Talk:Grumman F-14 Tomcat

Iranian section

I have a question about the following lines in the article: Most Iranian F-14 pilots and technicians trained in the U.S. fled Iran, fearing their association with the Shah's regime, and their time in the U.S. would endanger them. Only two pilots out of the original flight class chose to remain in Iran. Their fears proved correct, and many of the original Iranian F-14 crews and technicians who remained were jailed or murdered by the new regime. Eventually, several F-14 pilots who were jailed were released when war broke out with Iraq. My main question is if only two pilots stayed, how can "many of the original" crews have been murdered or jailed? How many could there have been? This probably came from the Cooper source, can someone clarify this? --Dual Freq 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer: if you are interested about Iranian F-14s (and air combat in general) vist ACIG.org. There aren't many reliable sources about Iran's F-14s due to a lack of credible sources, you would be amazed at the wealth of knowledge, photographs out there and the etiquette of the contributors at ACIG. I'm not sure but I get the slight feeling that some here do not respect Tom Cooper's insight on Iran's F-14 fleet. I would suggest you ask him yourself. I found early on that popular sources lack any clear insight on Iran's Air Force. I also found that most western sources don't want to believe that Iran could even fly the plane let alone use the AIM-54 to score a kill, even if their pilots were trained by the US Navy. Even less want to believe that Iran scored more air victories with the F-14 than their US Navy counterparts. The USN had far fewer oppurtunities, obviously.

I think there is a reason Iran continues to maintain, fly and update their F-14 fleet at great expense and it is not because of the "4 or 5" kills that this wiki article cites. Just try to balance both points of view; Iran's F-14s were largely ineffective in air-to-air engagements and simply used as mini-AWACs or Iran's F-14s were integral to the defense of vital locations and population centers from Iraqi incursions and are still operated with great care and expense. Do not simply go by the quantity of sources that say one thing, as they will often just cite eachother.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.61.73 on 01:26, November 20, 2006 (UTC)

Cooper says 100+ kills and 4 to 6 kills with one missile. That is not credible. See talk archives. --Dual Freq 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Credible according to who, the "western sources" who attribute "4 or 5" kills to IRIAF's F-14? Saddam's IrAF had 700 planes by war's end, none of these had BVR capabilities or a radar equivalent to the AWG-9. I will choose a published account over the "4 or 5" theory. just my 2 cents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.61.73 (talk • contribs)

If Iran only claimed some 35-45 kills why would anyone credit them with many more than 45? Why would Iranian pilots or Iran state less kills than they acually had? Also, the idea of four fighters being shot down by a single AIM54A is nonsense when you consider the distance between each aircraft in flight. Not even a formation change would result in all four aircraft being close enough to be destroyed by the blast of a single AIM54A. -Interested Reader (68.118.180.187)

It was three IrAF MiG-23BN that were indirectly 'shotdown' with this hit. The reason for its distructive power was not the AIM-54 but the fact that when the lead aircraft in the formation was hit the bomb load it was carrying (on strike to Ahwaz) was detonated. This caused debris to hit the rest of the strike package (either directly or being forced to flying through it). The last MiG-23BN (#4) was spotted leaving the area trailing smoke. The Iranian pilots only 'officially' claimed 3 as the fate of the #4 was not known. The strike package was said to be in tight formation (possibly to hide their number) and engaged at 23nm out. Tom Cooper i believe interviewed the pilots of this mission which took place 7th Jan '81. It was one of two multiple shoot down incidents scored by IRIAF F-14 pilots/RIOs during the Iran-Iraq war. Remember the pilots were the same Shah's Eagles that were held in so high regard by the USAF (having conducted mixed crew missions) and the PAF (who around this time were hopping around the middle east training/flying with many AFs) before the war. Constant combat operations and foolish levels of bravardo made them very proficient by the end of the war. Just to be clear - there has never been a 4 kill by 1 AIM-54 claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.198.20 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I have tried to contact the author of the website with his "official" IRIAF claim of 35-45 (which in itself seems very unspecific for an offical claim). I can find no reference for this else where (has anyone else spotted it?). I am currently trying to find out via the Iranian embassy if an official figure was ever released (i do not believe it ever has been). The question then is, what is the origin of this number? Did someone just make it up? The originating website in its references does not list one that you can relate this number back to.

