Elaborate?
5 Likes
I don’t know what to tell you if you think the F-111B was better than the F-14A.
7 Likes
me when i’m in a flying brick competition and my opponent is an aardvark
7 Likes
The US Navy on their way to adopt a worse aircraft because ???
1 Like
Well, basing it on US military getting the better thing is not good. Considering they adopted worse thing many times just because politics or someone wanting money.
1 Like
Definitely underrating the fakour
How would the F-111B be better?
It required so many design changes since it was horrendously underpowered for its weight and poor visibility for carrier operations.
2 Likes
Are you baiting? How is the F-14 worse in any way besides raw top speed and range?
In the fleet defense/interceptor role, the F-14 is much better.
The F-14 had the same amount of Phoenix missiles, had a better radar as of the F-14D, was much lighter, (the F-14D’s MTOW was the F-111B’s gross weight) more maneuverable, (better TWR, wing loading, smaller, less drag, more lift, etc.) and had much better strike capability as of the F-14D as well.
4 Likes
Usually worse thing isn’t noticeably worse. In this case the F-14 is so much better you literally could not justify choosing the 111B.
2 Likes
Maybe if the F-111B had the flight performance of the F, but even then the thing would only be good in straight lines as a missile bus, the F-14A would outperform it in every other aspect of being a fighter.
But the B does not have the flight performance of the F so its just worse in every way to the F-14A, and especially the B with it’s F110s.
1 Like
Where did i say it is? I just said that assuming something is better because it was chosen, is wrong - examle : aim-4 on F-4D, gunless phantom because of muh (unreliable) missiles. No CMs on early F-15As. That terrible digital camo us army used or zumwalt for navy, one of the greatest money sinks of decade. And i bet theres tons and tons more. F-14 was better, perfect? Certainly not but given threat posed by soviets to carrier groups? Good choice. Even replacing it with hornets and super hornets was again, bad decision and us navy is in serious disadvantage now (because of god damn politics).
Just stating - chosen one aint always better than the other.
2 Likes
Don’t say this. Both of these are myths coming from the same source. Missile only Phantoms, after the Navy realized that their pilots had to be trained on how to use missiles, scored far better against the Vietnamese than Air Force Phantoms using the internal gun. Same with the AIM-4, it was a good (enough) missile, the Air Force pilots were untrained in proper utilization of the missile, and restricted by RoE preventing them from taking advantage of the missiles range (something that also affects current longer range missiles).
The Zumwalt is, well should have been, good. Congress sabotaging the program when they realized that the ships’ guns cost money and weren’t free doesn’t make it bad.
2 Likes
On the AIM-4, air force phantom pilots specifically hated it due to the god-awful implementation of the missile. It literally had NONE of the computers or fire control systems necessary for the missile’s function on the F-4. The RIO and pilot were expected to learn some 20+ steps just to turn the missile on and start the seeker head cooling, all while dogfighting an enemy. Launching the missile then was even more steps.
The F-106 and other AIM-4 armed US interceptors had a decent experience with the Falcon, because their aircraft had the necessary systems implemented to actually use them effectively.
1 Like
Yeah… Skill issue on USAF side as Israelis used M61 on their F-4Es to great success and it made large portion of their air to air kills. Dwarfing both USN and USAF. What you say is simply BS. The aim-4 crap on 4D was already explained above.
Yeah not really, both of you are missing crucial context and just guessing.
I assume this is just talking about irl?
What he is saying is nonsense that applied only to the earliest blocks of the F-14 prior to the proper fitment of the GE engines over the TF-30. These issues were resolved before the aircraft was even fielded the AIM-7F.
@HauptmannPingu Feel free to share the cover of the document you’re referencing or remove it without proof it’s permissible for posting.
3 Likes
Yeah. Also the F-14As made up the majority of the fleet even by the time they were retired. 86 F-14Bs were built or converted, and 37 F-14Ds were built as well. Out of 712 total.
What about what the user said above?
There were over 15 iterations of the TF30 prior to them getting it correct on the F-111 including total redesign of the air intake on that aircraft… multiple times… To imply that it is better than the F-14 when the models on the F-14 corrected these aforementioned issues with just a few smaller modifications is absurd.
The TF30-P-412A was first installed, suffered some issues and was subsequently replaced by the TF30-P-414 in 1977. The first four years were mired by troubles and resulted in a modification to the TF30 that replaced the entire first stage, modified the compressor rotor blades, and strengthened the fan case to improve containment. You can view some of the engine-specific issues here (they were also present in the F-111’s). The only issue related to the F-14 are the stalls which were greatly mitigated by the implementation of the -414 model starting in '77.
Spoiler
So yes, after the GE engines started to be installed (1981), the TF30-P-414A also began installation. I’ll let this section of the document speak for itself;
This part of my statement was partially false as I had assumed the -414 implemented in 1977 was the -414A upgrade and I was mistaken. The AIM-7F saw fleet service only after 1977 and the -414A model was introduced starting in October 1982.
Source
We can look at the problems that were definitively resolved for the aircraft or the subjective limitations imposed on paper - the F-14 was a vastly superior aircraft and to be honest I’d take the F-14 over the F-111 any day… because who wants an aircraft that can go fast but stalls the second you try to pull 10-15 degrees AoA? You’d be incapable of evading ANY modern ordnance with that pig. Oink. Not without killing your engines, at least. I guess it’s a countermeasure against the R-27ET - it just automatically stalls your engine upon harsh maneuver.
Page 77 in pdf
You just CANNOT do this in an F-111. It will never happen. Notice the engines aren’t exploding or stalling out. F-111 never got these improved variants of the TF-30.
The F-14 Tomcat is built on the lessons learned from the F-111 and improves on it in almost every area possible. Having lived under a microscope it’s entire life it may just be lost on people the engineering marvel it was for America’s first teen series aircraft to also have had the best aerodynamic scheme, radar, missile complex, and overall performance. Nothing else in the world touched it. Scrutinizing it against the aircraft that came after it makes sense - after all they learned from the mistakes they made. Scrutinizing it against an airframe it replaced … that’s absurdity in its’ finest.
Now, to put to rest the absurdity of comparing the F-111 to bed I would remind you also that the F-111 was no angel. It has far more dirty laundry than the F-14 could ever muster. Engines, intakes, structural, radar, reliability, the F-111A couldn’t even meet the basic requirements it was designed for to begin with. It outperformed every attacker / bomber ever made to that point on paper, but that does not mean it was stellar. I’ve avoided going into these issues because this is after all the F-14 thread.
5 Likes