I was wondering if anyone has any more information on the version of the Tomcat II shown in the image below? It's obviously stealthier than the standard version and has inlets similar to the F-22, but I was wondering if anyone here has all three views or any renderings or pictures of models of the version shown in the image. This is from an article in Flight Journal comparing the Super Hornet and the Tomcat.
The version you have posted does have several similarities with the ST-21 F-14 Tomcat. Could this varient, if it is one, have Thrust Vectoring tech. and the upgraded fire control systems as well ?
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1664859856936.jpg
    FB_IMG_1664859856936.jpg
    206.9 KB · Views: 714
Re F-14X, from FY1975 Authorization for Military Procurement

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5093)_-_F-14X_VFX[1].jpg
    FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5093)_-_F-14X_VFX[1].jpg
    256.7 KB · Views: 335
  • FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5094)_-_F-14X_VFX[1].jpg
    FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5094)_-_F-14X_VFX[1].jpg
    337.7 KB · Views: 196
  • FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5095)_-_F-14X_VFX[1].jpg
    FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5095)_-_F-14X_VFX[1].jpg
    358.7 KB · Views: 167
  • FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5099)_-_LWF,_F-15N,_F-14X[1].jpg
    FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5099)_-_LWF,_F-15N,_F-14X[1].jpg
    332.7 KB · Views: 166
  • FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5100)_-_F-14X_VFX[1].jpg
    FY1975_Authorization_for_Militar_Procurement_(Page_5100)_-_F-14X_VFX[1].jpg
    343.5 KB · Views: 459
So, I've been doing some reading, and I have what may be a stupid question. Would it have been possible to fit the Tomcat with either caret inlets or an F-22 style diverter inlet in order to eliminate the variable intake ramps on the engines? Just kinda musing on ways to possibly reduce the RCS of the Super Cat if it had been selected over the Super Bug. I guess along with that, could it also have been possible to go with an S-shaped inlet to keep as much radar signal as possible away from the turbine blades? My gut feeling says that would have been harder to achieve given the inlet design, but figured it was worth asking
 
Last edited:
So, I've been doing some reading, and I have what may be a stupid question. Would it have been possible to fit the Tomcat with either caret inlets or an F-22 style diverter inlet in order to eliminate the variable intake ramps on the engines? Just kinda musing on ways to possibly reduce the RCS of the Super Cat if it had been selected over the Super Bug. I guess along with that, could it also have been possible to go with an S-shaped inlet to keep as much radar signal as possible away from the turbine blades? My gut feeling says that would have been harder to achieve given the inlet design, but figured it was worth asking
For the desired top speed of the F-14, you need the variable inlet ramps. What you could do is a RCS vane set-up in each inlet, much as Boeing had in the inlet of their proposed F-32 design. Since Northrop has experience at building RAM into composite inlets, that could also be applied here. If you could move some of the external scoops into the inlets downstream of the vaned RCS diffuser, you could reduce external RCS further. ISTR that this was done on the Super Hornet.
 
From the Super Hornet thread.

CBO Report on Super Hornet Availability​


"Super Hornets Have Aged More Adversely Than Their Predecessors"

b2 - "No surprise to me and I even know why...predicted and talked about it 15 and even 20 years ago now in here and a lot of other places...
Fatigue life (service life) is a direct correlation to flight hours/cycles and the "loads" (weight/g-forces) applied.
The SuperHornet has been the sole overhead and organic mission tanker for the CVN fleet since Dec of 2009. In the 3,4 or 5 wet tanker configuration the aircraft decrements its decrements its fatigue life expended at a much higher rate. Since at any one time during daily carrier operation at least 1/3 of all SuperHornets "on the roof" are configured as flight/mission essential overhead (launch/recovery) tankers, the Fatigue life expended would obviously be much greater than what ocoored with the F-18 A-D legacy Strike Fighters... Even "Karnac" could have predicted this.....
Of course we've known that all along yet we divested the S-3B 10 years early and now are in a rush to get the savior out there...The StingRay. You know the drone aircraft supposed to be out in 2019 (as per AirBoss in 2016) that the requirement says will have 15K give at 500nm from "mother"? Hope StingRay works in this all-Boeing scheme to keep the F-35 from being the next Navy airwing tanker....LOL,
Not to be cynical but dont bet on it..."
b2 comment, have previously seen commentated that the Navy badly conceived decision to scrap its dedicated tankers on the alter of the savings to be gained by fleet commonality, with the SH forced to take on the tanker role which it was not designed for, did see one a claim that ~30% of all SH flight ops were as a tanker and as said the heavy lifting degraded SH fatigue life quickly, costing the Navy in $billions in necessary re-work and Congress criticism in shortage of numbers.