I report by ACIG sites stuff like this: At around 10:40hrs, at 12.200m (40,000ft) and only eight kilometres from the Iranian border, two IRIAF F-4Es underway to attack targets in Iraq, were approaching a Boeing 707-3J9C-tanker escorted by two F-14As, led by Capt. M. Khosrodad. The Tomcats were flying a race-track pattern around the tanker, with one of them continuously scanning the airspace over the front by its AWG-9 radar. Around 10:45hrs, just as the first Phantom started receiving fuel from the tanker, the radar onboard Capt. Khosrodad’s F-14A acquired several Iraqi fighters apparently closing from the west and well within the range of the AIM-54 missiles of his Tomcat.

Despite the standing order not to fly into the Iraqi airspace or leave the tanker unprotected, Capt. Khosrodad decided to attack: he ordered his wingman, whose aircraft was only armed with Sparrows and Sidewinders, to remain with the Boeing and the two Phantoms; then Capt. Khosrodad headed off west.

Working swiftly, he and his RIO fired two AIM-54As and two AIM-7E-4s in rapid succession, and both were most pleased when they noticed that at least two of their radar contacts disappeared within seconds of each other: apparently, so they thought, they had just spoiled ‘another Iraqi air raid’….or so they thought.

Meanwhile, although their radar net was supposedly able to track aircraft up to 200km deep inside the Iranian airspace, the Iraqis were completely unaware of the two Iranian Tomcats nearby. The first sign of something going wrong for Capt. Mousa was when the pilot of one of the escorting Mi-8s – which was flying a couple of kilometres ahead - shouted out a warning that no less than three of escorting fighters (or what was left of them) were falling out of the skies in flame to their left and right, and that the helicopter carrying generals should make a hard right turn in order to evade the debris.

Seconds later, also one of the MiG-pilots started shouting warnings, saying that they had no clue what had attacked them, but “strongly” suggested the Mi-8 with the generals onboard to leave the area and immediately turn west! Seeing the wreckage of the downed MiGs falling towards him, Capt. Mousa was in a complete agreement with his colleagues, so he turned around, and the trip to the front by Maj. Gen. Rashid and Lt. Gen. Mohsen was over before it really started.

So this example, believe or not in it ( [1] ) is in cleary and definite contrast vs the claim '4-5fighters' made in West. Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling? But there is a reason also for the low number declared by Iranians as well: Cooper says, IRIAF was always put on trial because his men were too westernized, so hated by regime. In many occasions, flak of Army was taken on charge about these success: better the army than ariforce, do you understand me? --Stefanomencarelli 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole point I believe that is being made here is this: It is just a story that someone is telling on a website until there is a way to verify the claim. You say Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling?, but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference. --Chuck Sirloin 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See below---Stefanomencarelli 16:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

USAF considered purchasing the F-14

The US Air Force was looking for to replace the F-106 Delta Dart, {the plane used to guard the USA against bomber attack], in the early 1980s. The USAF briefly considered the F-14 Tomcat, but, although the Air Force had adopted Navy planes in the past, i.e. the A-1 Skyraider and the A-7 Corsair II; the F-15 Eagle was selected to replace the F-106. It was felt the F-14 was too expensive to be picked, ($38 million for the Tomcat vs. $29.9 million for the Eagle).204.80.61.10 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Shah's support

It is reported that some significant amount of the funding for the development of the Tomcat program was from Iran during the reign of the Shah through the National State owned Bank E Melli. This has also been confirmed by former IIAF pilots of the Shahs reign. More info on the matter available at Official IIAF Webpage.

This was placed in the introduction today. Given that the source is billed as the official IIAF website (with no cite to the quoted article), I feel it needs review. It certainly doesn't go in the Introduction, especially as written, but I don't know where else to put it either. Most likely, somewhere on the History of the F-14 Tomcat page.

