Talk:Air superiority fighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Erroneous reading of RAND report

RAND Report. Brief analysis here: Talk:F-14_Tomcat#Actually_reading_the_paper

Okay...so having been proven wrong on the F-14 page, you have to move here to spread your misinformation?

  • The term "air superiority" was not in common usage prior to the Vietnam War; in fact the article originally states that it was first used to refer to the F-15.
  • Prior to the Vietnam War, fighters took specialized roles; the term "air superiority" was never used in any official context. Fighters were "escort fighter", "heavy fighter", "day(light) fighter", etc. We have in depth articles on that terminology and they were in common industry usage at the time.
  • The term "air superiority" was coined to describe an aircraft equally adept at WVR and BVR. As the RAND study indicates ... ONLY the F-15 out of the teen series was designed as an "air superiority" fighter. It explicitly indicates that the Navy did NOT want an "air superiority" fighter in the VFX, later the F-14.
  • It's been argued on the F-14 talk page whether or not the F-14 was designed to be maneuverable. Reliable sources say otherwise.
  • The F/A-18E is not a "lighter aircraft" - it is 25% larger than the C model hornet and currently serves the "high" part of the high/low mix on our carriers. It's not an upgrade of the Hornet (despite the naming bondoggle), but a wholly new airframe. It's actually a bit worse than the C Hornet in a turning fight due to its larger weight; but has a newer AESA radar and other interesting "goodies" that make it more potent in BVR.
When (if?) the JSF comes online, all C model Hornet squadrons will be replaced with the JSF; the Super Hornet and JSF will continue to operate in a hi-low mix - the JSF is the "low" part of the mix.

--Mmx1 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable evidence the F-14 is an Air Superiority Fighter

How does inclusion of the F-14 intertwined with the F-15 in the search for a generation of air superiority fighters not make it an air superiority fighter? How does the Navy's tasking of the F-18, which replaces the F-14, as an air superiority fighter make the F-14 not an air superiority fighter? How does the increase of wing area for agility make agility not a design goal? What we have here is a POV problem, and there are other ways about it than simply reverting good quality factual information. An short open source paper that omits the term "air superiority" does not the conclusion make, "the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter".

Entries by Mmx1 appear to be the only claims in print or the web that the F-14 is not, nor was intended to be an air superiority fighter. They are not verifiable elsewhere, and thus must be considered to be POV. Any attempt to find a link between the F-14 and air superiority or deliberate maneuverability has been excised from the WP by one or more individuals, a matter of grave and serious concern given the importance and significance of the F-14.

F-14 Tomcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... F-14 Tomcat was a United States Navy supersonic, twin-engine, swing-wing, two-seat interceptor fighter jet. The Tomcat's primary missions were air superiority

Military Factory - F-14 Tomcats Grumman&nbspF-14 Tomcat. Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. KNOWN OPERATORS: United States of America (B and D models) Iran (A model) BASIC INFORMATION: Designation: F-14 Tomcat ... against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216.shtml ... F-111 was not optimized for air superiority as the F-14 had been The "Hi" end was represented by the long-range, high-speed F-14 Tomcat dedicated air superiority fighter.

F-14 Tomcat 7th District American Legion of Wisconsin ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a United States Navy supersonic ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense, and precision strike against ground targets. The first F-14 flight was ...webpages.charter.net/.../F_14_TomCat_Era_Ends.htm - 39k - Cached - More from this site - Save

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat, a combat-proven air superiority fighter, continues the U.S. ... of fleet air defense, fighter escort, tactical air reconnaissance and air-to-surface strike fighter ...www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/f14/f14.html

Welcome to The F-14 Tomcat VF-211 : Fighter Squadron 211. The F-14 Tomcat. The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. ... are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. Features: The F-14 has visual ...www.military.com/HomePage/UnitPageFullText/0,13476,700906,00.html - 18k - Cached - More from this site - Save

F-14 Tomcat - QuickSeek Encyclopedia ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (the F-13 designation was skipped ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense, and precision strike against ground targets. The first F-14 flight was ...f14tomcat.quickseek.com -

Naval Test Wing Atlantic - Platforms Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division ... Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic ... are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. Features: The F-14 has visual ...www.nawcad.navy.mil/testwinglant/aircraft_details.cfm?platformID=12 -