Grumman ex employees and Super Tomcat 21 advocates must have a grin reading that.
What if the Navy went for the ST-21 - with its greater range - instead?

Not sure the ST-21 could have been used as a tanker: the usual EFT under the engine nacelles are very close to the ventral strakes, even the shoulder stations (now 'wet' with 300 Gal fuel tanks) are relatively close to the horizontal tail. At least with the usual refueling pods. Maybe the one with a swinging arm as tested under IRIAF F-4 Phantom?

And if it couldn't have been done (or at least economically interesting) => S-3 Vikings retained in the Air Wing => saving a lot of problems.

Your thoughts?
 

Attachments

  • Tomcat 21.png
    Tomcat 21.png
    813.7 KB · Views: 482
  • EW3OUfaXsAAUy6-.jpg
    EW3OUfaXsAAUy6-.jpg
    38 KB · Views: 467

Navy Sets F-14 Reengining Schedule​

SEPTEMBER 211981
Navy Sets F-14 Reengining Schedule
Washington—The Navy is planning to begin reengining production Grumman F-14 air-superiority fighters with the General Electric F101 DFE derivative fighter engine in Fiscal 1987 and is considering extending the Tomcat's fuselage with a 30-in. plug to increase fuel capacity.
The fighter with these modifications and other improvements to the weapons control system would be officially known as the F-14D. Within the Navy it is being referred to as the Super Tomcat.
With Defense Dept, backing, the Navy plans to procure 24 squadrons of F-14s with at least 15 squadrons modified to F-14D models, starting with aircraft No. 606 on the production line. This would provide 160-175 aircraft configured as F-14Ds, and with attrition, pipeline and training aircraft the number could grow to 234.
The service already has made budget provisions for radar changes in the F-14D to digitize the Hughes AWG-9 radar and provide additional modes—and adaptive scan capability and the capability to see through clutter while in the track mode. Electronic counter countermeasures will be added, including seethrough jamming with low sidelobe antennas.
New computers will be placed in F-14D aircraft along with 1553B multiplex buses, a new stores management system, and new controls and displays. A new digital inertial platform also is a part of the avionics package.
Funding for reengining with the F101 has not yet been provided in the five-year defense plan, but there is a plan to do this among high-level Navy officers, who believe that the savings in engine maintenance and fuel based on life-cycle costing will provide the money to pay for reengining.
Service officials calculate that each F101 engine will cost approximately $3 million, compared with approximately $2 million for each Pratt & Whitney TF30 now in the F-14A models.
in the flight tests now being conducted from Long Island, N. Y., by Grumman test pilots, the Super Tomcat lands with about 1,400 lb. more fuel than the chase F-14A with the TF30 engines, despite numerous afterburner lights not accomplished by the chase aircraft.
Grumman will conduct 21 test flights and the Navy three. The company had completed 12 tests with the Super Tomcat in mid-August, according to Navy officers, and in general terms had discovered approximately a 35% thrust increase with the F101 throughout the flight envelope, with the increase in thrust at the military power level approximately 30% above that of the TF30.
The Navy often operates the F-14As off aircraft carrier catapults using the afterburner and has encountered afterburner stall lighting problems.
Afterburner lighting is significantly improved with the F101, Navy officials said.
During the flight tests with the F-14 configured with the F101, the aircraft completes intermediate climbs without afterburner, while the chase F-14A must use afterburner. The chase aircraft often runs low on fuel before the flight is completed.
The F101-equipped fighter has performed low-speed acceleration from 150 kt. at 25,000 ft. to Mach 1.5 and usually has left the chase aircraft 5-6 naut. mi. behind. In the test program acceleration has been limited mostly to Mach 1.6, with a single test to Mach 2.
Installation of the engines in the Super Tomcat requires no engine trim, according to Navy officers, which is significant in terms of maintenance savings when installing the 26,00029,000-lb.-thrust-class F101 engines.
The 30-in. fuselage plug would permit another 2,000 lb. of fuel to be added to the 19,600 lb. usually carried by the F-14. The plug, according to Navy officers, may actually improve the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft, “but the tactical advantage is the real boost, permitting loiter on combat air patrols for another 22-25 min. with two AIM-7FS, two AIM-9s and two Phoenix missiles.”
With the F-14 As in the fleet it takes approximately 4,400 lb. of fuel per hour on station and requires approximately 2,500 lb. of fuel from takeoff to the edge of the inner defense zone—about 75 naut. mi.—and another 2,000 lb. to the battle group’s outer defense zone—150-225 naut. mi.
The Navy plans to continue production of the F-14 through Fiscal 1994 as it moves toward an inventory objective of 845 aircraft. The service plans to begin in Fiscal 1984 converting A model F-14s to C models with radar improvements, such as medium pulse rate frequency to minimize jamming and provide better resolution.
Computer memory will be expanded and programmable signal processing will be added, as will a target identification system based on software and a television camera system.
The Model C will include upgrades to the TF30-414A engine, improving durability. The aircraft also will be outfitted to handle the Hughes AIM-54C Phoenix missile—a digitized missile. The AIM-54C also has an improved range capability, but the Navy wants a longer-range Phoenix beyond the AIM-54C to take full advantage of the F-14’s 125-naut.-mi. radar range.
 
