The Tomcat
Advancements during the Cold War in Soviet long-range patrol and bomber aircraft dictated a requirement for a fleet defense fighter that could engage high-altitude bombers from well beyond visual range. The solution from Grumman was the legendary F-14 Tomcat. F-14s could fight several adversaries more than 90 miles away thanks to its long-range AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles. Because carrying this large weaponry required an interceptor to move quickly, Grumman created the F-14’s incredibly efficient variable-sweep wing, which allowed it to fly at a range of airspeeds.
In August 1981, the F-14 engaged in combat for the first time, bringing down two Su-22 fighters from Libya over the Gulf of Sidra. It served extensively in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gulf War. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, an evolutionary upgrade to the F/A-18C/D, took the place of the last F-14D Super Tomcat, which retired from active service in 2006.
F-14 Tomcat VS F/A-18 Hornet
John Tartaglione, former US Navy F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet pilot, recalls on Quora:
‘I have over 1,000 hours in the Tomcat and perhaps 450 hours in the Hornet. My Tomcat time was largely operational. My Hornet time was all in flight testing. Some days I would fly one bird in the morning and another one in the afternoon or evening. The Hornet was newer, and newer is often better. I could only pull 6.5g in the Tomcat, but in the Hornet when I burnt my fuel down a bit, I could go to 7.5g.
‘The F404 engine in the Hornet was far better than the TF30 we had in the Tomcat, and I never had to worry about a compressor stall with the F404. I should know, as I did a lot of the initial out-of-control flight test on the 2-seat Hornet, where I would intentionally depart the airplane from controlled flight. The engines never even hiccupped at all.’
The TF30 engine
A little-known fact is that the TF30 engine in the F-14 Tomcat was never intended for the production Tomcat. It was an existing engine with some modifications made to enable it to fit and work in the F-14 to support flight testing of the airframe, avionics, weapons systems, etc. on a short schedule.
Tartaglione explains;
‘I believe the 1st 60 or so birds were supposed to have the TF30 and then the F-100. But the budget axe nixed all of those plans—sadly. IT would have been an even more formidable machine, but it just was not meant to be.
‘The TF30s were prone to compressor stalls. However, the loss of 1 engine did not automatically lead to the loss of the aircraft. If I was at a high angle of attack, the loss of 1 engine could result in a rapid loss of control. If I was at a low altitude and a high AOA—i.e., off of the catapult—if action was not taken immediately, the yaw rate would build up quickly and the aircraft would depart controlled flight. An aircrew was lost off of USS Nimitz in 1981 because of this very situation.’
Interestingly, a lot of the pre-cancellation F-14 engine development transferred to the then-future F100 engine, which, with its General Electric-equivalent F110, has had decades of success worldwide in the F-16 and F-15 aircraft.
F/A-18 in peacetime, F-14 in combat
Tartaglione adds;
‘The Hornet was far more nimble than the Tomcat, but the Hornet did not have the range, endurance or speed of a Tomcat. Each was designed for a different mission. I would often say to colleagues that in peacetime, I loved the agile Hornet. But were I to go into combat, I would much rather be in the Tomcat. My RIO and I were a great team. Having that extra set of eyes was invaluable. One afternoon, my wingman and I engaged a pair of Libyan MiG-23s. During the engagement, I lost sight of one of the MIGs. While I kept my eyes on the Libyan in front of me, I knew my RIO could help me to get my eyes on the other MIG. That extra set of eyes is invaluable when all hell breaks loose.’
He concludes;
‘The F-14 is far from perfect, but there is none better on the planet. And it was a dream to fly the magnificent Tomcat—as flawed as they were.’
Photo by U.S. Navy
