th generation NATF type aircraft, I would take the later. How many of the F-14As in service had little enough wear to make upgrading them to F-14D (or lets say F-14E) standard worthwhile? Would they all have to be new build aircraft?

A shame the F-14 ran into so many cost problems earlier in the program. If all went as planned the F-14B with the F401-PW-400 would have quickly replaced the F-14A with it's troublesome TF30 engines. Then the F-14C would have provided plenty of avionics upgrades and added a ground attack capability.

lampshade111 wrote:I would have loved to seen upgraded Tomcats still in service, though if given a choice between a F-14E and a 5th generation NATF type aircraft, I would take the later. How many of the F-14As in service had little enough wear to make upgrading them to F-14D (or lets say F-14E) standard worthwhile? Would they all have to be new build aircraft?

A shame the F-14 ran into so many cost problems earlier in the program. If all went as planned the F-14B with the F401-PW-400 would have quickly replaced the F-14A with it's troublesome TF30 engines. Then the F-14C would have provided plenty of avionics upgrades and added a ground attack capability.

Upgrading A models wouldn't have been very cost effective, but new builds, with the latest avionics, engines, EW, weapons, would've provided a very capable platform.

Say there was an F-14E model flying in 2005*, what would have been in this model?


AIM-120D? ...with future planned acquisition of Meteor?
AIM-9X?
new wing gloves for 2500 lbs more fuel?
LANTIRN navigation pod?
Sniper-X targeting pod?
GE F110-GE-129?
upscaled AN/APG-82?

* 2005 is just an arbitrary date for its introduction. I used that date because the original F-14's were largely done by then, with the final one retired a year later.

madrat wrote:Say there was an F-14E model flying in 2005*, what would have been in this model?


AIM-120D? ...with future planned acquisition of Meteor?
AIM-9X?
new wing gloves for 2500 lbs more fuel?
LANTIRN navigation pod?
Sniper-X targeting pod?
GE F110-GE-129?
upscaled AN/APG-82?

* 2005 is just an arbitrary date for its introduction. I used that date because the original F-14's were largely done by then, with the final one retired a year later.

I imagine if the Navy went with a F-14E and put it's full support behind it, development of the long range AIM-152 would have continued. But besides for that I am sure it would have had AIM-120 and eventually AIM-9X capability.

The rest of the features you mentioned sound likely, but I imagine the F-22's AN/APG-77 would have been used as a starting point instead.

Even If the Navy had such a beast, I still think some sort of Hornet upgrade would have been a good idea. The Navy would still need such a lower-cost fighter/attack aircraft to complement the F-14.

But to be honest I would have rather have something like this:

Well that would just be the result of a union between the Raptor and Grumman's ultimate Cat. Scary possibilities!

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Well that would just be the result of a union between the Raptor and Grumman's ultimate Cat. Scary possibilities!

...like a 12% Mission Capable Rate.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Well that would just be the result of a union between the Raptor and Grumman's ultimate Cat. Scary possibilities!

...like a 12% Mission Capable Rate.

You can't really compare an old airframe, and low budget priority, to a new one with plenty of spare parts.

Funny how people bag on the oldest units when the reality is the supply chain is pretty much EOL, too. Every shiny new airplane today will be a problem tomorrow when its time to replace it.

Even new-build F-14's would be more maintenance heavy than F-18E/F's- they're bigger and technically more complicated. VG is not a good plan. Combine those headaches with F-22-style LO on a boat and you have yourself MX Hell. I mean, it would've looked neat, sitting on the deck on all the time, but that's about it.

As for age, isn't it odd the B-52 still beats both the BONE and the B-2 for MCR and still manages to be cheaper to operate? Airframe design has as much to do with it as age.