First time reading about a Fuselage plug AND a new C model totally unrelated to the 70s B and C models. Fascinating.
 
This video about Super Tomcat 21 was posted on YouTube. The following comment about the video was posted below, with a follow-up comment from the same person.

Has anyone else heard about this proof-of-concept Tomcat upgrade?

The Ultimate Tomcat! Super Tomcat 21 and 22 | Inspired from the F106 Delta Dart and F-18 HARV
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfxVneeVyKM&lc=Ugwz9tjLrDqcUDdWLpN4AaABAg.9TLfGGA5EaU9l-GgyG-eja



First comment post.
Great Video very Well Researched! There are a couple of little gaps. Grumman did BUILD a Proof of Concept ST21 around 1993-94 that had Vector Thrust Nozzles a First Generation Glass Cockpit replacing all the Analog Dials and the Upgraded Radar System but it did not have the Stealth Coating or Internal Bay but plans were to Retrofit the Proof of Concept Aircraft during Phase Two BUT the Clinton Administration WENT BACK on its word about Extending the F14 Program and giving the go ahead to the F/A18 Super Hornet a MUCH LESSER PLANE! The F14 was KILLING was a POLITICAL NOT a Military Decision! I served in the US Navy in Aviation and meet many Tomcat Pilots that were transitioned to Super Hornets in 2005-06 and EVERY SINGLE one of them has told me the same thing that the TOMCAT was a MUCH BETTER Fighter but since the Tomcat required more Maintenance Hours per Hours Flown which boils down to Money and Politics! The Super Hornet was NEVER meant to be last this long just like the F35 is supposed to be a Short Term Solution till the 6th Generation Fighter is Ready but with Budgetary Cutbacks and Cost Over-Runs that are Very Likely to Happen the Navy might not be able to see a 6th Generation Fighter and will probably be Stuck with the Super Hornet, F35 or whatever LOW COST Option Pop-Up between Now and THEN!

