Talk:Grumman F-14 Tomcat/Archive 2

message: Although I asked  not to removes this quote from the introduction, I thought I'd include it here too:
:Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, commented on the plane in an interview held at the time of its retirement:
::There's something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself.  It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just know, there's a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.'
:(from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-22-F14-tomcat_x.htm)
66.167.139.50 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out. People tend to say nice things about a subject at retirements and funerals. Though I'm not sure which one this is. As far as notability, it would have been noteworthy if he had come out and disparaged the aircraft at its retirement. --Dual Freq 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point taken, though in this day and age senior military leaders like Mullen can usually be counted on to take some care in their public remarks.  It will be interesting to see if Mullen's statement generates controversy among naval aviators (and if it stands the test of time).  66.167.139.50 20:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adm. Michael Mullen quote about F-14 

message: It would be more useful to discuss the 6+ paragraphs of Iranian air force material that is currently over weighting this article. A user of 11% of the aircraft built, look at that section size compared to the entirety of the article. The US had 30 years of usage, 30+ squadrons, 600+ aircraft, but we use 6 paragraphs to document the entire Iranian purchase agreement, how many planes missiles and wrenches, who trained whom, who overthrew who, who sabotaged what missiles or maybe didn't, speculative kill numbers etc. There is less material in this article about the actual US R&D, testing, construction, etc. All the origins section says is the F-111B sucks, F-14 is better with most powerful radar in the universe and it was controversially replaced by the Hornet even though the F-14 was the first/best air superiority aircraft or maybe not. It's more worthwhile to trim that section than to put a 64 word quote from the CNO for the aircraft's retirement. And what about the reference section, with its 10 refs, 4 of which are Tom Cooper. Someone must be trying to sell some of his books. I guess what I'm trying to say is the article needs work and we should be discussing that instead of one single quote from one man. --Dual Freq 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of engaged, but i will support your edits. Under the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV, it is necessary to give his views the appropriate weight that they deserve. --Mmx1 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article barely passes "B-class" criteria and needs a substantial rewrite and expansion. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that I am keeping the CNO quote issue alive doesn't mean that I disagree with  User:Dual Freq.  I agree that the content questions listed above are more significant to the article's quality. Kayaker 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Trivia sections in all these articles need to go, see WP:AVTRIV. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content questions

message: 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)
thread_title: USAF considered purchasing the F-14

message: :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)
thread_title: Shah's support

message: How should it be organized? Alphabetical order by museum, location? By BuNos? Kyuusei 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivors - Organization, Extra Information? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Red Storm Rising

message: 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)
replies: text: Concur. - BillCJ 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian air forces section label 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tomcats being shredded 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  PW Engines 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Apparent censorship

message: "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)
thread_title:  Combat losses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  tag for confusing wording.  Spelling degrees is not really an error. -Fnlayson 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: I only proofread the article, but point taken. "Only" deleted. Davidelit 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: I concur, and especially because this is what has happened in the recent past, see:. .FWIW Bzuk 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, listing every piece of electornic ever used in the F-14 simply becouase it is listed somewhere else in unnecessary and unencyclopedic. I would remove such a list no matter WHO added it. THere's nothing wrong with listing the radars and other major items in the appropriate places, but we don't need a article simply for the list, nor does it belong on the History page. Also, pointing out that a certain editor has done this sort of thing in the past in other articles is NOT an attack to any reasonable person. ANt there is a simple way to stop people from "attacking" someone who makes these types of edits: STOP making these types of edits. Unless of course getting "attacked" is the goal here, not improving the articles. Makes one wonder. - BillCJ 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Bullshit. I concur with Bill and Bzuk for the same reasons listed. Quit claiming a reference to your past work as a personal attack. --Mmx1 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical description section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  tag for confusing wording.  Spelling degrees is not really an error. -Fnlayson 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Technical description

