Talk:F-14 Tomcat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the F-14 Tomcat article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

Contents

[edit] Technical description section

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that Stefanomencarelli added a very extensive "Technical Description" section. While I appreciate the level of detail and depth this section brings to the article, I noticed there are some grammar and organizational issues with the section as is. To that end, I submit for your consideration this version of the Technical Description section, below. I used Stefanomencarelli's version as a base and moved, added, and deleted some information.

[edit] Technical description

The F-14's fuselage consists primarily of a large flat section, called the "pancake", the forward fuselage section ahead of the "pancake", and two engine pods below it. This "pancake" forms a flat deck between the two engine pods at the rear, and extends forward where it smoothly transitions into the forward fuselage pod, which houses the cockpit, radar and avionics, among other systems, as well as a retractable in-flight refueling probe. The flat deck allows space for weapons underneath, and contains integral fuel tanks. At the extreme aft end of the "pancake" deck, called the "beavertail", there are speedbrakes on the upper and lower surfaces, and an arrestor hook beneath the beavertail, as well as a fuel dump pipe inside the beavertail.

Each engine pod houses one engine at the extreme aft of the pod. At the front, each pod has a rectangular, highly swept back air intake. These intakes stand off the central fuselage enough so that complex splitters are not needed, as on other aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom. Inside each intake are a series of movable ramps that help to regulate the airflow into each engine, keeping it below subsonic speeds and keeping shockwaves from reaching the engine. Atop the intakes are bleed doors that alternately allow extra air into the engines (such as during takeoff) or allow excess air to bleed away. The intakes are angled outward from top to bottom when viewed from the front.

Extending outboard of each engine pod is a wing glove, which houses the variable-sweep wing mechanism and structure. These wing gloves form a diamond shape when viewed from above. Inside these gloves is a massive wing carry-through box, formed of titanium alloy. This carry-through box has the pivots for the variable sweep wing sections at each end. This carry-through box also contains integral fuel tanks. The glove vane provides hardpoints for missile pylons and launchers.

Attached to this carry-through box are the outer, swinging, wing sections. Each wing is of dual-spar construction, with fuel tanks between the spars. Attached to the trailing edge of the wing are flaps which extend the full span of the trailing edge. Slats span the entire leading edge, and spoilers are situated on the wing upper surface. These flaps and slats can be moved under the command of the central air-data computer to provide increased lift during maneuvering (early aircraft, before Block 90, had manual control only). There are no ailerons; roll control is provided by the spoilers and the all-moving horizontal tail. At wing sweep angles greater than 57°, the spoilers are locked down, and roll control is provided solely by the horizontal tail. Also, during carrier approaches, the spoilers are used as part of the Direct Lift Control (DLC) system, which, when engaged, causes the spoilers to extend slightly. When extra lift is required, the spoilers fully retract, providing lift without requiring changes in attitude.

The wing sweep angle is controlled by a AiResearch CP-1166B/A central air data computer (ADC), which calculates the optimum wing sweep based on speed and other conditions. It also controls the air intake geometry and maneuvering flap/slat positions. At takeoff and landing, the wings are set at their full forward position, which gives a 20° wing sweep. As speed increases, the wings are swung aft by actuators under the control of the ADC, until full wing sweep (68°) is achieved for high-speed flight. The ADC can, of course, be overridden by the pilot in emergencies. On the ground, the wings can be overswept to 75°, which reduces the space needed for carrier stowage and eliminates the need for folding wings. Throughout the wing sweep range, an aerodynamic seal between the wing and the part of the fuselage it swings over is maintained by inflatable canvas bags that are coated with Teflon to reduce friction. These bags inflate to fill the gap when the wings are swept forward.

Inside each of the wing gloves is a triangular glove vane. These were originally designed to aid stability at supersonic speeds; however in practice they provided marginal benefit and added weight and complexity. In the field they were locked shut and their actuators removed, and later build Tomcats were built without them.

Atop the aft section of each engine pod is a vertical stabilizer. The original Grumman design featured a single tail, but this was changed to the twin-tail arrangement at the request of the Navy. The twin tails each have conventional rudders and provide better yaw control, increased survivability (allowing for continued flight if one tail is damaged), and reduced height for carrier storage.