Follow-up comment post.
Back in 1994-95 Grumman took a F-14A airframe and they refitted it building a new whole new Aircraft that had Glass cockpit, internal weapon's bay, NEW Engines that allowed Super Cruise of Mach 1.3-1.4 depending who was talking about it, and a crude vector Thrust system that was not as refine as the YF-22 or YF23 since this Aircraft was put together to show that the Upgrade could be done. The majority of the information I learned from a Family member that was a F14 pilot and a few maintainers that I worked with during my time in the Navy (2003-09) they saw the plane at NAS Pax River. I only saw couple of pictures of the Aircraft that one of the Senior Enlisted Maintainers took when the bird was outside and the plane was painted in a VERY Distinct Dark Black/Gray Similar to the F-117. I was never told why it was painted that color. The plane was built on a Shoe String budget to show what it could be done with the promise that if the it could be delivered Grumman would have a contract to build the new aircraft but at the last minute the Clinton Administration went back on the deal and the aircraft was either destroyed or put in storage somewhere. The F15 program has been doing all sort upgrades to the Airframe and right now we have a 4.5 PLUS F-15 Stealth Eagle that has longer range, carry more weapons, stealthy coating to reduce radar cross section and super cruise. If the Clinton Administration had not SCREWED OVER Grumman on the Upgrade F-14 Program and building of the New Airframe the Navy would be flying a Stealthy Long Range Air Superiority and Multi Role Aircraft that puts the F/A-18 D/E and F-35B to shame!
 
the point of his post isn't the video but the supposed comment of a first hand witness of a stealthed f-14 mockup with internal weapon bay and asked if anyone here can verify.
 
Always add small details for credibility (c)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230506_153950_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20230506_153950_Chrome.jpg
    153.6 KB · Views: 260
I suppose the said "shoestring" Tomcat transforms into Guardian and Battloid modes too. Right, guv'nuh!

IYKYK
 
Maybe someone at some point saw a real model of the ASF-14 made to try to sell the idea to the DoD but then the story was "misremembered" and model became full-scale mockup and then full-scale mockup became a real prototype.
 
Maybe someone at some point saw a real model of the ASF-14 made to try to sell the idea to the DoD but then the story was "misremembered" and model became full-scale mockup and then full-scale mockup became a real prototype.
Or significantly more likely it’s utter rubbish invented out from thin-air just for the laughs/ giggles. Most likely never intended to be taken seriously or to be mistaken for reality/ actual history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From this book.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 246
  • 0.png
    0.png
    616.2 KB · Views: 251
From this book.
Ahem:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...tion-alternatives-to-the-f-14.229/#post-38961

(2009....)

f-14-mockup-single-tail-jpg.53576
 
Only plus pilot,I am kidding with you my dear PaulMM,but I was focus on lower one,so I shoot them
in total.
 
Regarding the mockup with the single fin was there any walkaround pictures of it as the only one I have seen is the front 3 quarters view. Would prefer pictures rather than drawings.

Regards
Robert
 
Did we talk about this stuff before ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    769.2 KB · Views: 274
  • 0.png
    0.png
    325.7 KB · Views: 285
Hi, I found this image on Reddit, this thread, and one of the comments mentions another image with a twin LAU-7 mount for 2 AIM-9 and 2 AIM-120. Does anyone have this image?
 

Attachments

  • 198_92201_642688.jpg.9dc6ca591b928c4eeb15c3a29c72f987.jpg
    198_92201_642688.jpg.9dc6ca591b928c4eeb15c3a29c72f987.jpg
    217.3 KB · Views: 160
Last edited by a moderator:

Attachments

  • 11328461705_c08a4da5e4_b.jpg
    11328461705_c08a4da5e4_b.jpg
    130.4 KB · Views: 244
As shown in the picture, second LAU-7 was installed on the LAU-93.
Not exactly. As pictured, the second LAU-7 was mounted on side of the Gloss Gull Gray one-of-a-kind adapter section. The LAU-93 was attached to the bottom of the adapter (which to my knowledge, was not nomenclatured). Only a left side [mockup] adapter was fabricated, (by Grumman Pt. Mugu Operations), and was constructed of laminated wood. It was not flyable. It was destroyed during the the shutdown of F-14 facilities during program termination and closeout activities at Pt. Mugu during 2005-6.

Addition of this capability would required additional station decoders, and modifications to the AWG-9, AWG-15F and CSDC (at a minimum) plus wiring to implement the [hypothetical] 1C and 8C stations.
 
