FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1969
1969 - 0394.PDF
The Grumman F-14 is essen tially a Phantom replacement, and this full-size mock-up was unveiled at bethpage as re cently as February 18 Working up for the F-14 ONE OF THE PLUM CONTRACTS of the decade was awarded on January 14 when the United States Navy announced that Grumman Aircraft had been selected to build VFX. the new carrier-borne fighter now designated as the F-14. The selection of Grumman was not unexpected; it has supplied fine aircraft to the USN for a very long time, and has a very close relation with that Service. It was also logical that the firm which had lost out heavily in a recent contract (the F-111B was cancelled last year) but which now has a comprehensive background of two-seat twin-engined v.g. "flat top" aeroplanes should have another chance. The F-14 has been described as an F-11 IB replacement. Inasmuch as the latter will not now enter service, some of its duties will inevitably fall to the new aeroplane. But the impression that the F-14 has been suddenly thought up to fill a hole in the Navy's inventory is both unfair and untrue. Twin projects, FX and VFX (the former for the USAF) have been under discussion for very many years, before even the con tractor for TFX (or F-111) had been selected to provide multi-role tactical performance for the USAF and USN. VFX was conceived originally as VAX, a fighter-attack aircraft considerably lighter and smaller than the F-11 IB. This idea was abandoned as another project, VAL (now the LTV A-7A Corsair II) got underway. It was replaced by VFAX. a super sonic carrier-based multi-purpose fighter/strike concept to fit between the F-1 I IB on the one hand and the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair on the other. The design aim was to replace several existing aircraft (for example Phantom. Skyhawk and Crusader) with a single weapon system effective in both the air-superiority and ground attack/close air-support roles. Not only are these multi-role solutions superior in a clash in which air superiority is not a foregone conclusion (so the USN argues) but they are more efficient users of carrier deck space. The twin design. FX. was viewed by the USAF around 1966 as the next-generation multi-mission fighter able to provide air superiority against MiG-21 successors, and also to be capable of deep-penetration attack missions. Unfortunately for the USAF the aircraft which looks like being the MiG-21's follow on is the MiG-23 Foxbat, which is thought to have a Mach 3 performance. Americans in general and Congress in particular are very worried by the appearance of the Foxbat and second thoughts about a realistic antidote (and FX is not one) seem to have delayed the appearance of the USAF aeroplane. Originally FX and VFX were to have had a high degree of commonality. Even the iron hand of former Secretary of Defence Mr McNamara failed demonstrably to achieve success with this idea with the result that one version of F-111 is underpowered, another was cancelled, while the future of a third is in doubt. What guarantee therefore does the American taxpayer have that the F-14 and the F-15 (as the FX is now known) will be any more successful? Well, for one thing the design missions of the two projects are closer than were those of the F-111A and F-111 B. For another, it is now realised that "commonality" in all areas—even in multi-role aeroplanes—is simply not possible if performance is not to be com promised. Also, of course, the F-14 seems to be making more rapid progress than the F-15 and on the principle of "first come—first served." key design decisions must be favourable to the Navy. In the final analysis, of course, success is a Left, installation of the single M-61 cannon just aft of the radome. Right, one-piece canopy raised and wing fully forward Howard Levy photographs
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