On the outboard side of each engine pod is an all-flying horizontal stabilizer. There are no separate elevators; the entire stabilizer moves on a pivot. The two stabilizers can move in the same direction for pitch control, as well as in different directions for roll control. These stabilizers are constructed primarily of boron composite, with aluminium leading and trailing edge and tip parts.

The flight controls are mechanical, using rods, cables and springs, among other devices. There is no fly-by-wire or artificial stability system, but there was an analog stability augmentation system which was intended to improve control. This was not effective, and in the late 1990s to early 2001 a new Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) was developed and installed fleet-wide. The DFCS improved handling and provided protection from unrecoverable flat spins (a notorious and dangerous flight characteristic of the Tomcat).

The pilot and Radar Intercept Officer (RIO, colloquially known as the "Guy in the Back Seat") are seated in either Martin-Baker GRU-7A (F-14A/B) or Martin-Baker SJU-17 NACES (F-14D) ejection seats. The crew is arranged in a tandem, one-behind-the-other, arrangement, which provides less drag than a side-by-side arrangement. The crew is covered by a large canopy that provides good all-around visibility.

The F-14A (the first version) was powered by two Pratt & Whitney TF30 afterburning turbofan engines. At the exhaust end of the engine there are variable exhaust nozzles, which slide fore and aft to open or close the nozzle opening, respectively. These engines were not intended for a fighter like the F-14, were underpowered, finicky, and especially susceptible to compressor stalls and blade failures. More detail on these problems can be found in "Upgrades", below. The later F-14B and F-14D models were fitted with much more reliable, more powerful and less temperamental General Electric F110 engines.

The F-14 has a tricycle landing gear, with a twin-wheel nose gear strut in the forward fuselage and single-wheel main gear struts outboard of the engine pods. All gear struts retract forward; the main gear wheels rotate 90° to lie flat in the gear well.

The F-14 has a comprehensive suite of electronics for navigation, communications, electronic countermeasures (ECM)/jamming, and identification and targeting of enemy aircraft. The F-14A is equipped with a Hughes AN/AWG-9 radar and fire control system. This system is able to track 24 targets and attack six more targets with its Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. The system is also capable of looking down, to identify low-level targets. The later F-14D variant was equipped with an upgraded Hughes AN/APG-71 radar.

Beneath the nose of the F-14 are a variety of electronic chin pods, depending on variant. Early F-14As were equipped only with an electronic jamming pod, an AN/ALR-23 infrared (IR) seeker, or both. In practice, this IR seeker was ineffective and replaced on later F-14As and F-14Bs with a Northrop Television Camera System (TCS) which enabled long-range visual identification of targets. The later F-14D is equipped with a dual chin pod with the TCS and an IR seeker side-by-side.

Other avionics and on-board electronic systems include

  • ASN-92 CAINS II (Carrier Aircraft Inertial Navigation System II) inertial navigation system
  • APX-71 transponder and AXX-76 identification friend-or-foe (IFF) equipment
  • ARC-51 (replaced by ARC-159) UHF radios, and KY-58 cryptographic system
  • APN-154 beacon augmenter, APN-194 radar altimeter, Gould ARN-84 TACAN and ARA-50 automatic direction finder
  • ASW-27B digital datalink, for high speed communication between the aircraft and the ground, as well as early warning aircraft

The F-14 can be armed with a variety of weapons, including air-to-air missiles and bombs. The F-14 can be loaded with the following missiles:

  • AIM-54 Phoenix: A long range, radar-guided missile. The Phoenix works with the AN/AWG-9/APG-71 radar to reach its target. It can fly a preprogrammed course to its target, home in on radar signals reflected off the target by the F-14's radar, or use its own radar to home in on the target. The Phoenix can be mounted under the tunnel between the engine pods on special pallets, or on pylons beneath the wing gloves.
  • AIM-7 Sparrow: A medium range, radar guided missile. This missile requires that the F-14 illuminate the target with its radar in order for the missile to hit the target. Sparrows can be mounted in the tunnel between the engines, semi-recessed, although this is rare. They are more frequently mounted on the wing glove pylons.
  • AIM-9 Sidewinder: A short range, heat-seeking missile. They are usually mounted on the underwing glove pylons.

There were plans to modify the F-14 to accept the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, but these were scrapped by the US government.

The F-14 is also equipped with a 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon for close-in dogfighting. It fires out of the port side of the forward fuselage looking forward, and contains 675 rounds.

The F-14 can also be used for precision guided and unguided bombing; see "Transformation" below.

Please tell me what you think, and if you think that this version should replace the current section. If you have comments or changes for me to make, please say so here as well! I am aware of the lack of references, wikilinks/external links, or sources, and will add them if/when it is decided to add this section to the article.

Thanks very much, Nick L. 10:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick this is an immense improvement on the section. I have highlighted small typos but otherwise, the only other concern is to provide some corroboration in the form of citing reference sources. FWIW Bzuk 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
We're been trying to fix spelling and format issues. It still needs copyeditting. That's why the Copyedit tag is there. Anything you can do there would be great. I don't totally get this bolding errors thing. It adds more stuff to fix/delete later. Try the {{clarifyme}} tag for confusing wording. Spelling degrees is not really an error. -Fnlayson 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find so 'good' such version. The part about electronic is whipped out, that's unaccettable for the F-14 description. The fuel system is lacking, unaccettable as well. When Bzuk will finish to magnificate every thing against my work, perhaps he also will see that this version is not complete and an overall worsement respect to the one now present. Dont' rely too much about 'language spelling issues' i know i am not of mother language, but i am not a moron as well()).--Stefanomencarelli 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the proposed version, especially with regard to electronic and fuel systems. I am working on a revision that will address these areas which you have found lacking. Nick L. 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made some changes to the section, mostly about the electronics. I've also seen to some of the sections that needed work, and removed the bolded text (seems like they've been fixed). Please comment. Also, I would like to know your opinions regarding the replacement of the section in the article with the above version. Thanks, Nick L. 04:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks alright to me. Seems like you can just tweak the wording in the article instead of here. -Fnlayson 04:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you think it would be better to replace the section in the article with the above versus fixing the section that is currently in the article? Nick L. 17:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Description 2

A lot of interesting stuff, but a lot is also mentioned in several other places. There are lot of stuff missing, there are a different set of ejection seats in the F-14D, and the stuff about the Tomcat lacking multi funciton displays is just not right. With the additon of the LANTIRN in the 1990's, MFDs were added. The text is mainly about the F-14A. And the A-model must have had MFD's as well, at least the RIO, otherwise it would have been problematic due to the LANTIRN pod and the RIO must at least be able to select options and what not when using the LANTIRN and laser guided bombs.

The section about the engines are only in regard to the F-14A, nothing is deeply mentioned about the B and D. Hagman1983 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Hagman1983

[edit] Technical description 3

Hi. I went through the section and copy edited it. I understand that there are plans to replace or rewrite the whole section, but the section in its current form was pretty much incomprehensible in places, so I thought it best to do something ASAP. There are also a lot of uncited statements. Regards Davidelit 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited statements from Joe Baugher site. The word 'only' about internal fuel capability: are you aware how much is 9000 l.? Just to checking. There is no other western fighter capable to do so. So definitively 'only' is a wrong word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I only proofread the article, but point taken. "Only" deleted. Davidelit 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

--

I just divided the "Tech description" section for better readability and further summarizing. Did it because that section was just too huge, but all most important components of this bird are explained, at least for the "A-cats". So I rearranged a little bit to glue these together. I just found that here are some, who really care about this article, hope this gives them a bit of a framework to move on. Please don't mind the headings for it's just a try to break the text into tinier parts. As english isn't my mother tongue it's impossible to me to shorten it properly.

Hope that's allright for the moment... Greetings, Andi 11:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on your "talk" page. Better readabillity is a laudable goal considering the patched up mess this article that has resulted from recent edits but my question was over the use of the word "gear" which may not always mean "landing gear." BTW, get a proper userid so that your work is identified to a serious researcher. Also, use the four tilde (~) method to sign off the comments on talk pages. FWIW Bzuk 11:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Technical description 4

I think it just should be removed. It's too much, it's cumbersome to read, unnecessary information. You don't see the wiki-pages about the F-15, F-16 or the F/A-18 variants with such information. Remove it, the page will look more cleaner, better readability and it's too "technical" and a this page has turned into a total mess. Hagman1983 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It's too long but not all to it has to go. Also, the Upgrades and Transformations sections are over detailed as well, in my opinion. I'll try to cut things back. -Fnlayson 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Errr, if F-15/16/18 have not this 'over-unnecessary' info it's not a merit, it's because they are not enough deepth in description. You cannot delete tecnical description of F-14 except you want to have a drastically incomplete article about it. It's simply impossible make a good work without this info level, that is usually searched by aviation fans (the more interested to such articles).

