Here's Why We Didn't Get the Super Tomcat-21 and Why That Was a Mistake

Support this channel by using the SUPER THANKS (heart icon above) or by becoming a Patron at / wardcarroll
Buy one or all three of the books in the PUNK'S TRILOGY, Ward's popular first three novels about life a Tomcat squadron, at www.usni.org/p.... Use the PUNKYT discount code at checkout for 25% off to KZbin channel subscribers.
Get official channel gear at my-store-b7f9c...
Ward reviews the origins of the Navy's Fleet Air Defense mission requirement that led to the acquisition of the F-14 Tomcat and how the F/A-18 emerged from the Air Force's Lightweight Fighter program. He also goes into the factors that ultimately saw to the Tomcat's sunsetting and imagines what the modern carrier air wing would look like if SecDef Cheney had wanted the Super Tomcat over the Super Hornet.

[@mister-LA]

I was an engine mechanic in VF-142 in the mid-'70s and transitioned from the F-4 to the F-14 (around 1974). Our squadron was attached to the USS America. I found this video by accident, but it was really interesting.

[@ruthnoya8424]

How old are you now, out of curiosity?

[@mister-LA]

@@ruthnoya8424 67

[@ruthnoya8424]

@@mister-LA Thanks for your service, Mister.

[@stevenblackwell4903]

74?? On the Forrestal we had the F-4's till 82...someone didn't like us 🤔

[@brockclark7404]

Sir you served with one of the best us navy squadrons other then the sundowners

[@Tar-Numendil]

The F-14 Tomcat is one of the sexiest planes ever. Others for me include the F-22 Raptor, the F4U Corsair, the P-51 Mustang, and the SR-71 Blackbird. It's a shame that we never got the Super Tomcat 21, and that the Tomcat is no longer in service in the United States Navy.

[@roadwarrior1459]

Spitfire is far better looking than the P51

[@taiwandxt6493]

Idk if it is just me, but I always thought the Blackbird looked ugly. The U-2 was a far sexier recon plane.

[@jamesjross]

I'm glad you don't make funding decisions

[@ghmsr8062]

Any aircraft that stayed with the navy for more than ten years was a good looking machine. Even the helicopters had their own special panache for getting the job done. Snap a crisp salute to the aircrews, maintainers and designers that made it happen with or without the politicians' support.

[@GG-yr5ix]

Don't forget the A-5, it looked like it was going supersonic just sitting on the deck!

[@olentangy74]

Great history presentation, Ward. I work for Navair, and spent several years doing depot level work on the Tomcat in Norfolk. My specialty was the environmental control systems, which provided cooling for the weapons systems, and the cockpit ECS. (I spent hundreds of hours in the nose wheel well, where all the lines intersected) In addition to the A models, some of the B and D conversions were done. The wing gloves were riveted closed, and the plumbing for the cooling system for the Phoenix was omitted. The early 90’s was a glum time for naval aviation. Scores of squadrons across the spectrum were being decommissioned. Intruders were rolling fresh off the overhaul line and straight to the scrappers. Dozens of Tomcats were being stripped of useful parts so as to scrap the airframes. It was a sad time. But the pilots who were still flying the Tomcats loved them. Pilots who would arrive at the depot to fly Tomcats back to Oceana told stories of how the hornet pilots on the boat were constantly calling for a tanker while the F-14 guys could stay aloft for hours. With the hornet’s short legs, the joke was that the hornet would make a fine attack plane as long as you were bombing Argentina. I was at the FRC at Jacksonville for the ceremony commemorating rollout of the last Tomcat in 2005. The following year they were retired completely. I have been with the Super Hornet for 16 years now, and it has matured into a very capable platform, but there will never be another combat aircraft like the mighty Grumman F-14 Tomcat.

[@WardCarroll]

Thanks for the work over the years and for adding this detail here.

[@jimkluska253]

@Alentangy..thanks for keeping us safe!

[@pfrstreetgang7511]

Appreciate you sharing your experience

[@jamesdellinger3542]

I'm curious as to what cooling a weapons system involves. I do hvac as a trade, so that combines a couple of my interests 😁

[@thetruthisoutthereyt]

The Tomcat will also be the most beautiful/handsome Navy jets ever.

[@schweinhund7966]

I commend your candid assessment! Being a retired “Army dogfaced grunt” I can assure you that much Department of Defense procurement is suspicious to us too! Anchors aweigh!

[@jeffk464]

yeah, for sure the best product doesn't always win. Our "democracy" is pretty much mostly a system of influence across the board.

[@josephclark7163]

As a Prowler maintainer, I hated that the Navy turned its back on Grumman. If they could figure out how to put a dish on a lawn dart, the E2 would be gone too. 😥

[@daszieher]

difficult to understand... for most people interested in the subject, Grumman is THE naval aircraft manufacturer.

[@ramosel]

The Navy didn't turn it's back... Dick Cheney was bought off.

[@terrysaunders2026]

@@ramosel I used to enjoy that phrase “I’d rather hunt with Dick than ride with Teddy!” I still wouldn’t ride with Teddy if he was still with us, but I know a lot more about Dick nowadays!

[@ramosel]

@@terrysaunders2026 And his daughter is no peach either.

[@wayfaringman8418]

@@ramosel 1000 times this.

[@Nafregamisrocanob]

Had the opportunity to witness the public introduction of the Tomcat at the 1973 Paris Airshow. Being the assistant to a professional photographer working for Aviation Week we had unlimited access to the aircraft and Grumman’s pavilion. Still have Grummans promotional documents along with AW’s publication featuring the Tomcat on the cover.

[@stanharley8712]

Ward: Very interesting discussion on “Why We Didn't Get the Super Tomcat-21.” There is one more very important program development that weighed heavily in the evolution that was not mentioned. From 1979 through 1983 I served as a Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) in the same squadron in which you later served: VF-102 Diamondbacks at NAS Oceana. Following VF-102, from 1983 to 1986 I was at VX-4, NAS Pt. Mugu, CA. After the Navy went to work for Northrop (now Northrop/Grumman) in 1987. At the time, Northrop was teamed with McDonnell Douglas in development of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) and the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF). The two of us - Northrop and McDonnell Douglas - were in competition against Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics to design and build two replacement fighters for both the Air Force’s F-15 and the Navy’s F-14. Both teams built two flyable vehicles - the Lockheed team built and flew the YF-22 and we built and flew the YF-23. What is not widely known are the details involving the Navy variants the public never saw. I was the senior RIO on the program for the Northrop/McDonnell team. While the public saw our YF-23 we built for the Air Force, the details for our Navy ATF were never publicly released and I assume remain classified. I can tell you, though, our aircraft looked similar to the YF-23 the public saw. The big design drivers at that time were low observability, interoperability with the AAAM missile - the Phoenix replacement, the ability to super cruise, sensor fusion both internal and external, and a significant reduction in maintainability costs. Our Navy ATF resembled the Air Force YF-23 we flight demonstrated but was designed with both a pilot and an RIO. It had an electrically scanned array (ESA) radar, larger internal weapons bay to accommodate the AAAM, had a much larger thrust to weight ratio than the F-14D, and incorporated a very low radar and infrared signature. I personally flew thousands of hours in flight simulation. It was an exciting time to be sure. But at source selection in late April 1991, the Air Force - the lead service on the program - chose the Lockheed team’s YF-22 for the Air Force. DoD had billed the program as “two aircraft with one contractor for both services” (like the F-4 Phantom and the TFX) but what occurred was what many had feared: the Air Force and Navy split on their selections. The Navy pulled out of the program - which infuriated the Air Force because it dramatically drove up their costs. The day it was announced the Navy was out of the program, McDonnell Douglas issued pink slips to all of the design engineers I had worked with for several years. So sad. In the debates that followed, the Navy planners decided that low observability was not so-much the design driver as it was in the Air Force community. Although not expressly “low observable,” what eventually transpired was the development of the F/A-18 Super Hornet as you have described by the same two contractors that lost the NATF program: Northrop (now Northrop/Grumman) and McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing). I still have a couple of coffee mugs in my china hutch depicting our NATF on the side that “disappears” when hot coffee is poured into it. I gave away boxes and boxes of these at our Northrop booth at Tailhook 1990. Stan Harley “Hawg”

[@kipcampbell7772]

In the early 1990's I was working as a stability and control aero engineer for McDonnell Aircraft. Even though Grumman was a competitor, I/we thought it was a complete travesty to not strengthen the F-14 line. The F-14 swing wing was well implemented after Grumman's lessons learned with the Jaguar and F-111. And a swing wing aircraft is the only really practical way to realize both the loiter and dash capability required for the long range fleet air defense mission.