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technical Description 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: I only proofread the article, but point taken. "Only" deleted. Davidelit 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Technical description 3 

message: 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)
replies: text: I concur, and especially because this is what has happened in the recent past, see:. .FWIW Bzuk 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, listing every piece of electornic ever used in the F-14 simply becouase it is listed somewhere else in unnecessary and unencyclopedic. I would remove such a list no matter WHO added it. THere's nothing wrong with listing the radars and other major items in the appropriate places, but we don't need a article simply for the list, nor does it belong on the History page. Also, pointing out that a certain editor has done this sort of thing in the past in other articles is NOT an attack to any reasonable person. ANt there is a simple way to stop people from "attacking" someone who makes these types of edits: STOP making these types of edits. Unless of course getting "attacked" is the goal here, not improving the articles. Makes one wonder. - BillCJ 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Bullshit. I concur with Bill and Bzuk for the same reasons listed. Quit claiming a reference to your past work as a personal attack. --Mmx1 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical description 4 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Correction to Survivors  

message: I removed this from the main article: Two Iranian F-14's and an F-4 are visible at Oibb Bushehr AB, Iran at these coordinates: , , and , respectively. The images are a bit interesting since they don't appear to have the desert camo paint scheme I was expecting, more like the US paint scheme I think. The first two images. F-4 has the camo. --Dual Freq 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian aircraft coords 

message: Is this really necessary? --Mmx1 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivors 

message: Well this is my first time adding something, well I haven't added yet. Anyway I was in Hawaii and saw multiple Tomcats fly over more than once. I thought I would just throw this in because in the first section at the end it says that only some Islamic countries fly them, when this is untrue. I want to help keep this article as accurate as possible. From what I hear it is only flown by some reserve bases (US only). That's it.
Stunta1350 July 25, 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stunta1350 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the US and Iran ordered the F-14.  The US retired it in 2006.  Must have been another type of aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Users 

message: the clause 'all navy squadrons never  got ----' is ambiguous at best. what the hell does that mean? not all navy squadrons got? no navy squadrons ever got. can't fix it myself cause i don't know what is meant. attention is needed.Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple.  There were not enough F-14Ds upgraded/built for all Navy squads. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: F-14D

message: Wasn't there some controversy over the retirement of the F-14? I think there should be some sort of mention of that. --74.232.40.83 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No controversy.  There were plenty of Tomcat pilots, RIOs and maintenace folks that were sad to see it go.  There were lots of lamenting the change - particularly folks that lost thier jobs (mainly the NFOs, many of whome were not transitioned to the Super Hornet).  The retirement was moved forward significantly, because the cost of maintaining it were enormous. If you can find a legit source for controversy, add it! E2a2j (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: NFO/RIO's loosing their jobs? I find that strange as there are two-seat F/A-18s and I bet you a lot of former RIO's have become Weapon Systems Officer, even if their last F-14 squadron went to F/A-18Es, they would just have gone to an other squadron flying F/A-18Fs. I doubt the Navy would just fire capable officers that can be in the backseat of an F/A-18F. Hagman1983 (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The NFOs weren't "fired", but many of them were not offered F-18F back seats.  The numbers just didn't support it.  The S-3 was being retired at the same time, so there was a glut of NFOs - too many for the available seats.  The same thing happened when the A-6 went away.  NFOs were subject to a "transition screening board" that determined who got to transition to a follow-on platform. E2a2j (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was controversy outside the military, since its not really proper military etiquette to criticise your superiors (see President) while still serving. Retired officers as high as Rear Admiral's offered alternate theories as to why the F-14 was retired, including, pointing the finger at connections between Cheney and the F/A-18E sub-contractors. Basically the controversy relied heavily on the fact that the F-14 outperformed the F/A-18C and F/A-18E in most missions and was cheaper then the bigger Hornet. They also pointed out that the big Hornet was in fact an entirely new aircraft which added nothing in terms of capability at a cost of billions ... the reason they allege for it being named Hornet was that they wanted to 'sneak' it past unsuspecting Politicians and the public. If the allegations were true, then this would've been one of the greatests government frauds in the history of the USA. That said, a decent way to measure how good these birds are is generally how many non-US clients purchase them ... and the F/A-18E seems to have out-performed the F-14 on that front.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that this is not a discussion forum (WP:NOTAFORUM).  Find another site with a forum for this. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: four f-14's can be seen in Teheran! coordenates are, 35'42'15.90 N and 51'17'51.04 O google earth 213.73.171.102 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran has an estimated 44 with a minimum 13 operational per Combat Aircraft magazine, Jan 2009 issue. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Where does this article state "that 13 aircraft were delivered before the overthrow of the Shah"? I did a search on the number "13", a nd found no such statement. Please remember that this is a LONG article, so you need to be as specific as possible. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: You must be getting the 13 from my post above.  The only places where 13 appears in the article are part of dates in the references. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 13 operational F-14s part was added to the article after the posts above, btw.  -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *I am not doubting that Iran has 44 airframes available, and 13 are currently operational. I would like to see the article, though. Cooper usually kicks around a number between 20 and 25 in the past, so 13 struck me as low. The Scythian 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's fair.  The Aviation Week Source Book lists 20 F-14As for Iran as of Jan. 2009 and Flight International lists 25 as of Nov. 2008.  No agreement but at least there are in the same ballpark. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  f-14 Iran 