As far as to the validity of the reports, is this talking about something beyond Iran's payments for the F-14 they purchased? It makes it sound like they were partners in the development, which I have never heard about. It is common in US programs now, such as the JSF and the P-8, but not so much back then, to my knowledge.

Any comments/suggestions? - BillCJ 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is from a US source as reported by J Baugher [2]:

In August of 1973, the Shah selected the F-14 Tomcat, and the sale was approved by the US government in November of 1973. The initial order signed in January of 1974 covered 30 Tomcats, but in June 50 more were added to the contract. At the same time, the Iranian government-owned Melli Bank agreed to loan Grumman $75 million to partially make up for a US government loan of $200 to Grumman which had just been cancelled. This loan enabled Grumman to secure a further loan of $125 from a consortium of American banks, ensuring at least for the moment that the F-14 program would continue.

So I wouldn't say a significant amount of funding was for the "development" of the Tomcat as that the initial nonrecurring development was paid for by the US Navy as by the time the additional funding was needed, the Tomcat was already in production (around Lot 5 or 6 according to excellent oral history of George Spangenburg) and suffering from cost escalation and need to fix all manner of issues witht he Tomcat that threatened to drive Grumman under hence the need for the loan. At any rate, they were certainly NOT partners in the development as evidenced by the example of today's JSF or the Kuwaiti support of the improved engines for their A-4KU and later F/A-18C aircraft. They bought Tomcats right off the production line with only minor differences between their versions and the then current Navy model. Good question though. HJ 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Survivors - Organization, Extra Information?

How should it be organized? Alphabetical order by museum, location? By BuNos? Kyuusei 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the Quonset Air Museum in Rhode Island has a F-14A which is freshly painted in VF-101 Grim Reapers colors.

Red Storm Rising

I'm not questiong that the F-14 is in Red Storm Rising, as I remember it being there when I read the book years ago. But Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists. Per WP:AIR/PC#Popular culture, Pop culture sections should be limited to the appearances are especially notable. To be included, the notability must be proven by verifiable sources. Without sources, the statements regarding the F-14 and its importance in the book are original research, and therefore not permitted in Wikipedia. I don't doubt that Red Storm Rising is used in military schools, but the book covers many other types of aircraft and varios other equipmant. Claiming the F-14's appearence in the book as "especially notable" requires verifiable soureces. PIf those can be provided to the satisfaction of other editors here, and a consensus reached to include the book, then fine. Until then, please refrain from inserting the appearance. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranian air forces section label

I've renamed this section from "Imperial Iranian Air Force / Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force" to "Iranian air forces" (note lower case on air forces). I did this before and got a knee jerk revert calling it vandalism. I think it is unneccassary and unencyclopedic to have the longer section label. -Fnlayson 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, because the Military of Iran also has the IRGC Air Force, which does not operate the F-14. --Eurocopter tigre 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• The text in the section lists Imperial Iranian Air Force and Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, so I don't see that as a problem. It's not trying to say all Iranian air forces. -Fnlayson 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tomcats being shredded

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/02/shredding.tomcats.ap/index.html

Pentagon shreds F-14s to keep parts from enemies

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A mechanical monster grabs the F-14 fighter jet and chews through one wing and then another, ripping off the Tomcat's appendages before moving on to its guts. Finally, all that's left is a pile of shredded rubble -- like scraps from a Thanksgiving turkey.
...

drh 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. This has been added to the article today. Please don't copy & paste large parts of articles. That can be a copyright violation. -Fnlayson 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