[@termitreter6545]

A delta wing can work too, with more modern designs; the Rafale seems like an extremely capable aircraft, made possible with modern tech and materials.

[@michaelspivey4574]

Lockheed Skunkworks polymath Aero Engineer here. The swing wing also allowed the landing profile to have a lower speed.

[@casematecardinal]

​@michaelspivey4574 The same can be accomplished with leading edge slats for much less weight and complexity.

[@ancaplanaoriginal5303]

@@termitreter6545 Delta wings belong in the 60's, let the concept die already

[@kennethhamilton5633]

When was the British Light attack Jaguar a swingwing 🤔. Russians had a couple, British had the Tornado.

[@billybobtimm1787]

As a retired enlisted AT, and supporting VF-32 as a tech rep on USS Harry S Truman, I'll never understand why the government killed the F-14 program. The Tomcat, which I first saw in Memphis at an airshow while I was in A-school, was the reason I went to the Jolly Rogers. Watching those Tomcats soaring over Millington was the best thing I had ever seen. I'm guessing that many of you have no idea what I'm talking about. It was a long time ago.

[@geoffcampbell7846]

I'm still watching old episodes on this channel, just catching up on my education, and what jumps straight out at me is a saying we have of "Penny wise, pound foolish." But politicians rarely admit their mistakes, and the rest is history. A fascinating video, thanks. 👋

[@wayfaringman8418]

"Spending more to get less," is the most appropriate comment concerning the Super 21 Tomcat 14D vs what we have now.

[@GintaPPE1000]

Absolutely not. The shortfalls of the Super Hornet compared to Super Tomcat are completely valid, but there is no making a 4th-generation airframe stealthy, and the stealth aspect was completely overlooked in Ward's comparison of ST21 with the F-35C. You can slather all the RAM and alter all the leading edges you want, but even the latest "semi-stealth" Gen 4++ fighters like the F-15EX have nothing on the F-35's RCS, especially from the front quarter. The glib comment about wasting $1.2 trillion for the F-35C also completely ignores the huge leaps in capability the other F-35 variants have given, especially to allies who could otherwise not afford stealth technology or have a (STOVL) carrier-based stealth fighter.

[@wayfaringman8418]

@@GintaPPE1000 Mea culpa, I was speaking to the Tomcat vs Hornet capabilities. It is known the F-35 brings more and different things to the table not available in the '90s. Fortunately, it hasn't been an issue to be concerned about.

[@liquidrockaquatics3900]

We spend more to get less because the government prints as much money as it desires for any project that will enrich the congressional members that are involved. It’s not an accident that we are stuck in forever wars and our money has less value than an equal weight of bacon.

[@FranklyFarcical]

I’ve despised Dick Cheney for years at this point in my life, but after learning that he bears the biggest responsibility for killing the Super Tomcat, I couldn’t hate the man more.

[@bretthoffman2128]

Although I also like the F-14, the Problem with Cheney, as with his Daughter, is it’s not what the best choice for the Nation is, it’s what they feel is Right, and mainly for their point of view, shaded by their Interests.

[@Wuestenkarsten]

Dick Cheney the War Criminal. Who else..........

[@I_am_not_a_dog]

Neo-conservatism and neo-leftism (not necessarily neo-liberalism) has been a distaster for the United States

[@antiussentiment]

Only the money likes Dick..

[@Ries1948]

Dick Chaney is and was a war criminal.

[@DNowlan1]

That last 4 minutes not only nails the dysfunction of defence acquisition but the total tragedy of throwing the F-14 under the bus.

[@Scott11078]

That's why I tell people they had been trying to kill old Tom off since he was still in the womb doging clothes hangers. And after decades of being treated like shit from people up top he ended up being murdered with his body unceremoniously tossed into the garbage. Largely what I mean by treated like shit from up top is all the upgrades denied to it. When I was on the Kitty Hawk we had VF-154, I was there from 1999-2002 and they left not long after me. I hold the honor/ distinction of being the only HT to have ever had to work on a Tomcat. It's too long to put here, it is truly It's own story but a short bit of info I had to rig something up to keep a part that had no spares remaining functional. If I couldn't do that then the Squadron would have been down one cat forever AND they would have been disqualified from the gun ex they were taking part in 2 days later. Recently as part of that whole aging process we go back and evaluate things from life. Recently I've adopted the belief that as successful as it was and in the face of constant adversity the chair, err airfarce, um airforce giving one of the best reason every branch hates them, the dirty games they played getting the F401 killed. Those smug bastards and a few politicians should have been made accessories to murder they knew damn well what was going to happen from the engine change, especially the airforce they knew people would die.

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

Its creation was an attempt to throw the Air Force under the bus, what goes around comes around

[@martinpalmer6203]

And the F35A costs $175,983,989 and the C with Sidekick pushing past $220 million EACH. ... im fairly sure Grumman could built a stealth cat for cheaper. Its purely kickback corruption...sad but a sign of the ultimate failure if the big fish are allowed to set the rules via bribery and corrupt politicians.

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

@@martinpalmer6203 Hollings delved further into the financial details. “The Navy’s first batch of F-14As rang in at $38 million per aircraft in 1973. That sounds pretty cheap compared to around $88 million for a new F-15EX these days, but when you adjust that number to reflect nearly five decades of inflation, you get a downright shocking figure of more than $234 million per F-14 Tomcat,” he said. “The F-35’s initial production run per-unit cost was also quite high, but still more than $10 million less than the Tomcat, at $221 million per fighter. By 1988, thirteen years later, the F-14D cost $74 million per airframe, which adjusted for inflation brings the Tomcat’s price down to $171 million per aircraft in today’s dollars. Last year marked thirteen years since the F-35’s first production batch, with per-unit prices of the F-35A now at around $78 million per airframe-$93 million less than the F-14 per jet,” he added. Interesting that it's fine when the F-14 is bloody expensive but when the F-35 looks like it has a somewhat high number everyone loses their mind. The F-35 is mind numbingly cheap per unit for a 5th generation multirole stealth fighter.

[@martinpalmer6203]

@@IgnoredAdviceProductions the F35 numbers are falsified "flyaway cost" doesn't include things like radar, avionics, weapon racks, DAS... all the things that make it into a fighter. I trust the USAF official crash reports which list the actual cost to replace a combat ready F35A @ $175,983,989 ... which is also extremely close to the unit cost foreign governments are paying when you divide # of aircraft by amount spent. Sorry but the "flyaway cost" is bullshit to placate the public who are being robbed blind.

[@billbraske2894]

I fly the Super Hornet. I love it, but recognize its limitations. I do believe a Super Tomcat would have been a more capable aircraft; even now.If they had truly made it modular and upgradeable like the Super Hornet we would have a great asset in the 2020s and beyond.

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

Takes a brave Super Hornet pilot to admit that! Most Hornet jocks I know who never flew the F-14 tend to shit all over the Tomcat as you'd expect from sibling rivals! :)

[@WardCarroll]

Thanks, Bill. Much love to Rhino guys. Fly safe and kick ass, brother.

[@RCAvhstape]

@@WardCarroll Was the Rhino nickname inherited from the Phantom by the Super Hornet?

[@johnyoungs7453]

Bill, what modern day "upgrades" could've been done to the D Tomcat to bring it up to today's fighter..??

[@spartanx9293]

Honestly I think the major issue with the f-14 was its variable geometry wing Grumman did actually have a concept to replace it

[@markturner947]

Mr. Ward, I am so grateful to have found this channel. Back in the mid seventies my older brother was a navigator in the F14, however my brother was in the Marines! I only recently learned that the Marines didn't purchase any F14's. That new knowledge has left me in a quagmire as you can tell. He is no longer with us as he perished in a plane crash in 76 at Cherry Point N.C. It was not any type of a fighter but some kind of a transport plane. I remember when he got to Cherry Point he expressed to us how happy he was that he wasn't flying the harriers there because they were crashing alot. So I wonder what would have happened to his career if he had lived? Would he have been reassigned to the Navy? Oh by the way,he got his wings in Pensacola Florida. Any comments on this from you would be greatly appreciated.

[@chuchuchip]

For me the F-14 was the best looking aircraft on the flightdeck, and I was a rotorhead AE troubleshooter.

[@kevins.3825]

Great info. I was in VF 21 from '89-92, we really liked where the Tomcat was going with the GE engines and avionics upgrade. Unfortunately, after '89 the Tomcat wasn't viewed as a post-cold war air superiority option. They tried to convert into a dual role fighter/attack (bomber) like the F/A 18. I remember being on the flightline at Miramar and Atsugi watching the F-18 maintenance crews leaving after an 8-hour shift, while the F-14 maintenance crews were working 3 8-hour shifts or 12 on/off to keep up with maintenance.