message: did the marines not fly this plane?Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: VMF squadrons?

message: Is the F-14 actually in service with the Iranian military or is it just in their possession? 72.83.108.191 (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use by Iran

message: Concerning the recent edits regarding the number of hardpoints, these two pictures show them all. I've also found a written source for it, but it does not mention wether or not the TARPS point is (or should considered to be) a seperate one or the same hardpoint as one of the missile points. Somehow I doubt if any source will mention it unless it's very in depth. But the number of points is clearly either 10 or 11 (unless the fuel points are not counted for some reason). - Berkoet (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos are inconclusive, as your own statements show - I have no clue how you get 10 or 11. The F-14 has one place on each wing glove fo a pylon, which can carry a missile on the main rack, and 1 Sidewinder on a rail - but that is one "hard point" if you define it as a place on the fuselage to attach stores. It also has a place on each engine duct for a fuel tank. It has 4 recesses in the fuselage for Sparrow/Amraams, or two pallets for 2 Phoenixes each. And that doesn't include the TARPS, as you pointed out, tho I believe that only 49 F-14ss were modified to carry it, and I don't know if that precludes carring any other stores there. So, "hard point" is probably a useless term in this case. Whater we do put, it needs to be from reliable sources, - BillCJ (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, I dig around to find a source and get questioned for it.  The TARPS pod is mounted at an existing attach point.  That required modifications to add extra wiring and such for the pod.  12 or 10 however you want to count them.  They can't all be used at one times, except possibly with smaller missiles or bombs. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The TARPS uses and adaptor on weapon station#5 on aircraft in air-to-ground configuration (right rear Phoenix station). This is useful  but not sure it is a reliable source. Note the term weapon station not hard-points. MilborneOne (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) Sorry, Jeff, I'm not jumping your case. I looked at the Spick diagrams, and it doesn't go into any explanations. It's just that with the F-14, it's complicated; I got most of what I said from other sources. I do think we need to add about the Sparrow recesses somewhere in the specs, but it's getting a bit crowded already, so I haven't done it yet. I do think perhaps "weapons stations" is a better term to use then hardpoints, but it might be more obtuse in meaning. Oh well! - BillCJ (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * No problem.  I was replying to Berkoet.  That's why my indent was even with your post.  Months ago I added some TARPS info in the "Improvements and changes" section.  It mentions a right rear location.  The weapon stations look complicated on the F-15 as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Milb1. That chart looks accurate to me, but I'm not sure it's considered a reliable source by WP standards. - BillCJ (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the input Milb1, BillCJ. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of hardpoints 

message: F-14B 201 of VF-84 Jolly Rogers currently at the USS LEXINGTON Museum, Corpus Christi TX. No BuNo yet. Nighthawke75 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to the museum listing 

