From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Keywords: BombCat
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:28 GMT


From Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>

In article <Bx5Cn3.IKu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu> writes:
>
>Let me just start by saying that I believe that is impossible to combine the 
>air-superiority and ground-attack roles on a single airframe in a single 
>sortie, as some people seem to be suggesting with the BombCat.
>
>First of all, there is always a call for air superiority missions, even just 
>as insurance.  
>
>Second, the F-14 was designed as an interceptor.  Therefore it has a very 
>limited suite of air-to-ground avionics, and also that it has less hard-points 
>for carrying weapons than a purpose-designed attack aircraft.  The first 
>problem is being remedied in the BombCat by installing an attack avionics 
>package in the Tomcats.  However, the second is a little more difficult to 
>solve.

All this requires some unpacking.  "air-superiority" and "ground-attack"
encompass a lot of turf.  F-14's are designed to spend most of their
time on Combat Air Patrol rather than as interceptors proper, although of
course a certain number of missions are Deck-Launched Intercepts rather than
CAP's - I get the impression that the F-18's, with their high
thrust-to-weight and their, ah, limited endurance get more of the DLI mission
now.  The CAP mission puts a certain premium on endurance, which is pretty
freely convertible into range.  As you say, avionics is quite do-able;
it's instructive to note that the components that upgrade the F-14A's
AWG-9 radar to the D's APG-71 are derived from the F-15E's APG-70; once
your radar is digital, it's mostly a (_non-trivial_) matter of software.
   
>The standard load for a Tomcat is 4 missiles (either the 1000-lb. Phoenix, the 
>500-lb. Sparrow, or the 350-lb. AMRAAM) on pallets under the fuselage, and 
>either 2 more Phoenix, or 2 Sparrow/AMRAAM's and 2 Sidewinders, for a total 
>of either 6 or eight AAM's.  They also normally carry two auxillary fuel tanks 
>under the intakes.  

OK, let's look at this next.  Back in the old days, the pallet-armament
concept was supposed to provide flexibility, which was never provided due
to a variety of fiscal and (especially) political reasons.  With the right
pallets, there shouldn't be a great problem accomadating all sorts of good
stuff; a Mk.83 (1000#) bomb has almost exactly the same dimensions as
Phoenix;if anything the AIM-54 finspan makes it take up more room.  That's
an F/A-18 working load there, without using the wing pylons, at a
substantially improved range; note that as long as you're not using them,
you also reap the drag (and stealth?) advantages of semi-conformal
carriage.  _Avaition Week_'s early reports on F-14 air-to-ground suggested
that Mk.84's @ 2,000# could be accommodated, and that larger tanks could
be in store as well. Again, remember that a typical A-6E working load is
3xMk.84's and two (300?)-gallon tanks.  The practical maximum is 28xMk82's
@500#; there's room for two more, but no-one advises landing with the
lower centerline pair unless you're reeeal careful about sink-rate (heard
from a _JFK_ Intruder driver).   

>My point [...] is that if the wing pylons are used, then the only
>self-defensive weapons that it will be able to carry are 2 Sidewinders on
>the pylons.  AMRAAM is also an option.

Sure; that's self-evident.  But a strike-configured F-14 would still have
better survivability; faster, more maneuverable, better air-to-air-modes
available on the radar.  Note that on at least one occasion in the Gulf
F/A-18's were able to down intercepting Iraqis without jettisoning their
strike loads.

>In addition, the Bombcat will be unable to use sophisticated
>ground-attack ordnance such as LGB's (due to a lack of a laser designator
>or locator), or Anti-Radar Missiles such as the HARM.  The final problem
>will be re-training all the F-14 fighter pilots to fly like bomber pilots. 
>This training is not the norm for Tomcat pilots, and as a matter of fact
>is probably completely foreign to most of them. 

Once more, with digital (F-14D and later) avionics, all this is less of a
problem, and in any case, newer weapons are less depedant on lasers; JDAM
and JSOW, for instance, will at first be all-inertial.  F/A-18 experience
will bear on all of this.  And not all the transitioning pilots will be
Tomcat pilots, by definition, nor would all squadrons be tasked with the
same missions in all likelihood; the real advantages would come in better
survivability and reduced procurement/support costs.  There'd be some
gains in operational flexibility - a godsend with limited CVW loadouts - but
nothing utopian.

>In my opinion, the A-6F is a better choice as a long-range attack
>aircraft.  First, it was designed with the role in mind, albeit nearly 35
>years ago. 

That's the problem.  The F-14 was designed a "mere" 20+ years ago, with
some multirole capability in mind which can be built upon.  It's probably
not ideal, but it looks like a better deal than the F/A-18 E/F in terms of
range/payload and maybe money.  A recent _AW&ST_ seemed to suggest that
this was the way the Navy wants to go for the future as well, merging the
AX and NATF requirements.  Given low observability, variable geometry and
advanced avionics/weapons/powerplants, it ought to be doable if they're
willing to make some tradeoffs.  It'd never be great for CAS, though.  


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroups: sci.military