Please excuse the lateness of this post, I just stumbled across this forum/thread. I do have some familiarity with the F-14 and what was planned for Super Tomcat 21, so if anyone is still curious this may prove helpful. Watch out this is a long one

To begin with, Super Tomcat 21 was not, as some revisionist historians have claimed, an alternative to the F/A-18E/F. That was the F-14D Quickstrike, also called the “Block IV upgrade”, which would have cost a fraction of what it cost to develop the F/A-18E/F. It would have been more capable, but would require more maintenance, although nowhere near as much as the figures used to justify the Super Hornet. BTW, the Navy did not choose the Super Hornet. It was directed to take the plane by the Department of Defense and they then made the best of it. In answer to someone’s earlier question, yes, the F-14D would have been able to use AIM-120, in fact it was the first aircraft to fire it. As to why no F-14s were retained for possible heritage flights, that was because the US was absolutely terrified that parts from the planes would end up in Iranian hands. Even the ones going to museums were rendered non-restorable to the point that cockpits were gutted and even control columns were removed.

Super Tomcat 21 was the result of a Navy inquiry as to possible enhancements to the Tomcat as an alternative to the NATF. Navy’s concern was that NATF would be too expensive, might be compromised too much in favor of Air Force requirements, and related to that, would not have sufficient strike capability. Radar visibility reduction would be a consideration, but would not be an overwhelming priority since the A-12 was to be the Navy’s super-duper stealth strike aircraft. The first iteration was Tomcat 21, which was basically, “How much more can you get out of the Tomcat design for an R&D of less than $1 billion”? Super Tomcat 21 was more focused and looks at the most cost effective enhancement, but not constrained by the $ 1 billion cap. IOC was expected to be the late ‘90s. Super Tomcat 21 never became a formal program. One thing essential to its development was that the F-14D had to be in production. When Dick Cheney killed the -14D, that killed any possibility of much enhancement to the Tomcat, let alone developing Block IV or Super Tomcat 21. In fact, even the integration of LANTIRN on the Tomcat (which it could use better than the F-15E) came about through back channel efforts and the only way production was funded was by the program agreeing to use the funds that had been planned to integrate AIM-120 on the Tomcat.

Super Tomcat 21 was planned to use the higher thrust GE F110-429 engines. Part of the reason was to take advantages of cost savings resulting from component compatibility with USAF F110s. As a fallout, the aircraft would supercruise at M1.3. There were no plans for vectored thrust because it was not felt that the benefits could justify the costs. The wings would be modified to incorporate Fowler flaps and modified leading edge slats to bring back the approach margin that had been used up by weight growth in the F-14 over time. Super Tomcat 21 was expected to have a negative wind over the deck requirement. The 9,000 lb. bringback of the -14D would be increased to 17,000 lbs ( if you count the gun’s ammo). Although there would be no glove vanes, the leading edge of the fixed portion of the wing would be reshaped and would resemble the leading edge with the vanes extended. This would enhance maneuverability, especially in the supersonic regime as well as allow space for more fuel. The APG-71 would be retained, but significantly enhanced and the radar output increased to at least 20 Kw to start, with further growth planed. For comparison, when the Sukhoi PAK-FA enters service five or so years from now, it is expected to have a radar output of 18 Kw. Because the Tomcat was designed in the 1960s, it has a very large radar antenna. No one would build a fighter with that big an antenna today, but since the space for it is there already it would be used. The diameter would be 36 in, possibly increasing to 40. Initially AESA was not planned, because in 1990, Navy/Grumman would want the aircraft in service too soon and they were looking to the Raptor to see if AESA would prove worth its penalties. As we have seen since then, some aircraft designs have plans to overcome the some of the penalties (Gripen NG and maybe Typhoon) and in the rest of the cases, it’s been decided to accept the penalties in return for the large benefits gained.

It would retain the TCS and the AN/AAS- 42 IRST but it would be significantly enhanced, as described later. Ironically, a version of the F-14 IRST was also to go in the Raptor, but USAF changed its mind. Sensor fusion would be greater than on the Raptor, mainly because there would be more sensors to fuse.