message: The F-22 Raptor interceptor had first flew in the 1990, but as the prototypes were well known at the time. F-22 Raptor is the 2nd most expensive military project after B2 Spirit. I think the funding migrated to the YF-22 Raptor project. A request for proposal (RFP) was issued in July 1986 Renegadeviking 05:50am 24 December, 2007 (CST)
* Funding and probably need were factors.  That part of article need a reference.  Techncially the YF-22 first flew in 1990 and the F-22 in 1997. (YF-22 is prototype version.)  -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point was to allow the F/A-18E to get into service without severe scrutiny. The Super Hornet, according to some former Naval Air Admiral was a dog compared to the F-14 but Cheney was in league with the contractors providing the new aircraft. Note, the Super Hornet is an entirely new aircraft, with nothing now in common with the original Hornet. Its slower, has less payload, range and weapons capacity next to an F-14 and is also ironically more expensive. So in other words the point was to sabotage a capable, yet old aircraft so that people wouldn't blink when a 'stop gap' measure was brought in to solve the Navy's problems.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cheney called the F-14 a "jobs program", and when the F-14 was canceled, an estimated 80,000 people lost jobs as Grumman employees, subcontractors, or support personnel." I have a problem with that "80,000" people lost jobs comment. The citation for that quote is from a 1989 article, so it was an estimate, not a fact, and those numbers are always the list of people who are in some way related to the F-14 program. Every company that manufactured an F-14 part didn't go out of business and lay everyone off when the F-14 ended production. I'm sure some people lost jobs when the F-14 ended production, but it wasn't 80,000. I think that line should be removed from the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dick Cheney's reasoning for canceling F-14

message: Why was the Super Tomcat designated the F-14D and not the F-14C? Vicarious Tendril (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A F-14C was projected, with an avionics upgrade, and the TF30 engines. The D was bascially the C with the F110s. - BilCat (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you add a sentence saying that on the C-model?  I've checked my books and they only say it was a proposed variant.  Do the descriptions at M.A.T.S. page google book seem right?  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The MATS material is awfully convoluted. For one thing, the F101DFE was the development engine for the F110 - the engines may not have been identical (I don't know), but one led to the other. The MATS page makes them seem unconnected. I'll see what I can find in my print sources; I wouldn't add what I wrote above to the article, as I could be wrong on the exact details. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: To be clear, the C was only a proposed variant - none were built as such. The D inherited most of the planned avionice upgrades. I'm still looking for someting to cite. - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: * I got those parts.  Improved avionics and fire control system seem to have been part of the F-14C design, I'm just not sure if the newer F110 engine was as well.  Thanks for your help. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I did fnd something I can cite, and will add it later. It agrees with the second source you added, that it was to have had the F401-PW engine. There may have been plans (early/mid 70s) for it to use the TF30s later on, after the F401 had been canceled. I'll keep checking my other sources. - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, I've added a sentence from Spick (2000) on the F-14C. If we find any more details, we can just add them to it. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no C model? 

message: I'm wondering if there are specific passages/claims that have been identified in the Design section which need citations. The section is quite large and covers many different details. Without pointing out what's at issue, it will be very difficult for anyone to satisfy the one requesting verification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much all the paragraphs without references.  That's why a section tag is used there instead of individual  tags. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a certain number of references that is required per paragraph? The only paragraph without a reference in that section is the first one. I apologize in advance if this requirement is spelled out in an article tutorial page; I haven't gone through and become familiar with all of the rules that apply to Wikipedia articles. Agsftw (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I just read through the rules for citing sources, as well as the verifiability and reliable sources guidelines. The guidance given is, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And that it's important to cite sources when writing about opinions. I did not see any requirement for number of citations per paragraph. Based on this guidance, requests for citations need to be more specific. Otherwise, half the articles on Wikipedia have huge portions that "require" citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