Moreover: it's false that the tecnical description is already covering the whole avionics set. Just the main elements like the radar, but the list total is far more greater.

But the others are much more, over 40:

Radar: Hughes AWG-9, (later APG-71), APN-194 radar altimeter, DSQ-23 (Phoenix missiles)

  • Central Air Data Computer (CADC): AiResearch CP-1166B/A
  • RWR: Originally an AN/APR-25 and AN/APR-27, then replaced by AN/ALR-45 and finally by AN/ALR-67
  • IRST/TV: Originally, AN/ALR-23, later Northrop TCS
  • RWR:ALR-45, ALR-50
  • ECM: ALQ-100, later ALQ-126B, (against enemy tracking radars), ALQ-91 (against data links), AN/ALE-29 (chaff/flare), later replaced by AN-ALE-39
  • HUD: Kaiser AN/AWG-12
  • Com/nav.: data link KY-28, JTDS, radio UHF AN/ARC-51, 159 and AN/ARR-69, TACAN, radio compass AN/ARA-50, KY-58 cryptographic system, radios Have Quick, ARN-84 TACAN, ARA-50 automatic direction finder, ASN-92 CAINS (Carrier Aircraft Inertial Navigation System II) II inertial navigation system
  • IFF: AN/APX-72, AXX-76 IFF interrogator
  • Flight controls and data: CP-1166B/A Central Air Data Computer (CADC), AN/ARA-63 aircraft approach control system (with AN/SPN-41 AN/TRN-28 transmitters), Direct Lift Control (DLC).


If you don't like this part, there is not much problem (even if i think this should be in the article). There are sub-articles of F-14 tomcat, so the best thing could be simply to split the stuff in a dedicated article about the detailed, tecnical analysis and description of Tomcat. This aircraft is, among the many fighter, the most sofistied as tecnical and avionics, with ten aerodinamic surfaces and dozens avionic elements. Just think to Mirage III, that has only three fixed surfaces, one radar, one RWR and one radio-nav set. Almost a toy.

I propose: F-14 tecnical description.

Or History of the F-14 Tomcat, enlarged to tecnical analysis.--Stefanomencarelli 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhmm, yeah, sorry. A seperate article would work of course. Hagman1983 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So we agree?--Stefanomencarelli 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I say no. Aircraft already has a few split off articles. There weren't enough F-14s made to justify more articles, imo. -Fnlayson 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and especially because this is what has happened in the recent past, see:[1]. .FWIW Bzuk 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the F-14 should not be split, but without a complete and extensive tecnical description the article loose greatly in deepth and for 'aviation fans' also in interest. I think that no F-14 article could be made without an extensive tecnical-avionic description, so i don't think that this is excessive. But if someone is interested to cut it a bit, this cannot be done removing the stuff. It must be done with the right solutions. So i'll remove the F-14 tecnical description and place it in History of F-14.--Stefanomencarelli 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, listing every piece of electornic ever used in the F-14 simply becouase it is listed somewhere else in unnecessary and unencyclopedic. I would remove such a list no matter WHO added it. THere's nothing wrong with listing the radars and other major items in the appropriate places, but we don't need a article simply for the list, nor does it belong on the History page. Also, pointing out that a certain editor has done this sort of thing in the past in other articles is NOT an attack to any reasonable person. ANt there is a simple way to stop people from "attacking" someone who makes these types of edits: STOP making these types of edits. Unless of course getting "attacked" is the goal here, not improving the articles. Makes one wonder. - BillCJ 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So the famous duo Bill/Bzuk strike again. Every time you can make gratouitous provocations is good enough, huh? First, Bill, you have no really clue of what you are saying, unless you desire to make a second rate class article.

Second, the stuff to remove a simple prhase that claiming a clear attack against me made by Bzuk is unsupportable and illegal. I remark that in discussion pages there must be much care to 'remove' 'personal attacks' far from be proof. The only thing i can say for sure, is still that you two dear boys are still hers JUST to provocke me as mob. So, since while someone has deleted absolutely in a illegal manner my 'partial edit' to Bzuk, i not only contest this, but also remove the Bzuk statement itself, that was a clear and gratuoitus attack on my self.--Stefanomencarelli 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. I concur with Bill and Bzuk for the same reasons listed. Quit claiming a reference to your past work as a personal attack. --Mmx1 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One, BE POLITE in discussions. Your kindly word should be keep away from this. Two:

Discussion page vandalism Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page.

Since: Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor. is considered a PERSONAL ATTACK, so Bzuk has made one against me, for the obvious purpuse to throw me discredit and surely this cannot be accepted in a CIVIL discussion.

So who is babbling about 'personal attacks' Huh?.--Stefanomencarelli 09:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction to Survivors

There is no F-14 located in Air & Space's national mall building. It is located in the Dulles annex.The Witch King 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The survivor's note on this aircraft (BuNo. 159610) has been changed to accommodate the new location. Was it ever displayed in the main NASM building? I noticed that the aircraft emerged from restoration in 2006. The museum’s F-14D (R) on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center, was restored with the help of the Navy’s VF-31 squadron technicians. Was it restored at the NASM? See: F-14 FWIW Bzuk 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Iranian aircraft coords

I removed this from the main article: Two Iranian F-14's and an F-4 are visible at Oibb Bushehr AB, Iran at these coordinates: 28.9409° N 50.8596° E, 28.9423° N 50.8566° E, and 28.9409° N 50.8538° E, respectively. The images are a bit interesting since they don't appear to have the desert camo paint scheme I was expecting, more like the US paint scheme I think. The first two images. F-4 has the camo. --Dual Freq 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Thats because they are repainting them in a new scheme (blue and matte brown) that fits the role better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.73.173.88 (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Cheney's reasoning for canceling F-14

The F-22 Raptor interceptor had first flew in the 1990, but as the prototypes were well known at the time. F-22 Raptor is the 2nd most expensive military project after B2 Spirit. I think the funding migrated to the YF-22 Raptor project. A request for proposal (RFP) was issued in July 1986 Renegadeviking 05:50am 24 December, 2007 (CST)

  • Funding and probably need were factors. That part of article need a reference. Techncially the YF-22 first flew in 1990 and the F-22 in 1997. (YF-22 is prototype version.) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, they studied a naval version of the F-22 under the Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) program. But with swing-wings, it was nearly a new fighter and would be expensive. NATF was canceled in 1993. So the moving of money could not have happened as you suggest. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was because the F-18 was going to be cheaper to maintain--68.199.113.247 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1989 when the push to cancel the F-14D to began, all the stories I've skimmed seem to say it was an attempt to reduce the budget deficit, by favoring advanced aircraft of the future over newer versions of older aircraft. According to this quote, he wanted to modernize existing aircraft instead, to save money: "Our fleet of F-14 fighters could be modernized at a cost of $25 million each, Cheney said, but to keep production lines open in Long Island, N.Y., Congress has insisted the Pentagon buy completely new and updated F-14s at a cost of $50 million each. For the sake of jobs, not defense, this policy will cost the taxpayers an extra $1 billion over the next few years to modernize 30 percent fewer fighters." - Colorado Springs (Colo.) Gazette Telegraph, Aug. 5 and Sept. 20. (1989) --Dual Freq (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Mr. Cheney has also decided not to produce a new version of the F-14 plane, instead converting older models, a saving of about $2.4 billion over the next five years." Cheney Defends Budget Decisions To Cut Some Weapon Programs MICHAEL R. GORDON. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 26, 1989. pg. A.21 --Dual Freq (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pentagon officials have characterized the F-14 as 1960s technology. In budget recommendations to Congress, Cheney proposed stopping production of the Grumman plane and beginning the upgrade of 400 existing F-14s to the newer "D" configuration. Those remanufactured planes would be used until the successor aircraft - the Advanced Tactical Fighter - is available." Cheney Aims Barrage at F-14D Calls keeping jet a `jobs program'; By Stephanie Saul. Newsday Washington Bureau. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: Aug 24, 1989. pg. 06. --- That didn't exactly work out, Congress funded a couple years of F-14D's and spent less money on advanced projects than was requested. The Navy never got an ATF version, getting the Super Hornet instead. I don't think the fact that the Navy didn't get an ATF is Cheney's fault, though. At least not from reading 1989 articles about the 1990 budget fight. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survivors

Is this really necessary? --Mmx1 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)