Super Tomcat would have growth versions of the a/g enhancements of the Quickstrike with the FLIR and sensor pods permanently mounted. All analog systems would be digitized and fly-by- wire would be an option, although not in the base design. The cockpits would be armored, completely redesigned and there would be a one piece windscreen. What would become JHMCS was expected to be used, once ready, in both cockpits. The aircraft would be armed with the 20mm M61, what would become the AIM-9X and the AIM-120. It was not planned for the aircraft to have AIM-54 capability, as it was expected that the primary armament would be the AIM-152, replacing both Phoenix and in some cases, AMRAAM. However, if AIM-152 didn’t make it, provision would be made to carry the proposed “high-power” Phoenix. . ECM would be handled in part by a growth version of ASPJ and the carriage of more expendables and towed decoys. There would be some work on reducing the RCS, but by no means could it have been considered a stealth aircraft.

It would also have more internal fuel and be able to carry even larger conformal external fuel tanks.. Maintainability improvements would factored in, to get the mmh/fh down below the F-14D’s 16-17 (during the part of its career where it received full support, not at the end). Never would have gotten it down to Super Hornet levels, though. As a side note, the extra weight inherent in the use of a variable sweep wing was not considered a liability because a fixed wing capable of doing all that the Tomcat’s wing could do would actually weigh more. In any case, regardless of what contributes to it, you handle weight in your aircraft’s design. For example, the F-14A/B/D certainly weighs more than the F-5, yet it can turn tighter.


Now, as to a hypothetical Super Tomcat 21 (which I’ll just call the F-14E from now on ‘cause it’s easier to type) exercise against a Raptor, it wouldn’t be as open and shut as some might think. To make a valid comparison, we’d have to look at how the two planes would exist today. We know what the Raptor can do, because it exists. For the -14E, we’d have to do some informed specification. It would probably have entered service in 1997-1998 depending on how funding went, whereas the IOC for F-22 was Dec. 2005. -14E would have had some avionics upgrades by now, as does the Super Hornet today. To make informed guesses, we’ll have to assume that the aircraft developed as planned, and whatever they’ve done to the Super Hornet to improve it would have been on the Super Tomcat. For any comparisons, we’d have to assume flight crews of equal capability and neither makes any mistakes.

The F-14E would almost certainly have an AESA by now, as long as it could handle all the frequencies of the mechanical antenna (likely). The Navy would likely have accepted the AESA limitations, as does the F/A-18E/F and the F-22, or maybe it would have taken advantage of the large area available in the nose to use the technique SAAB intends to use on the Gripen NG. Because of the very large array size, the -14E would be able to detect targets at greater ranges than the F-22. Against the F-22 the range would be reduced considerably, but there are indications based on information coming out of the Bosnia/Kosovo operations in the ‘90s that an -14E would be able to see an F-22, again at drastically reduced ranges. Despite what Grumman said about reducing the -14E’s RCS, in reality the F-22 would easily detect it with radar. The Super Tomcat 21, though, also would have IRST and TCS capabilities that the Raptor would lack, and it doesn’t look like stealth in those spectrums was a big consideration for the F-22. The IRST in the F-14E would be improved over what was in the F-14D; we can say this because an improved version of the AN/AAS-42 IRST is planned for installation in the nose of the Super Hornet’s centerline drop tank, as well as on US and export F-15s, mounted into one of the pylons, so certainly it would be available for the plane for which it originally was designed.

As far as missiles go, both could carry at least six AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9 (F-22 can carry four more under the wings, but then it gives up its stealth, not sure if more AIM-120Cs could be carried by -14E). Raptor has a major advantage here even discounting supercruise (which would be faster than -14E’s) because of its much higher cruising altitude. It would normally be shooting down, while the -14E would be shooting up. This gives energy and range advantages to the same missile when fired from the F-22. On the other hand, the -14E would almost certainly be carrying the AIM-152 (one of the primary reasons for its cancellation was that the F-14D, the only then existent plane that could take full advantage of it was cancelled), whose range and performance exceeded that of AIM-120; it also was planned to have dual mode seekers. It probably would have outranged even AIM-120D, but in any case AIM-120D is just entering service, whereas AIM-152 would have entered service early in this decade. AIM-152 is a bit larger than AIM-120 but because of the way it would be carried more could be carried on a -14. Depending on which design had been selected, up to 15. Even though the F-15 could have carried it, USAF expressed no interest in the missile. There were probably a number of reasons for this, not the least of which was that it wouldn’t fit comfortably in the limited space in Raptor’s weapons bay.

F-14E would clearly already be operational with AIM-9X, whereas F-22 is not there yet, and even when it is, only a certain number are scheduled to get it with full off-boresight capability. JHMCS would be in both -14E cockpits, just like in the F/A-18F, while the Raptor has no capability to use any Helmet Mounted Sight (apparently there are problems mapping the cockpit) nor are there any funded plans to add this capability.

The -14E would be much better than the -22 in strike, plus it would be able to communicate securely with assets other than just the B-22 or other F-22s.

Now the AESA in the -14E would see noticeably farther than that of the -22-- except when it was searching for a -22. The -22's stealth would negate much of the Super Tomcat’s advantage (although it should be able to see it at reduced ranges) and would force it to rely more on its passive sensors, which are impressive (watch a video of the AN/AAS -42's clarity, it’s jaw dropping), but not as precise as radar. One thing not talked about much is that even if an adversary detects an F-22, can the smaller antennas of the AIM-120 or other missiles see the Raptor to guide? “Stand by to ram”?. Can’t say how well AIM-152 would do in radar mode, not enough known.

Talking availability, assuming the -14E met its promises like the -14D initially did, the Raptor requires more maintenance. Although Lockheed claims 24 mmh/fh, USAF says it’s in the mid-30s.


Performance-wise the F-22 would dominate. Raptor’s far superior supercruise and normal operating altitudes of 60,000 feet are going to give it an enormous boost, assuming both know the other is there. This brings up an important point: F-22 needs to fight to its advantages, which are considerable, to make it worth its cost. . If the pilot decides to unnecessarily engage in mano-a-mano tactics, that’s giving up what makes a Raptor a Raptor. It’s very agile, but not that much more agile than its contemporaries. In close in “combat”, Raptors have been “killed” by Vipers, Rafales and Eagles I believe and, heaven help us, Hornets. I don’t think they’ve ever flown against Typhoons or Gripens. Against a -14E, in a pure one-on-one gun battle (which hardly ever occurs any more) and assuming both have plenty of gas, the Raptor’s awesome performance should prevail. In a many vs. many situation, the -14E’s two person crew would be worth a lot. In close-in combat with missiles, the -22's performance advantages may not be enough. In our hypothetical case taking place today, the Raptor would be facing someone who had a better missile that could counter its defensive maneuvering, capable of being cued aimed by passive systems and/or helmet mounted sights and having a two crew cockpit.

The point of all this is not that a Super Tomcat 21 would be “better” aircraft although for the US Navy in particular, a case could be made that it would be better for them than a navalized F-22, just that things aren’t as open and shut as they might seem.

Excellent post, aaam.

"Although there would be no glove vanes, the leading edge of the fixed portion of the wing would be reshaped and would resemble the leading edge with the vanes extended. This would enhance maneuverability, especially in the supersonic regime as well as allow space for more fuel."


Those glove extensions, in addition to improving maneuverability, would have reduced trim drag by moving the center of lift forward. Production f-14s used the extensions supersonic, since the basic center of lift moved aft. With a fly by wire system, the Super Tomcat 21 would have been able to handle the reduced static stability of such a glove subsonic and supersonic.

I'm not sure the Fowler flaps would have been anything but a maintenance nightmare. The F-111's double slotted Fowlers proved to be such.

Super Tomcat 21 seems like it was the right choice over a Super Hornet. Was Boeing's lobbythat strong that it was able to shove their program through? Seems like they went to great lengths to make Super Tomcat 21 'politically correct' for Repubs and Dems alike, and tried to spread the work out across more industry than the Super Hornet. Seems like Cheney really put the screwjob over quite a few players outside the Boeing camp. Am I missing something in the big picture?

anytimebaby wrote:Hey, I'm new here. been stalking for a little while though. great site . I love military history. and the tomcat is by far my favorite plane. I was reading through the F-14 vs. F-22 thread. I totally agree with you guys. the -22 what crush even the D model F-14's

but here is my proposed scenario.

Lets put a Tomcat 21 vs. the 22. what do we have now?

from what I remember of the specs on what the F-14D+'s were supposed to be was:

upgraded F110-GE-129 engines. these allowed "supercruise" (mach 1.3)
use of the AMRAAM
Helmet mounted sights on BOTH the RIO and pilot (ability to fire on 2 targets at the same time)
Upgraded radar suit
35% better combat radius than the D model
thrust vectoring (Not 100% sure on this)

also there were significant changes to the airframe allowing it to turn tighter.

Also I remember the intakes being reshaped and the wing slats being put on in some different way

now. I'm not trying to hype it up. but this is what I remember from the specs. seems like a pretty in-freaking-credible plane to me. I think it'd give the F-22 a run for it's money BVR for sure and WVR also.

now I understand the F-22 still has the stealth thing going on. but I think it's an interesting hypothetical situation.

sound off!

(you can call me Brett if you like by the way)

Hi Brett

A fighter buddy told me this with regard to the F22;

"We can't see him long range...and when we get visual, we can't lock him up to shoot him"

That's a tough opponent for anyone.

..and yes, I agree, flown well, the "Tom" was a great jet.

Cheers

paul

johnwill wrote:Excellent post, aaam.

"Although there would be no glove vanes, the leading edge of the fixed portion of the wing would be reshaped and would resemble the leading edge with the vanes extended. This would enhance maneuverability, especially in the supersonic regime as well as allow space for more fuel."


Those glove extensions, in addition to improving maneuverability, would have reduced trim drag by moving the center of lift forward. Production f-14s used the extensions supersonic, since the basic center of lift moved aft. With a fly by wire system, the Super Tomcat 21 would have been able to handle the reduced static stability of such a glove subsonic and supersonic.

I'm not sure the Fowler flaps would have been anything but a maintenance nightmare. The F-111's double slotted Fowlers proved to be such.

Thanks.

That's true, reducing trim drag was the original purpose of the glove vanes on the F-14A. Although they worked as advertised automatically, they were later disabled, locked on rebuilt F-14Bs and eliminated entirely on the F-14D. The official reason was "maintenance". This was true, but the background to that was that pilots found that by manually popping the vanes in and out in ACM, they could increase the Tomcat's pitch rate and enhance maneuverability. The vanes were never designed to handle that kind of load and so were constantly requiring service. The idea on the Super Tomcat 21 was to gain both the trim and maneuvering advantages using a fixed shape that wouldn't require maintenance.

madrat wrote:Super Tomcat 21 seems like it was the right choice over a Super Hornet. Was Boeing's lobbythat strong that it was able to shove their program through? Seems like they went to great lengths to make Super Tomcat 21 'politically correct' for Repubs and Dems alike, and tried to spread the work out across more industry than the Super Hornet. Seems like Cheney really put the screwjob over quite a few players outside the Boeing camp. Am I missing something in the big picture?

Boeing was not involved, they didn't eat McDonnell Douglas until 1997, years later and after the Super Hornet was already flying. In actuality the Super Tomcat 21 was not offered as an alternative to the Super Hornet and in fact predates the concept. Super Tomcat 21 was offered as an much less expensive alternative to a Naval version of the ATF. The alternative to the Super Hornet was the F-14D Quickstrike, also referred to as the Block IV upgrade. It would essentially add F-15E capabilities on steroids to the F-14D. It would have been available years sooner and development costs were only a small fraction of that of the F/A-18E/F. Super Tomcat 21 would have cost considerably more to develop than the F-14D Block IV (of course it offered a lot more), but still significantly less than the Super Hornet. BTW, F-14s with sufficient airframe life left could have been rebuilt into Super Tomcat 21s, but Hornet A-Ds could not be rebuilt into E/Fs.

For reasons not really on topic, Dick Cheney overrruled the Navy and canceled the F-14D just as its development was completing, on time and on budget. When the A-12 program collapsed, he and DoD ordered the Navy to buy the Super Hornet. When the Navy said instead they wanted the F-14D reinstated (this is where the Block IV came in ) they were overruled again.

It didn't help that Grumman around this time was insufferably arrogant, or that they were later eaten by Northrop, who built half of the Hornet E/F.

Going much further on that would probably be too far off-topic.