text:  As well, when quoting someone, when adding material to biographies of living people, checking content added by others, and uploading images. (Just to show that I was more thorough.)Agsftw (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good job.  It depends on the number of references.  But one reference per paragraph would be a fine start.  There's some good info on J Baugher's site that may reference some parts. I'll help with this where I can.  I put this on my To Do list. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. So there is a number of references required per section? The wikipedia guidance on citations does not specify a number. There are quite a few citations in that section, and most of what I've read in that section does not seem off base. I think whoever is asking for citations needs to be more clear as to why the citations are needed and what specific statements he/she has issue with, otherwise, we should take off that section tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Correction to my ealier statement that there's only one paragraph in that section without citations: there's actually nine. I agree it's important to cite your work and there are large swaths in that section without any citations. I'll see if I can help out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I added a few references, cited passages, and made a grammatical correction. I also changed one word and deleted another to reflect the references associated with the sentences those words were in. There are still a few paragraphs in the section without citations. I'll attempt to appropriately cite those later. It took me a while to figure out the intricacies of wiki code :)Agsftw (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The sentences I changed were all in the Design section. The first change was in the third sentence of the Overview paragraph: I changed the word "allround" to "all-round" for a recognized spelling of the word. The second change was in the fourth sentence of the Overview paragraph: changed the word "several" to "most" to reflect information in the associated reference; the intent one of the planned outcomes of the F-14/VFX was to create a better performing fighter than the F-4. (I'll try to find another reference I know of regarding this performance comparisons between the two aircraft. There's a publication that details a Navy "fly-off" b/t the F-4J and F-14A). Removed word “mainly” from third sentence in first paragraph of the Armament sub-section in order to reflect the information in the same reference. Let me know if you have issues with the changes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Added a few more citations to the Design section. Concerning the one I added to the second sentence of the first paragraph in the Engines and Landing Gear sub-section: I added that link with the assumption that it is understood that the aircraft the F-14 replaced (F-4) used a less fuel-efficient type of engine (turbojet). Also, not sure if I correctly cited a DoD/Navy publication (a training manual) that's linked from a website (GlobalSecurity.org). The last paragraph of the Engines and Landing Gear sub-section uses this particular reference (Reference #27). Most of that paragraph probably doesn't suit that sub-section anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Additional Citations for Verification in the Design section

message: Why is speed quoted as 2.34? The aircraft is not a Mach 2 class aircraft. --99.235.15.225 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is.  It was designed as an interceptor & fighter.  See the Navy fact file and other web sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Encyclopedia of World Air Power, it has a top speed of Mach 2.34. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed

message: It's believed by some that the MiG-31's advanced, multi-plane tracking radar system was more or less a copy of the system in the F-14.  Soviet/Russian military officials deny the claim but there is no denying that they are very similar.  The rumor or claim is supported by the assertion that the Soviets either salvaged one off the bottom of the ocean that crashed off a carrier, or that Iran supplied them with one or maybe two of their F-14s in exchange for new weapons or other types of technical support.  There are stories on various internet sites and at least one poor quality photo that I've seen of a former IIAF F-14A in the original three color desert camouflage pattern with Soviet style nose numbers and a red star on the tail.  Of course it could be a manipulated photo.  Does anyone know of any reliable sources that can either confirm or refute the rumor? ZeroSnake (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: F-14s in Soviet/Russian hands?

message: I think this article is in good shape overall.  But History of the F-14 Tomcat is in poor shape.  Should some of that be merged/moved here or some other solution? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut that article back to only Operational history and renamed it F-14 Tomcat operational history. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History article needs help

message: I was thinking of using a table to list all the F-14 variants.  I saw a similar variation of this on the Boeing 737 page, and I think it looked fantastic, and I think it's a good feature rather than just showing one variant AVKent882 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop asking this on every aircraft talk page, see replies on F-16 page and please bring up at WP:AIRCRAFT talk page if you need to discuss further, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

text: *@AVKent882, you're beginning to get on the nerve of a lot of regular aviation/military taskforce editors by posting the same old message time and again on almost all the aircraft article pages, can I ask you to stop this nonsense right now? Per MilborneOne's advice, you may bring up your suggestion on WP:AIRCRAFT instead of stepping into the minefields you've inadvertently created. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's OK.  AVKent has not asked on any other talk pages after this one. -fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Specification proposal