Aircraft: Grumman F-14A Tomcat ... weapon system for fleet air defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction missions (2 CREW ... , AZ. The F-14 might not be the best aircraft ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm

Navy Fact File: F-14 Tomcat Information on hardware of the U.S. Navy ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,

Grumman F-14 Tomcat - HOME ... shots of the F-14 let me first ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.angelfire.com/stars4/f14tomcat

U.S. Military Fighter Aircraft Fighter aircraft used by the various branches of the United States Military Services. ... in a military campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat. The F-14 ...usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-14 Tomcat Grumman F-14 Tomcat history, specifications, schematics, pictures, and data. ... range air superiority fighter was accepted by the US Navy. This aircraft was ultimately accepted as the F-14 Tomcat, and ... wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat is the navy's air superiority fighter. It is the plane to have if your playing ... an enemy can put in the air before they can shoot back ...members.aol.com/CIOFAM/f14.html


F-14 Tomcat ... Description: The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place ... include precision strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense ...cpf.navy.mil/.../RIMPAC2004/aircraft_pages/F-14tomcatfactpage.htm

F-14 Tomcat Aircraft The F-14 Tomcat Aircraft of the US Navy entered the fleet in 1973. ... F-14 Tomcat Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat Features: The ...inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltomcat.htm

F-14 Tomcats - Military and Civilian Aircraft All about military and civilian aircraft, airplanes, jets, transports, passenger airliners and helicopters. ... Designation: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. Contractor: Grumman ... strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense. As a ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63


F-14 Tomcat ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (specifications) is a twin engine, variable sweep wing, and air superiority fighter capable of ... simultaneously and attack six air-to-air targets with the AIM ...www.highironillustrations.com/commission_illustration/f14.html


'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Posted on 03/10/2006 9:33:43 PM PST by neverdem. ASSOCIATED PRESS. VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. ... the past 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key role in ... 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594335/posts

Now does this mean the F-14 wasn't an air superiority fighter? 'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 10, 2006 | SONJA BARISIC ASSOCIATED PRESS There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. The F-14 entered service in the early 1970s to defend aircraft carriers from Soviet bombers carrying long-range cruise missiles.

REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER (PDF) Chapter Five. REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. INTRODUCTION. The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force. fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf

http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html ... the F-14 Tomcat aircraft are supersonic, tandem-seat, twin engine, swing-wing, all-weather, air-superiority, strike ... engine, all-weather, air superiority strike fighter and ...www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html

HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft! Zuni Rocket Pod. Usually, Zuni rockets (5-in FFAR = Folding-Fin Air Rockets) are not the weapon for an air-superiority fighter like the F-14. It's more a rocket for air-to-ground attacks and close-in support strikes.www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-zuni.htm

F-14 Tomcat ... at Air Expo '01 here May 26 and 27. The F-14 Tomcat demonstration team will take the aircraft ... Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike ...www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/6_20/local_news/7302-1.html

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat today: The F-14 Tomcat continues to be a premier long-range strike-fighter as evidenced ... The F-14's critical role in maintaining air superiority and its ability ...united-states-navy.com/planes/f14.htm

Aircraft/UAVs ... Intruder air frame ... F-14 Tomcat The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.exwar.org/Htm/9000PopA.htm

And your evidence that the F-14 was not, nor intended to be an air superiority fighter would be... The wikipedia article defines an air superiority fighter as one with good close combat characteristics and maneuverability, no? Disagreement is certainly understandable, but POV has no place on WP. --Wiarthurhu 19:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Starting a separate section since your formatting is difficult to sort through. The term is clouded because "air superiority" is also used to describe a mission, and in general use as a general adjective, one which the F-14 did take for most of its service history. That's why I've shied away from improving this article because sorting the offical from the colloquial use is a mess. But in the context of industry design, it's clear the term was never applied to the F-14, nor the F-16 and 18 as you claimed in your earlier edits. And it is explicitly clear that it was not designed as such. From the Rand paper you repeatedly miscite:

As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.

...

That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet airdefense mission.