[@GeoffJensen]

This KZbin channel is a great source for the history of one of the most iconic military aircraft of the post-WW2 era. Very informative, great content!

[@jrwojick]

Amazing story. F-14 is my all time fav fighter jet. I was sad when I heard it was being phased out.

[@Mr-mopar]

I just got to go on the midway carrier in San Diego and I drove my wife nuts trying to get up on deck to see the f14 they ..what a super sweet plane. When you see it up close and get a real good look at the curves and angles it is such a beauty. Still my favorite of all time.

[@johnkelly516]

I just wish that every aviation commentator was as lucid and interesting even down to understanding a series of models numbers and comparisons.Thank you.

[@glennroesler4796]

Ward, this was a fascinating and informative presentation of the evolution of the Tomcat. It also allowed me to better understand the intricacies of government procurement, which I experienced as a procurement manager with two major aerospace companies. Really excellent video, my friend.

[@marc196050]

Thank you, very interesting. I was a A6 mechanic in the early 80’s and my squadron assisted in the development of the F18. Mainly, they needed our tankers to keep the Hornet flying.

[@briangolder4777]

Nicely put! I remember a typical hornet load of three fuel tanks and two winders. Not exactly intimidating.

[@buckshot704]

Moving forward to the New Year, my flight bag will include a bottle of A-1 Steak Sauce for each new episode, Commander. Every evolution into YT-video success at your hand, consistently delivers the real meat and potatoes of not only the F-14 community, but addresses other departments that enhance the Tomcat legacy. All the best for 2022! ✈️😎👍

[@MrScott1171]

Interesting information about the Tomcat. I am retired Air Force and some of the Navy planes seem to be better than the Air Force planes at times. I wish the Air Force would get the F-35B since it can operate from short runways or if a runway and taxiway are bombed out. But I digress. It is interesting to note that one of the reasons the Air Force accepted the F-16 over the F-17 was that the F-111 production had ended and that General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin) already had the new production line ready. The F-17 was superior but did not have flyby wire. The Navy got the better end of the deal by taking the F-17 and turning it into the F-18. Again great video.

[@MustangsCanTurnToo]

In no way was the F-17 better than the F-16 🤣

[@johnyoungs7453]

Sir, the reason that Navy planes are generally regarded as "better" than USAF planes (by the USAF, themselves...) is simply because of the way they're designed. They're more rugged. They're expected, over the years of their service lives, to literally "slam down" on the deck of a carrier in what can best be described as an "intentionally controlled crash" and then be expected to fly again. Ever look at the main landing gear of an F-18 Hornet..?? It's massive..! For a reason..! The entire wing and fuselage structure is designed for this "abuse"..! When the Navy decided to use the British BAE Hawk as their next trainer, they had to beef it up considerably. Stouter landing gear, beefier fuselage and wings. And a bigger engine with more power to make up for the increased weight. With the exception of the F-15 Eagle, virtually all Navy planes used by the Air Force have performed very well. Even the old and loved F-4 Phantom, in it's various renditions, all still used a tail hook - thereby saving more than a few flight crews and aircraft as a result. Food for thought..!!

[@billstuart8481]

@@johnyoungs7453 Obviously turbo air head has never been on a carrier deck and felt a landing.

[@Detlastriker]

I think I've watched this video 3 or 4 times. Every time I am impressed and in awe of what could have been. Thank you.

[@Satchmoeddie]

I have some old Bendix vacuum tubes. Those things are built like a tank. They weigh 2x more than a similar sized vacuum tube. The support discs are ceramic inside the Bendix tubes. Support discs and tabs in regular tubes are paper thin mica. The support rods in a Bendix tube are over 50%-150% thicker than regular tube support rods. The plates are heavier. They are all rated for high G dynamic loads, higher G shock loads and very high altitudes. They may be designed for RADAR displays and RADAR transmission, but they also work great for audio.

[@svenschwingel8632]

Lots of musicians and audiophiles literally hunt for MILSPEC tubes for that exact reason. These guys are also willing to pay quite the money for that stuff.

[@Satchmoeddie]

@@svenschwingel8632 I got mine back when the getting was good plus I could go down to the boneyard on jobs and score things like 5881s or TT21s off B52s for free. As long as I wasn't studying the RADAR controlled steering landing gear circuitry they didn't care. The TT21s were in the glide slope part anyway. I have no idea if any B52s still use any tubes or not. I think they might still use BWOs or other traveling wave tubes for RADAR jamming. New Gallium arsenide RF transistors have some impressive bandwidth and power but there are still a lot of older systems out there. Is it hardened for an E pulse? Who knows. There are maybe two labs that can attempt to study that. Los Alamos is one.

[@johnslaughter5475]

I liked the picture of Ranger when talking about the all-Grumman airwing. I recently received an e-mail that talked about when Ranger was virtually all Grumman. We had a lot of Grumman aircraft when I was aboard from 1968-'70. Grumman really knew what they were doing when it came to building carrier based warplanes.

[@dand2334]

A naval version of the F15 strike eagle would have been a huge money saver. Interesting that you mention how Cheney was financially involved in Grumman’s competition…I always thought he had sticky fingers and was dirty, explaining how he became as rich as he did.

[@jamesjross]

F15 is the most successful plane ever (and still going)... But the super hornet is basically them making up for that mistake

[@towcub]

I don’t know that it would be cost effective to make the F-15 capable of landing on an aircraft carrier (more than once).

[@saltykrug]

I didn't know all of this but I just about cried when I heard one of the greatest planes of all time in Naval aviation was basically killed by not getting the F-21 program. I always loved this plane and really wish it had gotten its wings. Oh well, maybe there will be a scaled down version in the drone fleet one day. Cheers good sir and thanks for a really informative video.

[@brandonreinventshimself]

Ward, this is a great explanation of the hose job that was done on fleet air defense. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the gaps if any in fleet anti-submarine defense with the loss of the S-3.

[@LRRPFco52]

If I were building a modern dream team for fleet ASW and Maritime Patrol, I would develop the following types of aircraft: 1. Long range efficient jet-powered heavy airframe with greater payload, range, and endurance than the P-3C Orion. It would have modern avionics, streamlined data link connectivity with other fleet aircraft, and function as the large platform in the networked mix with drones and carrier-borne fighters/attackers that could carry anti-ship and anti-sub weapons. 2. Omnirole Very Low Observable Carrier-Borne Fighter: It would have internal weapons bays, very long combat radius like the old A-7E did, be capable of supersonic speeds as well as long endurance at optimized subsonic profiles, have LPI data link, excellent payload and bringback, multispectral sensor suite adaptable/programmable to the various carrier mission profiles of legacy dedicated platforms, and have excellent electronic attack/defensive capabilities with an onboard, integrated EW suite. 3. Unmanned Long Endurance Surveillance Drone: It would basically be like a U-2 but with far greater endurance, networked with the heavy maritime patrol and carrier Omnirole fighters, providing over the horizon surface vessel location and TGT-cuing to the surface warfare vessels, maritime patrol, fighters in anti-ship roles, and AWACS. 4. Upgraded AWACS with new data links and aerial refueling capability, AESA arrays in the Radome, new avionics and modernized crew interface systems. Guess what I just described? P-8A Poseidon, F-35C, MQ-4C Triton, and E-2D AWACS. Done

[@johnyoungs7453]

No shit..!! Even the guys who flew the KA-6D tankers wonder why the Navy killed their dedicated tanker program with no ready replacement. How stupid..!! They had already designed & built at least 3 to 5 "Super Intruders" with low-bypass turbofan engines (ironically, it was the same engine that went into the hornet but with no afterburner installed...) & all-new cockpits, etc. & The typical bullshit bean-counters in the Navy killed that program, as well. Why? Well, we've got our new hornet fighter. We'll just hang a tanker pod on that that, & viola! We've got ourselves a new "tanker"...! Now, if only we could get pigs to fly, we could get them to carry tanker pods & maybe even get them to carry a wee bit of cargo, too...

[@LRRPFco52]

@@johnyoungs7453 I hated to see the A-6 go as well, but there were reasons. Intruder airframes were at end of service life, hadn't been built for many years, and weren't very survivable against the modern IADS threats. The older cockpit arrangement required a 2-man crew and training pipelines to support that, whereas advances in avionics and pilot interface proved a single crewman could navigate, attack, self-protect, and swing-role quite efficiently. Biggest lost was the strike range of the Air Wing. They had a plan to keep or extend that range with the A-12, but couldn't meet the weight and production consistency requirements with composites. Cancellation of the A-12 set a series of chain reactions that reverberate to this day, but are finally being corrected with the F-35C, which has longer legs than a D model Tomcat. They're already mentioning how nice it is to have long range strike back on the deck on this first deployment.