PW Engines

The Pratt and Whitney F100/F401 engines were developed for the Air Force and Navy team until the Navy dropped out according to my F-15 Davies book. They were slightly different versions of the same engine. One version had slightly better performance and the other was easier to maintain, I think. Anyway, what the article says now matches my reference. -Fnlayson 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Mike SPick's books, which is really in depth, the F100 and F401 share a similar core, but are different engines. He refers to them as cousins rather than brothers. Both engines were sized to meet different requirements (what exactly is not stated). GLad you're OK with my rewrite! - BillCJ 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My book says the F100/F401 contract was awarded to P&W in 1970. The AF and Navy formed a Joint Engine Project Office to coordinate their different requirements. The Navy wanted more thrust and the AF wanted less frequent overhauls and could deal with less thrust. Testing ran a few months late due to a turbine failure. The Navy cut back its order and problems arose. The Navy canceled its order for F401s in 1971 and dropped out. With the Navy requirements gone, they switched to an advanced aerodynamic compressor (was too heavy for Navy). The new compressor handled performance problems and deficiencies. -Fnlayson 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good details of the brief report i have heard. If your source is usable, you might consider adding it to the Pratt & Whitney F100 page. There is really not much history on the engine as a whole there, nor do we even have a redirect on the F401. FOr now, we could put a mention of it on the F100 page. - BillCJ 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent censorship

I have restored all the three links to Acig site. Obviousely, all these were deleted because some guys are still acting thinking that all the stuff not ufficial by US Navy is no good enough to be here. Regardless that these materials are widely discussed in acig and other sites, regardless that T.Cooper has written several books about, regardless that the logic simply suggest, that seen F-14s are still in service NOW, then 20 years ago obviousely Iran had still some in flyable conditions. BUT, since wikipedia has 'decided' that Cooper don't speak true, then he is cutted out from any articles about F-14 or whetever else. I find this simply unaccetable, but this is not my problem, is of those have still and still decided to ignore all Cooper had wrote about

Considering the circumstances under which the F-14s and their crews had to operate in Iran during the eight-years long war against Iraq - without any support from AWACS or AEW aircraft, without even a proper support from the GCI, against an enemy that was repeatedly introducing new and more capable fighters, radars, weapons and ECM-systems in combat and was supported by no less but three "superpowers" (USSR, France, and the USA), with their crews being permanently under heavy pressure from the regime in Tehran - it is actually a pure mirracle that an aircraft as complex as the Tomcat remained operational at all. That it proved as successful in combat, and is still the premier fighter in the Iranian Air Force, is a fact beyond what most of the observers world-wide are able to comprehend, but also a result of sternous efforts of IRIAF personnel and immense investment of the Iranian economy.

(from acig site, Persian cat's article). --Stefanomencarelli 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• The EL section was bloated and another user cleared off a lot of links, not just Iranian ones. So forget the not-US Navy junk. -Fnlayson 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not US junk? And when, of grace, will be considered by the grate Wikipedia that over US exists also other sources 'reliable' about something? Here is made what needs to an enciclopedic article or just to what US Gov. liked to be done?--Stefanomencarelli 22:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I can not understand what you just wrote. I removed a whole lot of links from bloated EL section. I certainly did not remove just the Iranian ones. The ACIG site does not do a very good job of asserting its verifiability though. --Chuck Sirloin 13:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's how it looked to me. You just cleared out a lot of links. WP:EL does not require verifiability for links, but it is a good idea to follow. References have to be of course. -Fnlayson 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart that i don't found 'fair' that someone choises to prone some links, and casually, all acig. i would inform you that if there is a site that has the capabilities to give good info and also discuss them it is Acig without any doubt, surely not the Mats home. There are not many sites that have both a forum and a webmaster that is a book autor, or?

Second, someone (Billbc) has whipped out my contributions about the tecnical description of F-14. This is not an excuse in any sense. I gave a overall description about all the aircraft. If someone found that it's unusual, futile or so on, it' his problem not mine. The works about aircrafts that i usually read (made by professionists like N.Sgarlato or A.Nativi) are composed of these four parts: origins, tecnical, versions, operativity. This make readable and well armonized an article, so it's not guilth of mine if the F-14s one have not a tecnical description. If you get a look to the stuff i have wrote all it's reparted in this manner, so i expects, that if one wants really improve an aircraft article, and F-14 is a class apart, he must point to the tecnology. If there is a 'design' section without any detailed description, then do not make a guilth to me that try to post it. You can improve what i have wrote, correct, rearranged, but delete it it's not definively an 'improvement' for the article, it's vandalize it. It's not because i wrote it, it's because the article need that section as hell, F-14 is an universe to describe just for tecnology used. So i invite you to improve that i wrote, but not delete it for funny reasons.--Stefanomencarelli 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a conspiracy to silence your contributions or the Iranian contingent. The fact is that the section you added was completely unsourced (no references) and to be honest, poorly written. I understand that English is probably a second language for you, but, while I appreciate your contribution attempts, it is not other editors jobs to fix the things you write just because you feel it should be in the article. Most of the things that you added are already covered in the article. --Chuck Sirloin 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The following was placed on the talk page for NOR. It does not belong there ... I imagine it belongs here, or on the Iraq War talk page.