This paper, written by a PhD-wielding defense analyst, would trump any other colloquial usage of the term "air superiority". --Mmx1 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Every source on the web mentions F-14 and air superiority in the same sentence. You do not seem to be able to find another source that says "F-14" and "not air superiority" in the same sentence. You do the math. Are you the one responsible for the complete absence of any link between the F-14 and maneuverability throughout the WP space? That's a pretty significant ommision.--Wiarthurhu 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC) As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.

...

"optimized for the fleet airdefense mission" does not mean "not air superiority", and your interpretation is contradicted by hundreds of web articles which evidently you'll need to go out and fix as well. Why don't you just drop this mission of trying to tell people that the F-14 is not and was not supposed to be an agile fighter and leave it at that? Why is it so important to make a point that no one else is recorded to have ever stated in so many words? --Wiarthurhu 20:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions. part? --Mmx1 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoopee, you did a google search that indicated colloquial usage of the term. One of the links called the F-14 a strike fighter, too. Popularity does not determine accuracy; especially in a fan commentary-loaded area such as this. I've provided you with an industry analyst from the RAND corporation, with a PhD in European diplomatic and military history (actually which you provided but can't seem to read), who says that the F-14 was NOT developed under such auspices. Technically accurate trumps popular usage. --Mmx1 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mission vs. Classification

Let me lay it out. The reason I've been reluctant to work on this and similar articles is that there is a distinction between a Mission and Classification. An aircraft can perform many missions; even ones it's not designed for. But what determines its classification are its design considerations - the missions that influenced its design tradeoffs.

For example, the F-16 has taken many roles - anti-shipping, reconnaissance, ferry, strike, interdiction, CAS, etc. But it was designed as a light strike fighter and is characterized as such. Sending it out on a recon mission doesn't make it a reconnaissance plane all of a sudden, no more than sending it to ferry a pilot out to a unit makes it a passenger plane.

The RAND source irrefutably shows that the Navy designed the F-14 for fleet defense, and NOT air superiority, something that at the time was an Air Force concept the Navy wanted no part of. It took the role of "air superiority" (actually the mission nowadays is OCA, offensive counter-air) because it was the best fighter available for the job for many years. But it wasn't designed for that mission, specifically a subsonic turning fight. And any attempt to rewrite that is revisionism from people who've watched Top Gun too many times. The F-14 excelled in the recon role it took over from the RA-5 Vigilante, as well as the CAS role it took in the 1990's as it faced irrelevance with the death of the Soviet threat. But that doesn't make it a recce bird or CAS bird. It was just used in a different role.

This article is about classifications, just as heavy fighter, escort fighter, night fighter, and day fighter discuss classifications of fighters, not just aircraft that were sent out at night. Discussing missions is too broad and really not of particular interest as a general subject. --Mmx1 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Hmmm. Uncited statment, Navy never had an air superiority fighter. Article photo, Grumman states, F-14 is an air superiority fighter. Somebody ought to fix that, and stop deleting other peoples pages while he's at it. --matador300 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Mmx1 has since conceded that all of the above is essentially incorrect as a result of mediation. The F-14 was a) designed for the maeuvering air superiority mission and b) as 1969 Flight International proves was first post F-4 fighter called an A/S fighter. Editor has since posted further complaints and AFDs against this editor.--matador300 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interceptor aircraft

Interceptor aircraft includes the F-14 saying it is Interceptor aircraft are a compromise between speed and agility. Doesn't that conflict with this article's assertion? --Dual Freq 14:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The F-14 was designed as a dogfighter first (VFAX). Including the Phoenix AWG-9 did not compromise this capability in any meaningful way. Other approaches such as the F-15 would see things differently, but that in no way affects Grummans design decisions. The F-4 was designed as an interceptor, not a dogfighter, but was found to be the best dogfighter DOD had overall (F-8 had better kill ratio, but was due for replacement by F-4) during Vietnam --matador300 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hornet Mafia, Article Deletion Nomination

Hell, this term even appears on this Wikipedia discussion page.

An article has been created defining this term, and subsequently nominated for deletion by purists who have identified him/themselves there. If you believe that the concept "Hornet Mafia" is as real as "UFO sighting", or if you believe that WP should not have an article for anything that isn't the the Brittanica, please participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hornet Mafia --matador300 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] soviet fighter

guys, there does not appear even ONE soviet/russian fighter here!!! thats ridiculous!! --Philtime (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)