[@only5186]

@@johnyoungs7453 Well Americas being dismantled! They're slow rolling us into tyranny.

[@johnyoungs7453]

@@only5186 No shit....!! :-(

[@JackWaldbewohner]

Commander, you are always dazzling us with incredible podcasts. Keep up the good work!

[@joeblair1532]

I was a jet engine mechanic on the A's. Love those planes.

[@NavyCWO]

FA-18 - Jack of all trades, expert of none! I miss the F-14 Tomcat and the A-6 Intruder. The "replacement' for both bites!

[@michaelridenbark9946]

“Jack of all trades, master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one”

[@j0m4m46]

The Prowler is so sexy.

[@ALSea24]

F-14 is too expensive and too powerful and more maintenance so they choose the budget choice instead. Such a bullshit money-saving reason while squandering trillions to make them rich is fine.

[@Paul-uw7us]

As a former Navy aviation guy and working for many years in military aviation I totally agree. An F-14 and A-6 combo would be amazing. Both are fantastic at their jobs. Combination aircraft never work nearly as well as dedicated aircraft. Dick Cheney was a total idiot. The position of Secdef should never be held by anyone who has not served in the military, preferably a senior enlisted man.

[@matthewnewnham-runner-writer]

Thanks for another outstanding episode, @Ward. As a contemporary of yours who flew the F-111, I know that TFX history, which always had the makings of a classic McNamara efficiency drive too far. I've always loved the Tomcat (more than the Aardvark, truth be told), and I love how well you explain all the moves and counter-moves in this pivotal Naval Aviation story.

[@tasmanmcmillan1777]

The f-111 was different, bringing in multiple firsts. Absolutely outstanding aircraft to fly & operate.

[@matthewnewnham-runner-writer]

Very true,@@tasmanmcmillan1777. And based on your handle, I'm wondering if you're a former RAAF F-111 guy? (I got nicely drunk on wine and port during a formal 'Dining In' event at Mtn Home AFB with an Aussie counterpart in '82. One of my fond memories from my F-111 days.)

[@kevinoshea9125]

Wow.greathistory lesson. I grew up on the North shore of Long Island and my scoutmaster was Thomas e Kelly the engineer that led the lunar module development and landed in the aviation Hall of fame. But more excitingly, our camping visits near calverton witnessed many f-14 low level flights right when it was coming into its prime between 1970 and 1975. Also a great lesson on mistakes in project development and overshooting technical dreams while battling real budgets; the f-35 is a 1.2 trillion dollar jobs program but Grumman sadly was left in the dust

[@WRX7182]

Super Tomcat 21 would have been amazing. It’s sad to think of where all the legacy airframes ended up.

[@Bersilus]

well let me answer that, in order for those not to end up as spare parts for Iran((i might remember the country wrong)) (the only country still actively using them) all the planes and frame etc are shredded. very sad indeed

[@mill2712]

@@Bersilus It was Iran.

[@btomas225]

I was an engineer (very young new grad) that left my first job at Hazeltine (E3 AWACS program) in Long Island to migrate to Grumman in 1974. I was assigned to the A6 program but in the last few years of my 34 years with what became Northrop Grumman, I was on the last F14-D program from around '91 to around 96 -ish can't recall anymore. In my early career I also spent some time in field service as a Grumman A6/EA6. Im3 rep. I was onboard the Ranger, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Coral Sea, Enterprise (which I refused to go back to because they treated their contractors pretty badly😀), Midway (which was in Japan at the time) and some of them I did two cruises on. I understand that they're all decommissioned now. My last cruise was on the Coral Sea around 1983? 84? 85?(ironically my first carrier too) on supposedly its last cruise before decommissioning and we transitioned through the Suez to and eventually into the Med. As we were leaving the WESPAC the Carl Vinson was going WESPAC and that was my one and only tour of a super carrier as I was flown over to the Vinson on a tech assist. Having eventually transitioned the Suez on the Coral Sea I began what was my only Med cruise which was sort of a mini-Med; only two stops Sigonella, Italy and Cannes. As it turned out, the Coral Sea survived to live on as a training carrier out of Mayport?, Fl. for a few more years. I miss those days.

[@natedrawsthings]

Thanks a lot, Cheney...

[@michaelmartinez1345]

@redw11er - after reading about Cheney's follies, 1) His 5- sucessful deferments to Dodge military service when he was needed, 2) His very poor/sloppy/ politically (personally gratifying) motivated decisions - regarding military equipment and weapons systems procurement, 3) His Extremely low level of his personal firearms safety training, have put him in the higher levels, of earning the 'Homer Simpson' award of EXTREME aDOLT incapabilities, on the wall of SHAME....

[@francisbusa1074]

The F-14 Tomcat, it seems to me, had great developmental potential, especially with better engines, but also much more like you said.

[@IONindustries627]

It would be very interesting to see if the DCS Modding Community can bring the Super Tomcat-21 to life in game, and try to get it as accurate as possible when it comes to its 'would be' capabilities.

[@InnovativeSage]

Yes. You're absolutely right. This is what we need.

[@InnovativeSage]

The TomCat must live on...

[@CakePrincessCelestia]

I'd love to see that as well as other projects that didn't make it like F-16XL, Avro Arrow, BAC TSR2, AH-56, RAH-66, F-23. I'd generally prefer to get the real stuff, but I'd love to see more hypothetical stuff from the modding community - done well - and more real stuff from actual 3rd party devs an ED... but I also wouldn't mind "just" getting one in VTOL VR since that already consists of fictional assets anyway :)

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Extremely difficult as most mods replicate existing features under a new lick of paint as they don't have access to the source code. And module development studios cannot get real world data for an aircraft that was not built.

[@SuperNiemi]

With the Tomcat gone the Navy also had to abandon the development of the Advanced-Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM or AIM-152) that would have been a worthy successor to the AIM-54 Phoenix. Being larger than the AMRAAM, it could have been carried by Super Hornets as well, but only the Tomcat could fully utilize its potential. The upcoming AIM-260 will definitely out-range the AIM-120, but faces strict size constraints due to the fact that it has to fit inside F-35's weapon bays, limiting its reach. Some politicians viewed the F-14 as an obsolete relic of the Cold War, yet it was the only platform that could justify the development of the AIM-152. Another testament to its great design.

[@Trigger_Treats]

The Navy canceled the AIM-152 in 1992, 14 years BEFORE the Tomcat was retired.

[@SuperNiemi]

@@Trigger_Treats Like Mr. Carroll said in the video, the F-14's future was beginning to look very uncertain long before its retirement, and the total dissipation of the Soviet thread in -91 raised the question whether or not the Tomcat or a very long range AAM was necessary. Obviously the F-14 wasn't going to retire overnight, but the writing was on the wall since the early 90's. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it was originally ment to retire sooner than 2006. The AIM-152 was a direct replacement for the Phoenix, AIM-54C+ variant being an interim solution, and the F-14 was definitely visioned as the main platform for this missile, for obvious reasons.

[@johannanned2522]

What a brilliant, educated, well balanced and contextualized discourse. Thank you sir.

[@conradgittins4476]

Choosing a proven airframe that can stand further development would seem like the logical choice. Unsurprisingly, bureaucracy and ego has to get in the way. I bet the Super Tomcats will serve quite a long 'interim' period.

[@josephkelley8641]

so true -

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

The F/A-18 is far more adaptable than the F-14

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

@D R The F-18 was an attacker that was given fighter credentials. News flash, multirole fighters have proven themselves already and are the future. There is no place for an aircraft whose sole purpose is to shoot down enemy aircraft. Not only is it painfully inefficient, due to the nature of modern air to air combat (BVR), there really is no point in going all out in creating a fighter. Its funny how you try to say that they "had to build a new fighter" to "get close" to the capabilities of the Tomcat when the F-4 pretty much carried the same weapons over a broadly similar layout but in a more compact airframe. In the anti-fighter role, the F-14 carried 4 Sparrows and 4 Sidewinders-the exact same as the older Phantom. However, the Phantom can and has proven itself in other roles beyond simply dogfighting, which is why so many Navy and all the Marine squadronds directly transferred from the F-4 to the F-18. Everyone I've talked to have said the same thing about "politics" being the reason why the F-14 was killed-but it was politics that brought it into its wretched existence in the first place. Double standards much?

[@nuanil]

@@IgnoredAdviceProductions Not really, it's just that they threw money at the F-18 to do so.

[@dougrobinson8602]

The Pentagon was overly focused on stealth capability. I'd venture a guess that radar signature was considered a major issue in the decision to go with the F-35. The JSF is like a Swiss Army knife. That is, it does many things, but none of them particularly well. The thing is overpriced, not particularly fast or maneuverable, and late to the party. The last fighter that was truly suitable for all branches was the F-4 Phantom II.

[@tomseitz]

Wow... I loved this episode.

[@Mastinox803]

14,15,16, and 18 were an end to an era. The greatest era in US fighter aircraft.

[@VndNvwYvvSvv]

They're still being used lol

[@mchristr]

As an Air Force guy I never knew the F-111 was being considered for carrier duty. The Aussies developed it into a pretty badass piece of kit but it never really found its niche in the US arsenal.

[@shizzlestix7887]

Except it found its niche pretty well as a deep strike aircraft with the US airforce. So much so, that after retiring, the US airforce still has a large hole in it's capability for long range deep strike missions. To give you an idea, during desert storm, the F-111 was able to kill significantly more armoured vehicles than the A-10 and F-16. Let me rephrase, the F-111 was significantly better at killing armoured vehicles than the A-10 - an aircraft famed for its ability to kill armoured vehicles. So much so that their sorties became known as "tank plinking", with the squadron having more armoured vehicle kills than any other allied unit. TLDR: the F-111 most definitely and unequivocally found its niche in the US airforce, as basically the words best and most effective tank buster.

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

Robert S McNamara tried to burden the navy with an overweight sluggish bomb truck as a air superiority fighter. They called it project TFX.

[@richardgorski23]

Grumman came to VX-4 to ask Maintenance people things to change on D model. We told them make the Radome side opening, make canopy electric, put an APU on it. What did they do? None of that.

[@shovelyjoe1059]

Halve the number of tools in a tool pouch. Better yet, get it down to 4, including the flashlight.

[@2Oldcoots]

Mr. MacNamara's reaction upon first being offered the SECDEF was "I'm Not Qualified." Out.

[@redline2655]

I really appreciate/enjoy aviation history..One of the neatest things was watching a A10 shoot plasma flares for practice. They were the loitering type. Can you speak on this Ward. This boys on ground thought they were UAPs. Amazing stuff.Thanks,Merry Christmas

[@otm646]

What are these plasma flares?

[@triroo107]

What a great run down of the Tomcat, as an AQ with over 26 years… with tours at China Lake & Point Mugu, i lived this battle everyday… Hornets where nothing but cyclic ops fuel burners, but great at catching the 3 wire. Grumman did get to big for their pants and Mac Air later (Boeing aircraft) had many to soon to retire Admirals in their pocket along with His Majesty “Dick”. That guy never wanted to hear good news on Projects to upgrade the Tomcat or Intruders. Granted Maintenance hogs, but damn, they got the job done when they were let free from the BS of Political target selection… I could go for for ever, loved my leading edge tech job, and the education the Navy provided me… our watch is over, the kids have the con and I just watch & shake my head… God Help us

[@randy6999]

Our parents said the same shit about us and here we are!

[@411DL]

Strange how for over 20 years of my adult life all I heard about the A-10 was that it was amazing in its role, yet badly needs to be retired. Dick dies and now overdue upgrades are going to be rolled out and talk about how we may likely be using the A-10 in to 2035. It's like the A-10 got a stat boost in surviveability vs polotics.

[@East_Coast_Toasty_Boy]

​@@411DLWish the F/A-14E from the ST21 program would've got that.

[@waltkingfrancisco1342]

I'm support of the SUPER TOMCAT 21. we need them for super heroes like you. Thank you for your service.

[@davidlee1646]

I recently saw an interesting simulated battle between the US Navy and China, and in that simulation the sheer speed of the Tomcat and the missile launches at Tomcat speeds, were sorely missed. It seems that the Super Hornets are versatile, but it really lacked the ability to get where the navy really needed to effectively defend the fleet.

[@Bill1764]

Excellent video !! I have spent 24 years in the US Air Force, G43171E, 43171F, 31670G. So I have been around for a while and I fully agree with your comments on the workings of the higher workings government indecision system in all administrations. Sincerely, Msgt. William R Toprock, USAF (Ret)

[@2Oldcoots]

Love your penetrating analysis! One quick question from this Vietnam War Veteran. Must you show us pictures of MacNamara? Thank you for your consideeration.

[@damianh4510]

All do respect, it is a lot easier to discredit the A-10 when being an Airman or Naval Aviator, rather than someone who is on the ground and “in the shit” so to speak.

[@harvey785]

That single tail Tomcat looks strickingly like the Panavia Tornado! I do feel the Tomcat could have shown similar longevity to the F15. It's a shame how some great planes are discarded - I miss seeing RAF Harriers flying round where I live (Welsh coast - Mach Loop) - I had a very close encounter with pair of GR9's on a very secluded golf course about 20 years ago, they were so low I actually dropped to the floor as the first one came over, the second peeled round me!

[@JmO-ee1bi]

The problem is that the F/A-18E/F just does way more. It’s an all in one plane. Sure it’s not quite as fast as an F-14, but it’s close enough, and does way more with ground attack capabilities and similar air to air capabilities. Same with the F-35 although it has some comprise with the 1 engine and lower payload for stealth and the back view stealth issues due to the round jet exhaust but it combines well with the F/A-18E/F, it makes sense for the modern military. The only enemy planes that have any chance against the F/A-18E/F is the Su-57 (and there’s like a dozen of them max, and the F-22 would smoke them in real conflict, even the F-35 would too) and maybe the J-20 but I’m betting it’s way overrated.

[@ndx6779]

@@JmO-ee1bi There's no reason why the Tomcat couldn't have also received the "Super" treatment like what lead the Hornet to becoming the F/A-18E/F. Of course the F/A-18E/F does more, it's effectively a Version 2.0 Hornet, while the Tomcat never received its 2.0. An F-14E/F Super Tomcat would've blown the Super Hornet out of the sky.

[@jeffdworkin915]

@@ndx6779 Not true - it's a much older design with outdated radars, engines, and electronics. As they aged they became a huge maintenance nightmare. They would need as stated in the video to do a redesign on top of the platform.

[@robertajennings3815]

May look like it but way behind,,slow,...not enough range,,works well in surveillance,,,but nothing like the cat, in air to air combat...

[@oot007]

@@jeffdworkin915The Super Tomcat had new radar, engines, electronics and updated airframe.

[@ThatDudeCobz]

The f-15 will always be my favorite, but the tomcat and Hornet hold a special place in my heart too. We got the f-15EX just recently, it’s sad that the tomcat or hornet didn’t get a similar treatment.

[@rodrigorendon9262]

Thanks Mooch; keep up the great podcast!

[@WardCarroll]

Thanks for the support!

[@pg1171]

Fantastic video! Thank you so much for putting forth the truth! Keep up the great work!

[@PotatoeJoe69]

Imagine where they should be now, if they had made the Super Tomcat -- potentially being refit with the F-35's engines, which make 41,000lbf of thrust in A/B, and 27,000lbf dry. Could you imagine a Tomcat with 82,000lbf thrust! And 54,000lbf dry thrust!

[@donlarsen4841]

And it would be just as dead when up against an F22 or F35.

[@Trigger_Treats]

Yeah, no. The F-35's engines have a greater diameter than the F110s. You can't fit the F135 in a Tomcat, Viper, or Eagle.

[@pablogonzalez2635]

@Don Larsen and Grant Little. Agreed. Super Tomcat F-14D engine was notorious in issues as it killed many pilots. F18EF Super Hornet and F35B (USMC) F35C(USN) are sufficient for now. Except, the Tomcat carried more fuel and more air to air hard points. Tomcat lives on! (in our hearts and memories).

[@BCSchmerker]

+{UCWa-pKckoE8aFNRSCV6-fCA} *Actually, neither the United Technologies Pratt & Whitney F135 nor the Rolls-Royce US F136 would fit.* Northrop would have enough headaches shoehorning dual United Technologies Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-400's or dual General Electric F120-GE-400's into a G-391 demised from Bethpage (likely USDoD des: NF-14D).

[@Trigger_Treats]

​@@pablogonzalez2635 More fuel? Not by much and with the Tomcat's design, it wouldn't matter. The Tomcat's max fuel load is 23,224 lbs, and it needs two external drop tanks to get that. Internal fuel alone, the Tomcat only carried 16,200 lbs of fuel. By comparison, the F-35C carries 19,625 lbs of fuel internally. So the Tomcat needs to carry two drop tanks (which add parasitic drag) to carry at least as much fuel that the F-35C does. Additionally, the F-35 carries it's weapons internally, reducing the parasitic drag that comes with carrying external pylons, bombs, and missiles. The F-35C is also burning through it's gas with only one engine, whereas the gas on the Tomcat has to feed two engines. So the Tomcat doesn't have any real practical advantages here.

[@grey5135]

One of the most beautiful aircraft ever made imo. I fell in love with it as a child growing up watching Top Gunvso many times I wore out the VHS it was on.

[@richardike2342]

Thanks for this very comprehensive video. But l have a simpler modification suggestion. If the F-14 had its sheet metals replaced by composite parts, it would have shed about a third of its wieght. This would result in supercruiser ability, longer range, and shorter take-off/landing characteristics.

[@HiTechOilCo]

The F-14 Super Tomcat 21 is still more than viable to this day. The plane needs to be built!

[@johnhenderson3646]

I wonder if, somewhere on Long Island NY, in some dark dusty warehouse, sits a pile of F-14 tooling and assembly jigs? Or were they destroyed as well?

[@sgt.grinch3299]

Semper Fi Sir. Cheney had a habit of killing quality weapons programs as well as careers. He was a great fit in a long line of politicians who lack vision about tomorrow’s war. He likes to fight napoleonic style.

[@wildweasel2160]

It seriously boggles my mind how an old crusty-ass dude like Cheney, with absolutely zero knowledge of the military, let alone naval aviation, has discretion to discontinue projects and unilaterally influence the direction of US military aircraft like that.

[@Extinctverse]

Getting to the channel and this video very late. Fantastic vid. I fell absolutely, irrevocably, in love with the F-14 Tomcat in the summer of 1987 at Mt. Carmel airport in Indiana (my brothers and father drove a good distance to attend.) VF-84 did the demo flight for the airshow crowd and I can't ever forget how freaking cool the pilot and RIO were, handing out squadron patches and answering questions from the crowd; and that big, beautiful beast, ready to leap into the air, painted in the best livery in the U.S. Military. Enough waxing poetic, the only thing I can say about the Tomcat and whether it was better or worse than the Hornet, or even the F-15. When those programs end, will they immediately destroy all the copies not meant for static display? That's all that needs said. Imagine, Grumman built a weapon system so adapted to it's role, that WE were so afraid of it falling into Iranian hands to keep their F-14A's flying we destroyed. Every. Single. One. That could be used against us. When in our history has that happened before? Not because it was obsolete, but because it was so good at what it did. Heck, in 2023 the USAF is buying the F-15EX and that design is only 24 months or so younger than the F-14. As I like to say, "When you're out of Tomcats, you're out of fighters." Again, excellent video, Ward, and very informative to someone that wasn't young enough to understand all the jockeying going on politically regarding the F-14 at the time.

[@henrycastle6584]

So what you are saying is that if there is ever a conflict against Iran, csg's are going to take heavy losses by the tomcats Iran has sinch its such a superior aircraft after all...

[@Extinctverse]

@@henrycastle6584 If the Iranians had access to repair parts and spare aircraft, instead of cannibalizing their own, yeah, I think so. I'm not sure what you're getting at, are you trying to troll my comment, because this is my favorite airframe of all time? I can tell you, and I'd hope the Tomcat vets that follow Ward would back me up on it; the U.S. has always had a vested interest in how many airframes the Iranians had that were flyable. Let's do this, name for me one better carrier-based, fleet defense interceptor produced anywhere in the world during the life of the Tomcat program, that's better than the F-14. I'll wait.

[@jeffallen3382]

I was at the airshow where Snodgrass flew the Tomcat with all the other Grumman cat planes. I was 14 years old and I still remember seeing them fly iver head that day.

[@johnpage7491]

Thank you for your excellent description of how once again we retired a platform that far surpassed its successors. We are fortunate that we have not had a near peer confrontation during these systems deployment. My concern is that the F-35 will fail in the confrontation with China and we mat loose multiple carriers because of biased procurement processes.

[@SSBailey77845]

This is my second bite of the apple (this episode is a “remote dropper” of yours…so I watched it again). Col. John Boyd would have disagreed with your assessment of the F14 and F21 on almost every point I don’t think he ever contemplated the “loyal wingman” drone swarm concept or even evolutionary digital systems. You made a very compelling case and, for what it is worth, this old fighter pilot is convinced. Well done, Mooch.

[@hermanmoore3301]

Once again a very informative Video - Learn't some really great info on these Programs. Explaining how Personality of Secretary of Defense can influence what American Aviators get to Fly.

[@boydgrandy5769]

You know, I shouldn't say this, but the closest Dick Cheney ever got to armed conflict was when he negligently discharged a shotgun into his hunting buddy. Civilian control of the military is a sound concept, right up to the point where the SecDef is a pure politician with no concept of how to fight or what works in the real world. Then, not so much. That, it appears, has only gotten worse.

[@joelh1950]

Ward, I would just like to know where in the world did they put almost 23 hundred gallons of aviation fuel in a F-14 Tom Cat ? Have always loved the Tom Cats ! I must tell you this short story : Many years ago I was on a tractor disking in a large field , looking straight ahead I saw a Ton Cat coming just above the tree tops and I thought that is odd I can't hear anything ! He got right over the top of me and went vertical at full after burner ! Even after he was out of sight the sound was deafening ! I was looking straight up the exhaust as he went out of sight ! This happen in north eastern North Carolina maybe 60 miles south of the Oceana Air Base . That's been about 48 years ago and I have never forgot it ! That pilot, whom ever he was, made my day ! Thanks !

[@andyjacobs7010]

Subscribed after twenty minutes, can't wait to see and read more from you Ward. Incidentally I recently bought and have been playing a solo board game, Hornet Leader: Carrier Air Operations. This video certainly explains a whole lot of why certain capabilities were and weren't available for certain aircraft. I'm incredibly glad that this was recommended on the side of a wholly and completely unrelated video.

[@robertbrazier5097]

I'd always prefered the Super Hornet over the Tomcat due to it's technology and ground attack capability, however if we got the Super Tomcat then I may have had a different opinion

[@jennyarriola324]

The Super Hornet is grossly outmatched by it's Chinese and Russian counterparts, though.

[@passivehouseaustralia4406]

@@jennyarriola324 What ? are you talking about when it was released or 10 years later ?? Tech capability is accelerating so you have to look at the "time stamp", also it was a cheap upgrade path compared to F-35 which was still maturing at that stage.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@jennyarriola324 Super Hornet avionics and weapons are superior, but the gap is closing. SH Block 2 will have first-look on any Flanker including the Su-35, and first-shoot against the current operational Russian Flankers. Vs Chinese later Flankers with AESA and PL-15? Big question mark. Super Hornet Block 3 networked with F-35C overmatches anything in or on the horizon for both Russian VVS and Chicom PLAAF.

[@appa609]

@@LRRPFco52 All these planes already have more detection range than launch range. Datalink doesn't extend missile kinematics and the AIM-120D simply cannot fly as far and fast as PL-15's. Flankers are also faster and higher flying launch platforms that can get +5nm range against SH using the same missiles. The F-35 still certainly has first look first shoot by virtue of denying radar lock (IRST gets track at ~30nm) but SH is definitely outsticked.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@appa609 Tracking all that. Hence the development of AIM-260 and other things.

[@rodvafe]

I think that not choosing the Tomcat upgrade out of a rivalry between Gruman and McDonell sounds like something right out of a Game of Thrones episode

[@GintaPPE1000]

One thing I never see talked about with the advanced F-14 initiatives are cost estimates. People don't realize that the original Tomcat was, and remains, the most expensive aircraft the USN has ever procured, falling shy of only the F-117, B-1B, F-22, and B-2 in unit cost among all US aviation programs. KZbin won't let me link it here, but according to a 1972 GAO report titled "The F-14 Aircraft," the initial production run of 313 F-14As has an estimated cost $5.21 billion, based on the value of the US Dollar in March 1972. Adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars, that results in a unit cost figure of $114.3 million per airframe. By comparison, the F-35C is valued around $99 million (based on a quote of $90 million in 2018), the F-35B is about $111 million (based on a quote of $101.2 million in 2018), the F-15EX is $87.7 million (based on the deal signed earlier in 2021), and Super Hornet Block III is $55.7 million (based on a quote of $51.2 million in 2019). The arithmetic gets a bit funky because the F-14's development costs were all borne by the USN, while all the other fighter programs had foreign nations shouldering some of the cost, but those figures are what we, the taxpayers, ended up shouldering. Now, none of the advanced Tomcat proposals have ever released a cost figure, so the lack of discussion on cost is understandable. But we have three pieces of evidence: the upgrades Grumman planned over the F-14D, Grumman's pitch that the ST21 would've been more affordable than NATF (a navalized F-22), and the Super Hornet Block I's unit cost of $81 million (based on a 2012 price of $67.4 million adjusted for inflation). Unlike the F-14B, this also would've had to be new-build aircraft, not a modernization of existing F-14 airframes. Given general trends in weapons system acquisition over the last 50 years (better individual capabilities, but higher unit costs), ST21 would've probably been at least as expensive per airframe as the original F-14. Grumman's lack of cost information is also very strange for a sales pitch supposedly based on low cost - Saab, for instance, has always been very transparent about the Gripen's costs as part of their marketing strategy to appeal to those who want a cheap but capable fighter. Further adding to the cost question is the fact that, at the ST21 was pitched, the F-22 Raptor was already estimated to cost $152.41 million apiece (adjusted for inflation based on a figure of $44.3 billion for 750 airplanes in 1985 dollars). NATF would've almost certainly been higher due to the cost of modifying the Raptor for carrier use. Even by this time, the Raptor was the most expensive fighter the US military had ever purchased, so Grumman's pitch that ST21 was cheaper than NATF doesn't mean it's actually a cheap airplane. Especially when you consider the Super Hornet ended up costing just over half that figure per airplane. It's like saying a Mercedes is as cheap as a Toyota because it's less expensive than a Rolls-Royce. This is not even getting into potential operating costs either. Compared to other Teen Series, the F-14 always had high upkeep costs and maintenance demands due to the swing wing mechanism and the AWG-9, and neither cost sink was going away with the advanced derivatives Grumman proposed. Sure, digital architecture makes it cheaper to maintain, but you're also heaping on a load of extra electronics and systems to offset that. At the end of the day, we might've gotten a carrier fleet fighter as capable as the F-15EX, but without the production volume and supply chain of the Super Eagle, which is propped up in large part by foreign operators. Cheney definitely did not treat the Super Tomcat proposals fairly, but if these variants really were so much cheaper yet just as capable, I think we would've seen at least the studies to prove it.

[@WardCarroll]

Now do F-35.

[@georgesykes394]

I've read report's. Where the JSF-35 II Lighting platform in all variants from R&D to cost overruns, maintenance, procurement, future avionics upgrades, maintenance and contractor support etc, etc. Will Cost the American taxpayers well North of 2 Trillion dollars! All this for an aircraft that's slow can't do what's advertised always has an excuse. And has routinely gottten it's ass kicked in ACM training by 1970s technology most notably the F-16 Viper.

[@GintaPPE1000]

@@georgesykes394 If you've watched any of Ward's videos on air combat, you'd know that ACM is a method of last resort in war. You'd also know that thrust:weight is more important than technology. Setting the RoE to close-range dogfights only plays completely to the F-16's strengths while negating all of the F-35's.

[@georgesykes394]

@@GintaPPE1000 There's no certainty in Combat except uncertainty. Planes have to abort missions due to mechanical failures. Even if it were operating as part of a strike package and F-22s were providing the CAP. Planes still sneak through and their is always the possibility it may have to Dogfight and not be necessary in BVR range. That means the JSF-35 would have to rely on a AIM-9 or the 25MM Cannon. What if it goes up against a more lethal or platform just as agile. It has already gotten it's ass kicked by Vipers in ACM. What if it's carrying A2G Ordnance. We all know Ordnance on aircraft creates Drag and the handling characteristics are going to be nowhere near like that if it were Clean. People can't see the JSF-35 for what it really is a blackhole for taxpayer money. ROE is not set in stone and often it's at the disadvantage of CF or American forces.

[@georgesykes394]

@@GintaPPE1000 The main strengths of the F-16 is that the platform actually works and has given the USAF, USN, and ANG over 30 year's of service and has cost far less!

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

12:57 Interesting... I was stationed at NAWC Point Mugu from 90-94 our F-14A+ was TF-30 powered with D model avionics. Two of F-14B models we had were engine converted A models with IIRC two of them being built from Bethpage as B models. Finally we had two F-14D models. Then we had a Iranian Tomcat and a couple of fleet Tomcats that were the dogs of the fleet.

[@oldgoat142]

Just based on tech specs alone, the Super Tomcat is superior in every way to just about everything in the inventory of either the navy or air force. The fact that Cheney had a serious personal problem with the top echelons of Grumman, and/or had a (rumored) deep financial interest in MD, is just flat stupid on his part. What should be the focus is the troops on the ground who fight the battles. When you're literally under fire, you'd like to know that the bird in the air won't have to bug out when they hit bingo, especially if the fight reaches a critical point. I wonder how many lives could've been saved, and how many less folded flags families would have received, if Cheney hadn't have gotten into a pissing contest and the Super Tomcat would have been built?

[@appa609]

Not at all? The F-22 beats its pants off in every regime of A2A capability. The F-35 has superior sensor fusion and networking. F-15EX flies faster higher carrying more and costing less. It has some advantages against the SH.

[@oldgoat142]

@@appa609 That's why I put the caveat, "Just about."

[@GintaPPE1000]

Cheney's ego isn't the only knock against the Super Tomcat. The F-14 remains the most expensive fighter the Navy ever procured, costing the equivalent of $114.3 million per airframe in today's money. A Super Tomcat would not have been any cheaper, even with 30 years of technological advancement on its side, after all the goodies they stacked on it. By comparison, the Super Hornet is about $67 million and the F-35C is about $100 million. The simple reality is that, at the time ST21 was being considered, the Navy's funding was being poached for the Army and land forces of the USMC. So if the USN got the money for the Super Tomcat on top of the Super Hornet, then it would've likely come out of the money used to up-armor Humvees, procure MRAP, and all the other capabilities that saved lives in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years. If the USN had to choose between one or the other, then the Super Tomcat would've been bought in smaller numbers than the Super Hornet, which means lower sortie rate and fewer aircraft to respond to calls for CAS. Even if the Super Tomcat is more capable, a more advanced airplane can't be in two places at once. If anything, the body count from Iraq and Afghanistan would've been higher in either case.

[@rickfeith6372]

This video played automatically after another aviation video. I wasn’t watching, but I was listening intently. After about 15 or 20 mins, I looked up and was pleasantly surprised when I saw a Marshall half stack. Neat. Then I saw the lack of gnobs….is that an 800?? Why yes it is. Sick amp man.

[@reltney20]

The Tomcat was the absolute easiest to beat in a dog fight and that was when I was flying A-7Ds. Talk about a target! I was just a 1Lt. and easily beat the 14 in single circle and 2 circle fights. When I was in F-16As, you could BFM 2 F-14s at the same time easily. I could point my nose and defend at the same time. It was easier to fight 2 tomcats with 1 F-16 than 1 tomcat with the A-7. Now I got to fight a F-14D. Totally different plane. The F-14D and it actually was a D(R) I got to fight, was a beast. It still was beatable fairly easily with the F-16 but I could only take on 1 at a time. It could turn ! It wasn’t as challenging as a F-15 A or C but the 14 with a competent pilot could jump on any mistake I make easily. The 15 was better overall against the 14D but just was no match with a 16. I would say the 14D and the 18 are about the same in BFM. It was not as good as the 16 ( FYI, I just flew block 10 and 15 F-16 which were light and fricken awesome) but a little challenge.

[@NyteStalker89]

I mean... The tomcat wasn't designed with BFM in mind.. it was built in the era where Radar guided missiles were the governments jam. They wanted a fleet defense jet that could dogfight if needed but was supposed to lob long range missiles. Of course when it comes the F-14A, the A-7D could beat it. A-7 was slower and as such had lower speeds for optimal turn rate and had a smaller radius(as you know lol). The A viper was a light weight beast and with its thrust to weight ratio being sooooooo damn good so its no surprise it out rates the tomcat. No surprise the D could hold its own better since it was running digital FCS if it was a factory built D and not upgraded from an A or B. Thanks for your service and sharing your experience fighting the Cat!

[@FLAC2023]

I have a retired Super Hornet pilot friend who told me that the F-14 was mostly junk... maybe new lighter materials could have made a difference, but I take his word over any...

[@HootTubeHero]

@@FLAC2023 Hahaha thats exactly what a lawn dart pilot would say. The Tomcat gas was the winner for me. Get into position quickly to kill the incoming at long range. The Hornet family was great at watching high speed high altitude incoming blow right past them because of their lack of speed and range. The Super Hornet is much better than the legacy but not holding a candle to the Tomcat.

[@philipcamp1370]

Fascinating stuff

[@scottharris6423]

Your knowledge is amazing of F-14 & F-18 my 2 favorite planes of the 20th & 21st century. Myself being 70 yrs old & favorite planes are those of WW2; P-51 & F4U Corsair! Oh! My other is the Spad A-1 Skyraider, the 1st prop plane that shot down 2 Mig 21.Job well done.

[@liverpoolscottish6430]

The F-14 is one of the best looking, and coolest American aircraft designs- it just looked 'right,' with great lines. It's a shame the development didn't continue and that the F-14 is no longer in service. Big thumbs up for the F-14 from the other side of the pond in Blighty! :)

[@danpatton3891]

My understanding is the F-14 was a "Hanger Queen," which was the major reason it was put to pasture. The maintenance hours per flight hour was extreme.

[@ich9907]

Thanks for the great vids,keep it up.I much appreciate your service.

[@cpt.rogers1396]

Hey Ward, I recently decided to do some digging into scandals between Grumman and Douglas and I found a really interesting one in Japan between them throughout the 60s to 1980. Try looking into it sometime, it could make for an interesting future video if you need any topics since Douglas was not shy of doing dirty deals as evidenced by the DC-10 cargo door scandal.

[@Peakfreud]

Man this was an excellent presentation and informative.

[@wilson2455]

love how the drawings/paintings look almost nothing like the final aircraft..

[@mikec1554]

F-14 must have been an absolute beast to maintain.

[@VndNvwYvvSvv]

They were bad, yeah. 14D was less bad.

[@jc03571]

Best episode yet. Really enjoyed it.

[@danieljaymeshansel5086]

Love all the info, and I see that Les Paul and Rickenbacker 620! I have a ‘58 reissue LP and a fireglo 620

[@joek81981]

I'm like, "Planes, yeah of course,... say how about that Rickenbacker tho?"

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The actual attack aircraft that the F/A-18A was supposed to replace was the A-7. At the time, the USAF was looking at a twin-engine A-7F or an A-7 with an after-burning TF41 (the American version of the RR Spey used on the F-4K/M. The A-6 was the long range AW strike a/c. The first F-14B would have been the F-14A w/ the F110. The main issue was maintenance of the titanium wing box. The costs of maintaining the F-14 was seen as a drag on ops and maintenance funds. The F/A-18E/F was, as said, supposed to be a cheap, easy upgrade of the F/A-18C/D. In fact, the costs were far beyond the original proposals and cost more than ten years of F-14 maintenance. But this was procurement funding which was a different checkbook. The loss of long range air intercept capability of the F-14/AIM-54 systems was seen as acceptable because the collapse of the USSR ended the long range bomber/long range anti-ship missile combination. The F/A-18E/F satisfied the USN's needs in an expeditionary force centered on intervention against insurgencies. A replacement for the F-14 would be a long-term project under the Defense Programing Guidance Memorandum which said the US wouldn't face a near-peer competitor for 20 years. The first DPGM that said that was published in 1993. The last one that said that same thing was 2015. In the meantime, the PLAAF and PLAN developed long range anti-ship missile capability while the Russians sold similar capability to the Iranian. Now the Navy needed both the Outer Air Space interceptor and the AW long range strike, both lost with the elimination of the F-14 and A-6. We can imagine what the Super Tomcat could have been by simply looking at the F-15E Strike Eagle. AW long-range strike capability of the F-111 added to the top air superiority fighter in the world. Another impact of the Expeditionary War/Global War on Terror was de-emphasis on long range ASW. This moved the S-3 off the flight decks, just when a tanker version of the S-3 would have met the Navy's need to refuel F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F aircraft.

[@greenbeenie2]

Have to love that F14 one of the best, if not the best aircraft. Also notice the "infamous" album cover in the background...."you be the man"!!!!! SO, to put this together: CV 66 F 14 FAB FOUR.....what more could a man ask for?

[@wilson2455]

9:10 - the beautiful F/A-18 Hornet !

[@shawnhicks619]

What I find highly telling is how in the “old days” the aircraft were built well and in short time. And they not only did the job they were designed to do, but adapted to fill other roles and do them well. These new planes are over engineered, over budget and behind development and while they can go fast and be less visible to radar have shorter range and carry less ordinance. And cost a ton more. I mean for crying out loud the b1 and B2 are entering end of service while the b-52 is slated to be in service for several more decades…… because they can’t build a bomber that can do what a b-52 does. I fear the F-35 will meet an early service end and I hope we don’t have to use the darn thing because that’s a lot of tax dollars to lose in combat because some generals and admirals feel all warm and fuzzy because it’s “next generation”. I suppose they believe switching to drone usage is the future.

[@ltcuddles685]

It's not that they "can't", the planes like the B-52 fill their roles just fine and don't need to be replaced by a new airframe that does the same jobs that are typically in low-risk air environments. Which is unlike most of the more advanced aircraft that are replaced every few decades because they are outdated compared to newer technologies faster thanks to their high risk roles.

[@shawnhicks619]

@@ltcuddles685 the f-35 is a prime example of missed benchmarks and massive underbidding. Not that the aircraft isn’t going to be phenomenal. And to be completely fair the B-1 filled the role it was designed for, but they now cant use many of its designed features because of over use or the nuclear treaty. And truth be told the future is clearly headed to a drone fleet, the writing is on the wall. My comment is mostly pointing out that many of the best planes we ever had were designed and built and designed in pretty short order and mostly did what they were supposed to. The over runs and delays sure look pretty bad, and sometimes feel like money pits. And due to how quickly and easily information passes in our current world our enemies get wind of our tech way faster then before.

[@jamesmaddison4546]

One thing you didn't mention. You didn't account for the simple fact that adversaries will always try to achieve having superior aircraft than us. Sure, we can go back to the way things were developed decades ago, and won't have aircraft that have the capability that modern fighters do, but that doesn't mean our adversaries will too. Simple truth is fighters of those days cannot do things fighters today can, and comparing a bomber that in today's air environment will never fly alone in contested airspace, to technology of fighters is a flawed argument. Also, the b1 can carry a larger payload than the b52. It was designed to be a major upgrade over the b52. We still have the 52s because the b1 has been banned by treaty to carry nukes, the 52 was grandfathered in. The 52 can carry a wider range of bombs, but the b1 can carry more, can fly ALOT lower, faster, and is stealthier than the 52 (duh on that one)

[@jamesmaddison4546]

@@shawnhicks619 Also yes older aircraft were rolled out much faster because the engineering and construction methods used were pretty standard back then. That's not the case anymore. I go back to my other comment, a fighter today with those methods simply wouldn't have the level of survivability in a fight needed to give the pilot a damn good chance of making it home. Sorry but I prefer our guys not being put at a disadvantage from the get go and not making it back. You lose a pilot and you lose an aircraft just so you have speed off the production line, what happens to that speed when you're having to replace your inventory alot? Not very efficient. And yeah, our enemies get wind of our tech quickly these days don't they? ALL MORE THE REASON TO KEEP TRYING TO GAIN THE UPPER HAND DUDE. NOT GO BACK DECADES

[@shawnhicks619]

@@jamesmaddison4546 to a certain extent you are correct but in many specific cases they had to invent the procedures and engineer on the floor, one of the biggest prime examples is the sr-71. Also, as is pointed out in this video, most of these new aircraft are jacks of all trades. And while it makes perfect sense to have some portion of your fleet multi role, the majority being put in this situation is in my opinion a grave error. The example of the super tomcat and the tomcat a+ given and varying cost comparisons show that had these been green lit it would have been cheaper and superior with one exception, stealth ability. Also the idea that the f-35 can do it all as good as the planes it replaces is a huge error. Prime example is they claim the f-35 can do the job as good or better then the a-10 for close air support. I highly doubt it. The f-35 is a needed asset in our arsenal, and is becoming very capable but I also fear it’s becoming an all the eggs in one basket. I don’t think we could win any major conflict with mostly f-35s filling air to air, air to ground and close air support roles. I also have the feeling more is being added to the f-35 to justify the massive cost over runs. And that in my opinion is the main and major drawback to the f-35, it’s ballooning cost. The idea of having an aircraft that draws most parts from the same parts bin is a great idea, upgradeability is also a massive plus. Speed, maneuverability, and stealth are also excellent with that aircraft. Time will tell if the airframe holds up as well as proven airframes. And it’s not like the military hasn’t taken a bad direction in the past, I’m just saying the f-35 has a lot, in the eyes of some, to prove to justify its cost and the claims made in its capabilities.

[@gregoryf9299]

1:51 understatement of the year, lol! I remember reading about the “Hornet Mafia” years ago. It’s a shame that the weapons that get selected ALWAYS have a long politician/industrial “tail” behind them. The sad reality of our system.

[@BossDM-2]

Excellent informational presentation. Thank you.

[@darktoadone5068]

As an AO I loved the Tomcat, I was in VF21 deployed on the Independence back in the 90s. Nothing like seeing a Tomcat loaded down with six AIM54s.

[@vetmx2105]

I loved the tomcat. I was an ABH3 on the Nimitz I remains my favorite Plane

[@chriskenney4377]

So energizing, and then the reality of military aviation acquisition and related politics. You can't fix stupid. Thanks Ward, it's a privilege to hear your stories, and analysis.