Right.

I found instead that there is such 'silence conspiration'. The fact, what happens here in the page, speaks alone.

Recent books by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop seem to suggest that the Iranian use of the Tomcat might have been more effective than had been previously reported. These books report that during the Iran-Iraq war Iranian Tomcat crews scored numerous AIM-54 kills, that there were several Tomcat aces with over 8 kills, and that there were over 100 total victory claims. (from Joe Baughet site, another illuse that believes in Cooper Claims enough to post them).

Now to your comments:

The whole point I believe that is being made here is this: It is just a story that someone is telling on a website until there is a way to verify the claim. You say Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling?, but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference. --Chuck Sirloin 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• First, you are advocate to your judgement IF T.Cooper is not a reliable author. Maybe i miss something, but are you authorized to do so? Where are your references that denies all the claims of Cooper?
• Second:Look, the wiki.en is not a dependance of US Government and surely this latter is not a reliable source. All references to the stinky bottles used by C.Powell 4 years ago at ONU about Iraqui WMD are obviousely, casuals.
• Third: T.Cooper are published several books, his works are published in several magazines, and he holds by several years a forum/site that is one of the most cited in the web about aereonautics, both in well and bad. I have discussed with him for several years and my clear opinion in his regard is that he is in good faith. He is ready to discuss everything he had written in his site: how many are available to do so? If there is an author that don't gives a dawn to any political or economical interference, hell, is him. And perhaps this hurts someone, right? I personally am a pro-soviet stuff fan, so for me he gives mainly bad news. Even so, even if i don't believe everything he sais, to me he looks as one of the most honest and reliable writers in the actual journalistic world. So i don't see any reason to exclude him by the articles.
• Fourth. There is more than this: Why and how wikipedia is making differentiations between sources? All works already published are perfectly reasonable as sources. T.Cooper do not says that Tomcats are capable to go to horbit, he had weitten things that are much more reasonable than the ridicolous explainations about the 'sabotaged' to all the Tomcats/F-14. In every case there are many sources that states about the air victories of F-14s, in Iran. As example Joe Baugher site. So all rests is YOUR strumenctal statements that don't believes in what Cooper says.

but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference.

LOL-With the same thinking, i would not believe in the Men on the moon, in the Holocaust, in the 11 september, and so on. But in every cases, there are not reasons to exclude his works about F-14 if not a clear case of genuine censorship. And you still not give me the reasons about that. Even the greatest historians have made herrors, lies and so on: there is not any sources sure 100%, Wikipedia has tons of pages about gods, goddeness, Silence conspiracies, etc. etc. But look, just T.Cooper is a 'non reliable source'. And this is due to what? To your judments obviousely. So i talk cleary to you and those like you: this is censorship and nothing else, a ridicolous one, a shamelessy one.--Stefanomencarelli 17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Combat losses

"The F-14 suffered its only loss from enemy action on 21 January 1991 when b/n 161430, an F-14A upgraded to an F-14A+, from VF-103 was shot down by an SA-2 surface-to-air missile...."

Mmmk so I guess this isn't all that specific, but the Mirage F1 article states that two other Iranian F-14's were shot down by Iraqi Mirages during the Iran-Iraq war. Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article either, so I think someone should add it Masterblooregard 18:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The combat loss sentence is in the US Navy section and is referring to US losses. Also the paragraph in the Mirage article is unreferenced. -Fnlayson 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the list of F-14 losses (2-3 to Mirages and one to MiG) is from Acig.org, that is obviousely 'dislaked' in wiki.en.--Stefanomencarelli 11:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

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

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).

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:[3]. 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)

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).