mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) (06/21/89)
From: Michael J. Tighe <mjt@super.org> >From: <unknown> >>The F-14 was designed to incorporate many of the lessons learned from >>Vietnam. It was designed for ACM performance (though they did skimp >>a bit on the engines... The F-14 was designed before we learned any lessons in Vietnam. The F-14 was designed in the late 60's and the contract for it was awarded in January 1969. The plane first flew on December 21, 1970. It crashed 9 days later. The design of the F-14 was based on Grumman's experience with the F-111B and it did incorporate state of the art technology. (more titanium, better welding, solid state electronics, etc). The AWG-9 and Phoenix missile system are evidence it was not designed for ACM. The Naval Fighter Weapons School came as a result of the Ault Report in 1968. The Ault Report is where we learned our ACM lessons. The first NFWS class was held in March 1969. Also, since the air-air war didn't resume until 1972, the ACM tactics taught in NFWS were not tested in actual combat until after the F-14 was in production. >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >They skimped on the engines in the F-14A, which was meant as an initial >interim version. The F-14B was to have had much more advanced engines. >Said engines ran into problems (both technical and financial, I think) >and the F-14B got quietly forgotten. The engines of the F-14 are an interesting story. Grumman proposed two engines for the plane, the TF-30 from the cancelled F111B, and a new advanced technology engine being jointly developed by the USAF & USN. I do not know why they chose the TF-30, but it might have been because they were already designed and ready to go. 4 of the first 13 crashes were attributed to the TF-30. On each of these crashes, the engine fan blades of the TF-30 had come off. Fixing this resulted in a cost of $800,000 per plane (over 230 planes had been delivered at the time). Another unanticipated cost was the heat the engines generated. As a result, new blast deflectors had to be designed for carrier operations.
fjs@floyd.ATT.COM (Fred Shubert ) (06/22/89)
From: fjs@floyd.ATT.COM (Fred Shubert ) In article <7636@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) writes: (1742) > > The AWG-9 and Phoenix missile > system are evidence it was not designed for ACM. Oh contraire! The F-14 was built to replace one of the best naval fighters around, the F-4 Phantom. When the NAVY issued the formal RFP (Request for Proposals) in July of 1968, the project known as VFX (Heavier-than-air Fighter, Experimental), had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft incorporating an advanced weapon control system (AWG-9), 2) sophisticated missile armament including either the AIM-54 Pheonix or a mix of AIM-7 Sparrows and AIM-9 Sidewinders plus 3) an integral Vulcan M61A 20-mm cannon. The idea of this proposal was to make an aircraft to carry the then (and still now) deadly Pheonix missile, even though the proposal said "Pheonix or a mix of". The NAVY wanted the Pheonix, but wanted the best dogfighter in the friggin' world. > The engines of the F-14 are an interesting story. Grumman proposed two > engines for the plane, the TF-30 from the cancelled F111B, and a new > advanced technology engine being jointly developed by the USAF & USN. I do > not know why they chose the TF-30, but it might have been because they were > already designed and ready to go. The story also goes that, yes, the P&W TF-30-412A was ready to go and was the better engine available at the time. Even when the Tomcat was first being built, the NAVY awarded R&D monies for the ATE (Advanced Technology Engine), expecting them to be ready in 1973. P&W added some shielding around the engine in 1979 (to prevent the blades that fall off at high rpm from leaving the aircraft so they can be reused :-) ) and called it a TF-30-414 and put it in Tomcat #235+. Then they "tweaked" it in 1982 and called it a TF-30-414A, which we have been stuck with until now. When the ATE engines became available in 1977-78 (I forgot), GE was the clear winner. But NNNNNNNOOOOOOOO, the fool NAVY wanted to second source the GE engine and asked GE to give P&W the design so the NAVY could buy the engine from both. Wisely (?), GE told the NAVY they didn't give a flying wallenda what they wanted, they wouldn't give anyone the design. End of ATE engine. Ain't it strange that GE got the contract for the F-14B and F-14D engines? :-) Too bad they just cancelled the contract. Looks like no more 'cats. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred J. Shubert | "You haven't lived until you've seen a 'cat fly!!!" AT&T Bell Labs |----------------------------------------------------- Whippany, N.J. | DISCLAIMER: All views are that of my own. PERIOD. Ma-Bell 201-386-3094 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ _ / \ /^ ^\ / F-14D ____________\_( . )_/____________ SUPERTOMCATS --*/--|_| (___) |_|--\*-- RULE * O O * (I Love 'Em) Hopefully we get them back...............................................