Not exactly. As pictured, the second LAU-7 was mounted on side of the Gloss Gull Gray one-of-a-kind adapter section. The LAU-93 was attached to the bottom of the adapter (which to my knowledge, was not nomenclatured). Only a left side [mockup] adapter was fabricated, (by Grumman Pt. Mugu Operations), and was constructed of laminated wood. It was not flyable. It was destroyed during the the shutdown of F-14 facilities during program termination and closeout activities at Pt. Mugu during 2005-6.

Addition of this capability would required additional station decoders, and modifications to the AWG-9, AWG-15F and CSDC (at a minimum) plus wiring to implement the [hypothetical] 1C and 8C stations.
Thank your for your correction.

May I ask you 2 questions about F-14 which I never found the answer?

1. There is a square part at the bottom where the air intake connects to the fuselage(I marked in red). This part has never appeared on other aircraft, such as the F-15. Wouldn't such a design increase drag during flight?

2. Regarding the HUD combination mirror. Because of external light refraction problems, Grumman removed the HUD combination mirror on the F-14A. Why did the HUD on the F-14B(U) and F-14D have independent combination mirrors? In addition, the HUD installation position of the F-14B(U) and F-14D was so far back that the armrest on the pilot canopy had to be removed. Was there no way to move the HUD installation position forward?
 

Attachments

  • 90218-3f612789106f1f847a73c09c4174b4d5.jpg
    90218-3f612789106f1f847a73c09c4174b4d5.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 213
  • d17f6b5beb3c045ab5e4539db099d34a.jpg
    d17f6b5beb3c045ab5e4539db099d34a.jpg
    316.9 KB · Views: 208
Good questions.

1. There is a square part at the bottom where the air intake connects to the fuselage(I marked in red). This part has never appeared on other aircraft, such as the F-15. Wouldn't such a design increase drag during flight?
This is a spring-loaded flipper door for the ECS Ram Air Inlet. It is hinged at the bottom and is opened by air loads in flight. On the ground, the Ram Air Door stays closed and a fan sucks air thought the [grilled] ECS Aux Air Inlet to prevent FOD ingestion.

The MiG-29 later adopted the same strategy to prevent engine FOD ingestion during ground operations.

2. Regarding the HUD combination mirror. Because of external light refraction problems, Grumman removed the HUD combination mirror on the F-14A. Why did the HUD on the F-14B(U) and F-14D have independent combination mirrors? In addition, the HUD installation position of the F-14B(U) and F-14D was so far back that the armrest on the pilot canopy had to be removed. Was there no way to move the HUD installation position forward?
"the armrest handgrip on the pilot canopy windshield frame."

The HUD on the F-14A/B was designed specifically for the the Tomcat as part of the Vertical Display Indicator Group (VDIG).

The HUD on the F-14D (along with the MFDs, DPs, SMS etc) was hardware that was originally designed and for and used in the F-18A and its cockpit. (And was to be also used on the A-6F for cost saving.) As such, the space under the windshield of the F-14 (front to back) was a little shorter than that of the F-18, so the combiner glass assembly intruded into the cockpit slightly*. The handgrip on the windshield frame was removed so you didn't break the combiner glass(es) when installing or removing the HUD.

The discussion is about the same for the F-14B Upgrade which removed the old HUD from the VDIG chassis and replaced it with the existing Sparrowhawk HUD (creating the VDIG/R unit).

So, in both cases, it was much cheaper to use the off-the-shelf hardware that was already qualified than to modify the HUDs to remove the combiners. (IIRC, the center windshield glass did have to be replaced for HUD compatibility - but I may be misremembering.)

*there is also some criticality about the fore/aft placement of the HUD "eyebox", that area where the pilot's eyes have to be for best viewing of the HUD imagery (this being a fixed position aft of the combiners) - but discussion of that is above my paygrade.

Here is an advert for a predecessor Smiths HUD to that used in the F-18. As you can see, there is more to the unit than just the combiner glass and up-front control that you have to stuff under the windshield!
 

Attachments

  • ECS Ram Door.jpg
    ECS Ram Door.jpg
    100.1 KB · Views: 198
  • SI HUD.jpg
    SI HUD.jpg
    273 KB · Views: 190

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom