F-14 Tomcat Projects

Scott Kenny said:
One Tomcat squadron per Air Wing, though I'd be shocked if the 4th Wing actually would have gotten Tomcats. 4th Marine Division and 4th Marine Air Wing are the reserve components...
Click to expand...
Given that the four Marine Air Wings aren't homogeneous, I'm guessing that one of the active ones would have got two Tomcat squadrons.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Apparently VMFA-531 was in the middle of Tomcat training when the USMC scrapped its plans. By that point they were intending to have four Tomcat squadrons.

The light attack capability wasn't just a Grumman thing - it was also part of the original Navy requirement for the F-14. I have an idea that it stayed on the books long enough that the aircraft was actually built with the ground attack modes, but they were never qualified for use.
Click to expand...
The info I have seen since the late 1970s was that Grumman & the USN had tried to use one type of bomb pylon on the F-14 and found that the bombs weren't being ejected clear of the trough between the engines, and tended to bounce off the aircraft skin on their way aft out of the trough.

I note that when the USN qualified F-14Ds as "Bombcats" they used a similar ejector that was also mounted on fairings like those of the AIM-54 - just like the original test aircraft (and the Iranian F-14s) did - so I have started to question the old info.
 
What I've read several times is that the Navy was expecting for the USMC to pay for the air-to-ground weaponry integration, as the Corp was eyeing at the Tomcat ro replace its Phantom. The first USMC pilots were already training as instructors with VF-124.
But the USMC wasn't willing to fund the development alone and preferred to go for the Hornet instead.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20231215_181931_Reddit.jpg
    Screenshot_20231215_181931_Reddit.jpg
    193.8 KB · Views: 203
BlackBat242 said:
The info I have seen since the late 1970s was that Grumman & the USN had tried to use one type of bomb pylon on the F-14 and found that the bombs weren't being ejected clear of the trough between the engines, and tended to bounce off the aircraft skin on their way aft out of the trough.

I note that when the USN qualified F-14Ds as "Bombcats" they used a similar ejector that was also mounted on fairings like those of the AIM-54 - just like the original test aircraft (and the Iranian F-14s) did - so I have started to question the old info.
Click to expand...
They may have used stronger ejectors on the F-14Ds.
 
BlackBat242 said:
I note that when the USN qualified F-14Ds as "Bombcats" they used a similar ejector that was also mounted on fairings like those of the AIM-54 - just like the original test aircraft (and the Iranian F-14s) did - so I have started to question the old info.
Click to expand...
I believe a large part of that was to do with cost. The 'Bombcat' upgrade was done on a shoestring, qualifying the existing Phoenix fairings for bombs was far cheaper than the alternatives, and with PGMs there was no real need for a bomb truck.
 
Manuducati said:
What I've read several times is that the Navy was expecting for the USMC to pay for the air-to-ground weaponry integration, as the Corp was eyeing at the Tomcat ro replace its Phantom. The first USMC pilots were already training as instructors with VF-124.
Click to expand...

Manuducati said:
But the USMC wasn't willing to fund the development alone and preferred to go for the Hornet instead.
Click to expand...
And the Hornet ended quite expensive...
 
Is there any more information available about the conformal fuel tank the USAF interceptor variant of the F-14 was planned to feature? The mock-up included it although I hadn't really noticed until recently looking at the photos. Even with its AIM-54 Phoenix capability the odds of the USAF ever adopting the F-14 were virtually non-existent, and by that time the whole Improved Manned Interceptor effort was doomed anyway. I assume that CFT couldn't have been implemented on naval F-14s due to the demands of carrier operations, there probably wasn't enough deck clearance.
 
AvWeek, 18 Feb 1974:

Marines plan to base one of their four Grumman F-14 squadrons at the Marine Corps Air Station at Iwakuni, Japan, along with a squadron of Hawker Siddeley AV-8A Harriers. Two squadrons of F-14s will be based at Beaufort, SC, and the fourth will be at Yuma, Ariz.
Click to expand...
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Is there any more information available about the conformal fuel tank the USAF interceptor variant of the F-14 was planned to feature? The mock-up included it although I hadn't really noticed until recently looking at the photos. Even with its AIM-54 Phoenix capability the odds of the USAF ever adopting the F-14 were virtually non-existent, and by that time the whole Improved Manned Interceptor effort was doomed anyway. I assume that CFT couldn't have been implemented on naval F-14s due to the demands of carrier operations, there probably wasn't enough deck clearance.
Click to expand...
I'd actually suspect bring-back weight limits more than ground clearance.
 
Spotted on Fb:

"This is a Grumman manufactures model that was produced at the model shop near Bethpage. The story is, it was given to NAS Oceana when they received the first F-14A’s in the early to mid 1970’s. I was told that the model was sent back to the Grumman model shop to be repainted to the new (at the time) drab grey scheme. However due to the merger with Northrop it was never sent back to NAS Oceana. The model is large, 30” long. Is there anyone in the group that might remember this model?"

www.facebook.com

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Group | This is a Grumman manufactures model that was produced at the model shop near Bethpage | Facebook

This is a Grumman manufactures model that was produced at the model shop near Bethpage. The story is, it was given to NAS Oceana when they received the first F-14A’s in the early to mid 1970’s. I...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1725652557065.jpg
    FB_IMG_1725652557065.jpg
    107.3 KB · Views: 113
  • FB_IMG_1725652559981.jpg
    FB_IMG_1725652559981.jpg
    105.2 KB · Views: 92
  • FB_IMG_1725652562398.jpg
    FB_IMG_1725652562398.jpg
    138.9 KB · Views: 105
Manuducati said:
Spotted on Fb:

"This is a Grumman manufactures model that was produced at the model shop near Bethpage. The story is, it was given to NAS Oceana when they received the first F-14A’s in the early to mid 1970’s. I was told that the model was sent back to the Grumman model shop to be repainted to the new (at the time) drab grey scheme. However due to the merger with Northrop it was never sent back to NAS Oceana. The model is large, 30” long. Is there anyone in the group that might remember this model?"

www.facebook.com

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Group | This is a Grumman manufactures model that was produced at the model shop near Bethpage | Facebook

This is a Grumman manufactures model that was produced at the model shop near Bethpage. The story is, it was given to NAS Oceana when they received the first F-14A’s in the early to mid 1970’s. I...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
Click to expand...
When was it sent back to be repainted? The flat grey paint scheme came in in 1983.

The merger with Northrop didn't happen until 1994, so the tale sounds a bit made-up to me... that it would take 10 years to repaint the model is not credible.

I suspect, rather, that both Grumman forgot the model was not theirs, and Oceana forgot they had ever had it.
 
NoBarrelRolls said:
While I was working on my blog post about the advanced F-14 versions, I stumble upon this picture that is part of the Cradle of Aviation Museum archive

Grumman.jpg


Seems to be part of a study for a rotodome equipped Tomcat, I keep wondering where the radar associated avionics will fit inside the Tomcat's fuselage.
Click to expand...
Now I do understand this model is the product of a joke but reflecting upon the fact that Grumman borrowed alot from the A-6 wing for the F-14's, could a "pylon-ed, plumbed and wired" wing be installed on the Tomcat in place of the original wing. I'm trying to brainstorm how a Beagle Tomcat would've looked like and a wing switch seemed more easy to do than, let's say, installing hardpoints and CFTs on the nacelles.
 
asVAL said:
Now I do understand this model is the product of a joke but reflecting upon the fact that Grumman borrowed alot from the A-6 wing for the F-14's, could a "pylon-ed, plumbed and wired" wing be installed on the Tomcat in place of the original wing. I'm trying to brainstorm how a Beagle Tomcat would've looked like and a wing switch seemed more easy to do than, let's say, installing hardpoints and CFTs on the nacelles.
Click to expand...
The much more likely option would be installing F-111B wings on the "Bombcat". Complete with large in-wing fuel tanks, two swiveling pylons, and attachment points for two more pylons at a fixed wing sweep angle.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The much more likely option would be installing F-111B wings on the "Bombcat". Complete with large in-wing fuel tanks, two swiveling pylons, and attachment points for two more pylons at a fixed wing sweep angle.
Click to expand...
That'd give the Bombcat something like a 75-80ft wingspan. F111B wingspan was 70ft, but the F-14 wing pivots were a lot farther outboard. As-is, Tomcats had a 64ft wingspan.

Does someone have the distance between wing pivots for F111 and F14?
 
I remember an Italian documentary on the Tomcat showing missles (I think AIM-7s) mounted on the inboard side of the engine nacelles
 
danwild6 said:
I remember an Italian documentary on the Tomcat showing missles (I think AIM-7s) mounted on the inboard side of the engine nacelles
Click to expand...
Inboard? Even with the old centerline conformal Sparrow carriage that will be a tough fit. Not including weapon separation issues: I could see the midbody fins grinding against each other, some breaking off in the process.
 
asVAL said:
Inboard? Even with the old centerline conformal Sparrow carriage that will be a tough fit. Not including weapon separation issues: I could see the midbody fins grinding against each other, some breaking off in the process.
Click to expand...
The engine nacelles are a lot farther apart than that, Sparrow wings are only 12" long on each side.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The engine nacelles are a lot farther apart than that, Sparrow wings are only 12" long on each side.
Click to expand...
Not to be a cynic but looking at the spacing on Sparrow-ed Tomcats I don't really see how another pair of Sparrow hanging off the "tunnel" wall is any good for weapon release margins. Unless that doc was about experimenting on substituting the centerline slots with nacelle hardpoints, otherwise I don't really see the point except confirming some clearance issues.
 
need to be remembered that the Aim54 was able to fit just fine side by side and that was 3 inches wider then the Aim7.

Plus it doesn't have to be side by side.

You can Alternate them like the F22 does and a few others which frees up alot of space.
 
asVAL said:
Not to be a cynic but looking at the spacing on Sparrow-ed Tomcats I don't really see how another pair of Sparrow hanging off the "tunnel" wall is any good for weapon release margins. Unless that doc was about experimenting on substituting the centerline slots with nacelle hardpoints, otherwise I don't really see the point except confirming some clearance issues.
Click to expand...
You set up the weapons system to release the nacelle missiles first. If those hang, you drop the centerline missiles.

Assuming that the leading two Sparrows do actually interfere with the ones on the nacelles. I'd need to fuss with a model.
 
Yeah I think that Italian documentary I was thinking of was showing this model though from a different angle I'd still love to find it.
 
If that Sparrow mount intrudes on neither the tunnel carriage clearance nor the fuel tank pylon then you can probably go with another outboard mount on either nacelles. So it becomes 4x Phoenix, 4x Sparrows, 4x Sidewinders and 2x fuel tanks. Nasty loadout. Phoenix shot from high and close in hunting with the Fox 1s.
 
I wonder if it would have been better in the end to have retained G-303-1 canted F-18 like vertical tails instead of the ventral fins as I believe it would have offered additional lift as it does on the F-117 as well as additional stealth benefits.
 
BlackBat242 said:
On an early mockup - before the change to two vertical stabilizers.

So lots of things that may have been looked at and abandoned.
Click to expand...

That or it was assigned to the worst pilot as shame:
“LEPER COLONY”

“He bails out again and he’ll be split a new one by gum!”

“That already happened Air Boss— that’s why the tail’s so short”

“Again?”

-from
THE REAL EVOLUTION OF TAIL-LESS FIGHTERS
 
Last edited:
asVAL said:
If that Sparrow mount intrudes on neither the tunnel carriage clearance nor the fuel tank pylon then you can probably go with another outboard mount on either nacelles. So it becomes 4x Phoenix, 4x Sparrows, 4x Sidewinders and 2x fuel tanks. Nasty loadout. Phoenix shot from high and close in hunting with the Fox 1s.
Click to expand...
I'd be more worried about landing gear clearance on the outboard of the nacelle.
 
Per my understanding, before F-14A/B Upgrade, there had been F-14A/B Multi-Mission Capability Avionics Program (MCAP/MMCAP, F-14++/F-14A++) which is a subset of F-14A/B Upgrade. There has been detailed info about the F-14A/B Upgrade, but there is no much details related to MCAP.

I would like to ask around for the "Knowledgeables" whether those details are allowed to be released such as the versions of the "Improved Avionics"; and what digital MIL-STD 1553B data buses are for - avionics bus, armament bus, etc.

I understand that the US Navy "used" MCAP, whereas some "used" MMCAP just as "Jane's". But I am not sure whether "F-14++" or "F-14A++" is the correct one. Personally, I am leaning towards "F-14A++", and I suspect that one of the reasons why F-14A+ was redesignated as F-14B.

Thanks in advance.

David S
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom