An F-14 of

VF-102 refuels in
January 1996.
Luigino Caliaro
Contents
8 Why move the wings?
14 TFX and VFX
– failure and success
20 Testing and development
30 The Tophatters
44 Tomcat squadrons
of the United States Navy
50 Tomcats versus Eagles
4 aviationclassics.co.uk
56 Flying the Tomcat
64 Solving the problems and
extending the envelope
72 Top Gun viewing companion:
The F-14 scenes
82 Tomcat tails
90 The AIM-54 Phoenix
96 Refining the breed
 Editor: Tim Callaway
editor@aviationclassics.co.uk
Publisher: Dan Savage
Contributors: Dave "Bio" Baranek, Luigino Caliaro,
Norm deWitt, Keith Draycott,
Travis Getz, Frank B Mormillo,
David G Powers, Constance
Redgrave, Jonathan K Schreiber,
Warren E Thompson, Robert "Scout"
Winebrenner, John Ziegler

Designer: Charlotte Pearson

Reprographics: Jonathan Schofield

Group production editor: Tim Hartley

Divisional advertising manager: Sandra Fisher

sfisher@mortons.co.uk
Advertising sales executive: Jamie Moulson
jmoulson@mortons.co.uk
01507 529465

Subscription manager: Paul Deacon

pdeacon@mortons.co.uk
Newstrade manager: Steve O’Hara
sohara@mortons.co.uk
Marketing manager: Charlotte Park
cpark@mortons.co.uk
01507 529549
Production manager: Craig Lamb
clamb@mortons.co.uk

Operations director: Dan Savage

Commercial director: Nigel Hole
Business development director: Terry Clark
Managing director: Brian Hill

Editorial address: Aviation Classics

Mortons Media Group Ltd
PO Box 99
Horncastle
Lincs LN9 6JR

Website: www.aviationclassics.co.uk

Customer services, back issues

and subscriptions: 01507 529529
(24 hour answerphone)
help@classicmagazines.co.uk
www.classicmagazines.co.uk

Archive enquiries: Jane Skayman

jskayman@mortons.co.uk
01507 529423

Distribution: COMAG
Tavistock Road, West Drayton,
Middlesex UB7 7QE
01895 433800

Printed: William Gibbons and Sons,

Wolverhampton
102 The Gulf of Sidra
© 2011 Mortons Media Group Ltd.

106 In the cockpit All rights reserved.

114 Quickstrike to ASF-14
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage retrieval system
without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
ISBN No 978-1-906167-60-8

116 Goodbye to the big bird Having trouble finding a copy

of this magazine? Why not
just ask your local newsagent

120 The Iranian F-14 – the last Tomcat to reserve you a copy

124 Survivors – museum Tomcats

129 Dale ‘Snort’ Snodgrass Independent publisher since 1885 Member of the
Periodical Publishers
Association

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 5

Anytime, baby!
W
ell, producing this magazine
has been a real learning curve
again, and this time one for
which I am deeply grateful, as
it has cleared up many
questions I had often pondered regarding the
programmes that led to the F-14. It also posed a
particular problem. Let me try to explain...
There are some aircraft which are legends
because of a particular piece of history. In this
I am thinking about the Spitfire and the Battle
of Britain. Completely unfair, of course, as
everyone knows it was the Hawker Hurricane
that won the battle, not the Spitfire. Or do
they? Public perception is a difficult thing to
break, and as time passes spectacles become
rosier, facts become less distinct and romantic
ideals replace cold hard facts.
That’s one of the reasons I hate writing this
page, somehow I have to condense that kind
6 aviationclassics.co.uk
of altered viewpoint into a few paragraphs. Not
easy, especially in this case, as the Tomcat
does not have one legend about it, it’s one of
those rare aircraft with three.
The public perception of Grumman’s
mighty fighter is one based on movies. Top
Gun and The Final Countdown cemented the
Tomcat in the public’s mind as the ultimate
superfighter, sweeping all before it with ease
and elan. Challenging that image is difficult,
because it has become part of popular culture
and therefore a “fact”.
The aviation “expert” perception of the
aircraft is as different as it could be.
“Overweight and underpowered” and
“turkey” are just two of the epithets slung at
the Tomcat by detractors or people who don’t
really know or understand the aircraft.
Quotes from influential politicians and
high ranking officers are used as ammunition
to support their view that the Tomcat was a
poor performer and an expensive mistake.
Oddly, on reading further, the quotes thus
used seem to be either out of context or
incomplete in many cases.
Then there is the third legend. This one
is matter of fact, not loud or showy, it just
states things with a quiet smile and a rueful
nod to the fallibilities of both man and
machine. But the statements, quietly made,
by the men and women who hold this legend
dear are astounding.
“Yeah, we managed to get a solid lock and
fired, the missile came off clean and climbed
sharply. The drone was just over 120 miles
away at the time.” Please note that carefully.
120 miles.
“Funny, for all talk and stories, I can’t
remember ever having a problem with the
(TF-30) engine, I don’t recall it getting in the
way much, if at all.” A much maligned
turbofan, suddenly, not that big a deal.
“We were covering two operations from the
Mediterranean station, up north to Bosnia,
and down south to Southern Watch over Iraq.
Had a good long loiter time for the FACs, too.”
Missions flown at very long range, yet able to
stay and provide friendly cover.
This last legend is the one I have learned
from producing this magazine. Of course, it is
the legend owned by those privileged to
maintain and operate the Tomcat. If you
chose to listen to it, it is a very calm and
matter of fact voice, stating the real
achievements and capabilities of this machine
with quiet pride and gentle good humour.
“Yes there were problems, but what complex
combat aircraft doesn’t have those? Anyway,
difficulty is to be overcome, right?”
And didn’t they just!
The real story that led to the Tomcat is
one of cancelled plans, political ineptitude and
inter-service incompatibilities. The story from
the point Grumman started working on its
303E design is one of vision, skill, and genius.
Once the aircraft was accepted into service it
is a story of overcoming limits, finding
solutions and developing them. Once the F-14
reached the squadrons, it is a story of
dedication, pride, courage and performance.
That is the story I wanted to tell, the
legend I have learned about and wanted
to encapsulate in these pages. Only you will
be able to tell if I have succeeded, and I
sincerely hope I have. This aircraft
deserves its story fairly told, because
aside from being an
astoundingly
capable machine, it
is also an
extraordinarily
beautiful one.
All best,
Tim
C8
C8 Pilot MkII Vintage Edition
£365.00

Exclusively available online

 Why move
the wings?
David I Roberts explains a brief histor y of
swept wing and variable geometr y aircraft up to the TFX.
B
ird flight being the inspiration
for the earliest dreams of men
taking to the air, the concept of
variable geometry has been
around since the earliest
attempts at designing (or imagining) a flying
machine. From the mythical Daedalus and
Icarus via the (probably fictional) dark age
British King Bladud to the 11th century monk
Eilmer of Malmesbury and many subsequent
reckless tower jumpers, most early would-be
8 aviationclassics.co.uk
aviators sought to fly by flapping wings
strapped to their arms, without any realistic
means of control or even a stabilising tail.
The exception was Leonardo da Vinci, who
in 1487 sketched an ornithopter powered by
the arms and legs of a prone pilot, and
featuring a “rowing” motion. In other words,
the wings could move fore and aft as well as
up and down; this was almost certainly the
first considered partial design for a “swing-
wing” aircraft. Leonardo, despite his
Daedalus constructs wings for his
son, Icarus. Editor’s collection
anatomical expertise, never quite grasped
that it was torsional flexure of the feathers or
membrane in the vertical stroke that provided
forward thrust, and thus lift, but his research
into aerodynamics remained the most
comprehensive and detailed for centuries
afterwards. In later life he concentrated on
fixed wing gliders. One, a sail-wing hang
glider with a remarkable resemblance to Sir
George Cayley’s 19th century wing designs,
was recently replicated and, with the addition
of a fin, proved capable of piloted flight.
Designers of later ornithopters, some of
which succeeded in flying in model form, and
even at full size by the 20th century, preferred
to concentrate on the mechanically simpler
vertical motion. Fixed wings, or something
approaching them, were more promising, as
Leonardo had discovered four centuries
earlier. Clément Ader, whose Éole reportedly
made a brief hop-flight at Armainvilliers,
France in 1890, equipped his fantastical
steam-powered, bat-like creation with no less
than six hand and two foot controls, none of
which proved to exert much useful influence
over the craft’s attitude and direction. Among
the control systems was one by which the
wings could be moved independently fore and
aft to combine the functions performed in
more conventional (and successful) aircraft
by ailerons and elevators. Ader might have
been better advised to equip his machine with
a tail, as already developed by Sir George
Cayley and Alphonse Pénaud, and with
simpler, more manageable controls, but he
was apparently the first person to leave the
ground in a variable geometry aeroplane. His
twin-engined Avion which followed embodied
the same principles and, despite claims to the
contrary, was no more successful.
Coincidentally, the name Ader is close to the
Welsh word for bird, which is aderyn.
Sweepback was ignored until researchers
such as John W Dunne in the early1900s
explored the stability it conferred on fixed-
wing aeroplanes, about both pitching and
yawing axes. Given the drag-producing
profusion of struts and bracing wires typical of
Edwardian aircraft, its potential for greater
speed was not significant at the time. From
1907 Lt Dunne, initially employed as a kite
designer at the Army Balloon Factory,
Farnborough, designed a series of swept wing
tailless gliders and powered aircraft which
were tested at Blair Atholl in Perthshire under

great secrecy, being the first aeroplanes to
bear camouflage. In 1909, when the latest
machine, the D.4 biplane, was finally
beginning to get results, the British
government, as so often, withdrew funding,
and in 1910 Dunne set up the Blair Atholl
Aeroplane Syndicate with the Marquis of
Tullibardine, contracting with the Short
brothers to build subsequent aircraft and
testing them mainly at Eastchurch.
By 1912 the D.8 was proving so stable that
a French pilot, Commandant Félix, was able to
leave the controls and climb out onto the wing
during a demonstration at Villacoublay. Ill
health forced Dunne to retire from aircraft
design and testing, but W Sterling Burgess in
the USA acquired a licence to develop aircraft
embodying his principles, selling various
models, including seaplanes to the US and
Canadian navies. One such seaplane, delivered
in 1914, was Canada’s first military aircraft.
Swept wings saw little other use before the
First World War; notable British examples
were the Handley Page monoplanes and the
G biplane, all having the swept wings with
curved leading edges pioneered by José
Weiss, who believed, correctly, that such
wings, tapering in thickness from root to
A Handley Page G
type biplane.
Editor’s collection
A Dunne swept-wing aircraft
design produced for the US
Army by W Sterling Burgess.
Editor’s collection
Leonardo da Vinci’s sketch of an
ornithopter, powered by a prone pilot.
Editor’s collection
washed-out tip, would give automatic stability.
During the war, however, the British services
and manufacturers took no further interest in
the principle. Albatros built a couple of
experimental conventional biplanes with
considerable sweep and another German
company, DFW, produced its Mars Pfeil
(Arrow) reconnaissance aircraft in some
numbers. Austro-Hungarian companies
Lohner and Oeffag also initially made two-
seaters with rather acute sweep. Lohner fitted
swept wings to their very successful biplane
fighter flying-boats, which were copied almost
exactly by the Italian firm of Macchi.
Excessive stability soon proved a liability
as fighters evolved, and sweep angles were
reduced to modest values on later two-seaters
by builders such as Rumpler, Halberstadt,
Hannover and AEG, who also applied it to
twin-engined bombers. The main exponents
of modest sweep in France during this period
were Nieuport on their fighters and two-
seaters and Morane-Saulnier, who applied it Clément Ader’s Éole French patent 205155,
to late war monoplane fighters. The principal April 19, 1890. PHGCOM
benefit in all these cases was an improved
view from the cockpit. Sweepback can also be
useful by allowing a greater range of centre
of gravity travel. ➤
Alexander Lippisch photographed just after
the Second World War in his office. He holds a
model of the proposed Lippisch LP-13a high-
speed, ram-jet delta fighter. Editor’s collection
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 9
 The DFW Mars Pfeil (Arrow).
Editor’s collection
Acute sweep enjoyed a revival in Germany
soon after the war, when aviation was limited
almost entirely to gliding. A photograph from
about 1920 shows a small tailless biplane
hang glider, clearly inspired by Dunne’s work,
apparently with Alexander Lippisch aboard.
Lippisch collaborated with Gottlob
Espenlaub to build a series of tailless gliders
through the 1920s, and continued to design
swept-wing aircraft, both gliders and powered
aeroplanes, through the Second World War,
the most famous product of his research
being the Messerschmitt Me163 Komet. His
research also doubtlessly influenced the
adoption of swept wings, which delayed the
onset of compressibility at high subsonic
Mach numbers, for the Me 262 Schwalbe. In
1931 he had realised a swept wing could be
made to carry more payload, with little loss of
efficiency, by extending the centre-section aft
to fill in the ‘V’ partially or completely. The
The two Horten brothers – Walter (left) and
Reimar with two of their flying wing gliders
in the background. Editor’s collection
10 aviationclassics.co.uk
delta wing was born. After the war, Lippisch
moved to the US to help with, among other
things, delta wing development. While he did
not work on variable geometry, the planform
of most swing wing aircraft, in which the
wings at full sweep effectively combine with
the tailplane to create a delta wing, owes
much to Lippisch.
Two other important German pioneers,
the brothers Reimar and Walter Horten, also
developed tailless swept-wing sailplanes,
which evolved into true flying wings of high
aspect ratio and extreme aerodynamic
cleanness. Some were converted to powered
aeroplanes during the Second World War,
and their twin-jet fighter-bomber, the Gotha
229, flew in 1944, with tragic results when
test pilot Erwin Ziller was killed following an
engine failure which showed up the aircraft’s
Achilles heel, its marginal controllability
under asymmetric thrust in the absence of a
fin. The second, unflown, prototype was
taken to the US, where its low radar
signature impressed engineers. Combined
with Jack Northrop’s contemporary wartime
design efforts, Horten research contributed
considerably to the American flying wing and
stealth bomber programmes. Again, variable
geometry was not involved, but the Horten
brothers had put the high-speed potential of
strongly swept wings firmly on the map.
GERMAN SWING WINGS
A Messerschmitt design, the P.1101, to meet
a 1944 requirement for an emergency fighter,
was partly completed by the end of the war.
Having a single engine with a nose intake, it
was planned to make its Me 262 wings
adjustable before, but not during, flight to a
sweep of 35, 40 or 45 degrees.
The prototype, about 60% complete, was
eventually taken to the US, where the Bell
Aircraft company, interested in the type since
its discovery, took charge of it in 1948. It was
never completed and was eventually scrapped
in the 1950s, but it provided some data for
construction of the X-5, of which more later.
In Britain, which between the wars had
otherwise largely ignored acute swept-wing
developments, the first practical variable-
sweep aeroplane flew at Andover, Hampshire
in 1931.
The Westland-Hill Pterodactyl IV was one
of a series of tailless designs, with which
John W Dunne had helped Geoffrey Hill at an
early stage. The Pterodactyl types had all-
moving wingtips to act as elevons at all
angles of attack, and the Mk IV, a three-seat
cabin monoplane, added a small amount of
variable sweep about its roots and pivoted
bracing struts to refine longitudinal trim in
flight. A two-seat fighter, the Pterodactyl
Mk V, albeit without the variable sweep, was
built and compared well with contemporary
fighters, but did not see production, its
unreliable Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine
 An Me-163 Komet in the
Berlin Luftwaffen Museum.
Constance Redgrave

being a liability. Hill proposed further

developments, including a turret-equipped
fighter, a four-engined flying-boat and a five-
engined transatlantic transport, but none was
adopted. The 1925 Pterodactyl IA is
preserved at the Science Museum in London,
and the family is perhaps best remembered
as inspiration for the futuristic machines
depicted in the classic science fiction film of
H G Wells’s Things to Come.
A swept-wing light sportsplane, the
Granger Archaeopteryx, inspired by the
Pterodactyls and also built with input by
Dunne, was the first tailless aircraft to have a
tractor airscrew, all previous types being
pushers. It first flew at Hucknall, near
Nottingham, in 1930, and is preserved near
there after years in the Shuttleworth
Collection, where it flew again in 1971. It is
hoped to restore it anew to flying condition. Messerschmitt’s P.1101 jet fighter was in an advanced stage of build when the war ended.
In 1932, Waldo D Waterman built the Editor’s collection
first successful tailless aircraft of purely
American design. Having swept wings with
endplate fins, a pusher engine and a spatted
tricycle undercarriage, it was intended for the
private market. Its successor, the
Arrowplane, won an award for a flight from
Santa Monica, California to Washington, D.C.
in 1935. That, however, was just the
beginning; Waterman was working towards a
flying car, a goal he achieved in 1937 with the
Arrowbile, which had detachable wings and a
Studebaker engine driving both airscrew and
road wheels via a clutch. It complied fully
with both aeronautical and automobile
regulations. Its final development, the
Aerobile with a Franklin engine, first flew in
1957 and is preserved in the National Air and
Space Museum. ➤ The Westland-Hill Pterodactyl IV. Editor’s collection

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 11

 Other, more conventional, inter-war swept-
wing aircraft are the De Havilland Tiger
Moth, the Stampe SVA 4 and the Bücker
Jungmann and Jungmeister, all having sweep
to ease pilot entry and, particularly, exit in an
emergency. Various two-seat reconnaissance
and fighter-bomber aircraft of the period,
notably the Curtiss Seagull, the Hawker Hart
family and the Henschel 126, also
incorporated the modest sweep favoured by
Germany and Austria-Hungary in the First
World War, for the same reasons of pilot view
and ease of trimming.
In the UK postwar, just as Hawker, Avro,
Handley Page, Supermarine and De
Havilland were designing swept wing and
The Bell X-5 in the National Museum of the United States Air Force. USAF
A Bücker Jungmeister
displaying at Shuttleworth.
Constance Redgrave
12 aviationclassics.co.uk
delta aircraft, the visionary Vickers designer
Barnes Wallis had, as usual, leapt far ahead of
his contemporaries with the Wild Goose, a
supersonic blended swing wing machine
devoid of all control surfaces. Conceived in
1949 as a bomber armed with a stand-off
missile and arising out of Wallis’s feelings of
guilt over heavy aircrew losses in the Dams
raid which had been his project, the Wild
Goose was to be controlled by a combination
of fuselage lift and differential wing sweep, in
principle much like Ader’s system of 60 years
before, but much more refined and practical.
In the event, Vickers had to content itself
with building the more prosaic Valiant.
Somewhat overshadowed by Wallis’s projects
was a patent for a variable-sweep supersonic
fighter taken out by the British designer L E
Baynes in 1949. It was never built.
Wallis’s design evolved into several
proposals, including the beautiful Swallow
supersonic transport which no doubt
influenced Boeing’s planned Mach 3 733 of a
decade later. The Swallow had swivelling pod-
mounted engines on the wings and a cockpit
contained in a cylindrical fairing which could
be extended above the fuselage for better
visibility in the landing approach. Funding
was only obtained for a full-size version of one
of these aircraft, a piloted version of Wild
Goose to be built by Heston Aircraft as the
JC 9. It was cancelled in 1952 before
completion, but tests of trolley-launched radio
controlled flying models, some rocket
powered, proved the concept at speeds up to
and above Mach 2. The remote control
systems themselves represented a
considerable innovation and much research.
Tests continued with Swallow models until
1957, when the infamous Sandys White Paper
put paid to nearly all state funded aircraft
development in Britain.
A naval fighter, the Vickers 581 – using
Wallis’s swing wings and twin engines above
the rear fuselage with ramp intakes – was
more conventional, having a fin and tiny
triangular tailplanes mounted right aft. When
this was turned down, Wallis and his team
took the design to Langley Field in 1960 and
tried to obtain US funding. He ruefully
reported later: “We convinced the Americans
too sincerely that this was a great idea so they
decided to take it up for themselves instead of
paying us a grant to do it in England.” The
TFX resembled the 581 only in having a wing
glove which blended into the fuselage above
and behind the cockpit, but Wallis’s test data
were reportedly applied wholesale to the
American design. A final project, the Vickers
589, resembling a T.S.R. 2 with Lightning-
shaped swing wings, was not proceeded with,
but provided important data for the Tornado.
Barnes Wallis with a model of his Swallow
supersonic transport.
 Meanwhile, back in the States, Bell
completed the two X-5 prototypes, which first
flew in 1951. A more complex wing sweep
mechanism than that of the parent
Messerschmitt P.1101 allowed the pivot
points to move fore and aft for centre of lift
compensation, using an electric screw jack to
move them and disc brakes to lock the wings
in position. Sweep, changed in flight, could
be 20, 40 or 60 degrees, and sweeping
through the full range could be accomplished
in 30 seconds. The X-5 was tested up to Mach
0.9, but its poor tail position, high on a boom
aft of the jet outlet and in the turbulence
generated by the wings at some sweep
settings, led to a vicious tendency to spin,
which killed Captain Ray Popson at Edwards
AFB in October, 1953 while the wings were
swept at 60 degrees. Testing continued until
1955, and the X-5 ended its days as a chase
plane at Edwards. The type was not adopted,
as had been hoped, as an economically priced
fighter for export, but it had proved the
viability of variable-sweep wings.
In 1951-52, Grumman fitted swing wings
and an all-flying tail to a Panther to produce
the XF 10F Jaguar in response to Navy
concern expressed in 1948 about operating
swept-wing aircraft from existing carrier
decks, already too small for the latest fast
fighters, which had an unacceptably high
landing speed. The wing moved between two The Bell X-5, showing the possible variable geometry wing positions. NASA
fixed positions, 13.5 and 42.5 degrees with
automatic unsweep in the event of failure, However, like the X-5, the Jaguar also spun wings prompted NASA to conduct further
which mercifully worked even when the suddenly and viciously. Another liability was investigations into the system, using much of
hydraulic fluid turned to ‘Jell-O’, as happened the unreliable experimental Westinghouse Wallis’s work as a basis. It was concluded that
owing to poor maintenance during the test XJ-40 engine, most of the problems with moving the pivot points outboard in a “glove“
programme. The wings worked well, but the which were eventually traced to faulty fairing would provide better aerodynamics
tailplane, which resembled a small canard assembly of a fuel control switchbox. An and more space in the fuselage. Wallis’s later
delta aeroplane perched atop the fin, was a overlong cover fixing screw had been driven Swallow designs show evidence that he had
disaster. Freely pivoted and actuated by its into the wiring. The XF 10F was abandoned already come to a similar conclusion, but he
small foreplane, it lacked ‘feel’ and tended to in 1953 after 32 test flights, and a production had not yet moved the pivots as far out as
overcontrol, which in turn caused the wing order was cancelled. The Navy, by then NASA recommended in their 1958 report.
slats to deploy as the aircraft pitched up. building larger carriers with angled decks, no NASA also designed a simpler sweep
The addition of four small fixed fins in a longer needed it. The flying prototype was mechanism than those of the X-5 and Jaguar.
cruciform arrangement around the fuselage relegated to barrier testing, while the The way was clear for development of the
failed to alleviate the problem. In the end uncompleted second aircraft was sent to a Tactical Fighter Experimental, the versatile
Grumman admitted defeat and substituted gunnery range as a target. low-penetrating supersonic TFX required for
the conventional tail of a Cougar, which Notwithstanding the stability failures of the 1960s by both the USAF and the US Navy.
solved most of the stability problems. the X-5 and Jaguar, the success of the swing ■ Words: David I Roberts

The XF10F-1 Jaguar takes off.You

know the old saying – “if it looks
right, it’ll fly right…” US Navy`

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 13

 General Dynamics F-111B
(BuNo 151974) on the
aircraft carrier USS Coral
Sea (CVA-43) in July
1968. US Navy

TFX & VFX

– failure and success
The aircraft that was to become the F-14 Tomcat had a lengthy and costly genesis that
began in the 1950s and became acrimonious at times. The problems all began when
the US Air Force and US Navy were forced to do what any self respecting aircraft
designer would tell you was a sure-fire path to failure. Compromise.

D
uring the 1950s the US Navy
was looking to acquire a Fleet
Defence Interceptor to defend its
high value assets against a new
threat. The Soviet Union was
developing long range heavy bombers that
could carry stand-off anti-ship missiles. These
posed a serious threat to any battle group, as
the missiles were both small and fast and
possessed of long range, meaning the bomber
could turn away long before it entered the
defensive range of the ship’s weapons.
Initial studies in 1957 had been made into
what was essentially a missile launching
platform, the subsonic F6D Missileer, but the
obvious vulnerability of this system once it
had fired its missiles caused the programme
to be cancelled in 1960. The F-4 Phantom
with its AIM-7 Sparrow missiles and
AN/APQ-72 radar was just coming into
service, but the aircraft, missile and radar all
lacked the range to deal with a long range
stand off threat, particularly as the defending
fighter would be required to ‘loiter’ for long
periods. This would require the fighter to
have prodigious internal fuel, affecting both
the size and weight of the new aircraft.
An F-4 Phantom II of Fighter Squadron (VF) 41 launches from the carrier Independence The requirement remained, and with the
(CVA 62) while A-4 Skyhawks await their turn.The Phantom was just entering service when the advances made in anti-ship and cruise missile
TFX programme began. US Navy. technology, was becoming more urgent.

14 aviationclassics.co.uk
The Lockheed YF-12A
in flight. USAF
Winching an AIM-47 Falcon into the missile
bay of a YF-12A. USAF
At the same time, the US Air Force was
looking to develop two new aircraft. The first
was a long range bomber interceptor which
resulted in the XF-108 Rapier. This was
intended to carry the very long ranged
Hughes GAR-9 missile which eventually
became the AIM-47 Falcon. In 1959, this
fighter programme was cancelled for reasons
of cost and the development of the
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
With ICBMs becoming the predominant
threat against the continental US, the need
for a bomber interceptor was greatly
reduced. The long range radar and missile
programmes continued development for use
in the Lockheed YF-12 Mach 3 interceptor
programme, which too fell victim to funding
shortages, this time caused largely by the
Vietnam War, and was cancelled in January
1968. More details of the development
history of the missile and radar programmes
can be found later in this magazine.
The second aircraft the US Air Force was
looking to develop came about through a
change in policy by Strategic Air Command
(SAC). The development of advanced ground
based radars and surface to air missiles
(SAMs) meant that the traditional high level
long range bomber was increasingly vulnerable
to ground fire. By 1960, the development of low
An artist’s impression of the XF-108 Rapier in flight.
level penetration techniques for both SAC and
Tactical Air Command (TAC) bombers and
fighter bombers were changing the way the
bomber forces operated. At low level, using
terrain features can mask the approach of an
aircraft to a defending radar station and gives
missile operators less time to react. The
aircraft can literally get lost in the ‘ground
clutter’ that affects radars at low level. Another
advantage is that in the denser air nearer the
ground, the speed differential between a large
bomber aircraft and a small interceptor fighter
is much reduced, meaning that fighters would
have to be pre-positioned to successfully
intercept a raid, a costly and time-consuming
process requiring fighters to stay on station
for long periods.
Standing patrols against possible attacks is
no way to defend anything against a bomber,
as interception becomes a matter of luck as
much as anything, the fighter being in the
right place at the right time. With this change
to low level long range penetration came the
need for new aircraft to fulfil it, the existing
bomber fleets being large aircraft designed for
high altitude missions. In 1958, TAC was in
the process of bringing its latest fighter
bomber, the supersonic F-105 Thunderchief,
into service. An excellent long range strike
fighter, its high operating weights required
long runways, which were seen as potentially
vulnerable to counter-attack. In defining the
new low level penetration aircraft, the US Air
Force included in its specification the ability to
operate from short and unprepared runways,
as well as be capable of high speed and long
range at low level with the ability to make
supersonic ‘sprints’ across the target area.
These conflicting speed requirements, low
approach speed for a short landing and high
attack speed, made the engineers at several
companies consider a variable geometry or
‘swing wing’ design to fulfil the broad speed
range required by the specification. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 15
 The US Navy had already experimented
with variable geometry, as was discussed in
the last article. The Grumman XF10F Jaguar
was an attempt to curb the increasing weight
and landing performance of new carrier
based aircraft, both of which were on the rise
and beginning to reach the limits of feasible
aircraft carrier operations. Although the
Jaguar itself was a failure, cancelled in April
1953, much of value was learned from the
programme. Variable geometry seemed to be
the answer to the needs of both the US Air
Force and Navy, giving an aircraft low
approach speeds to the carrier or short
landing strip, yet high speed performance in
the rest of the flight envelope. The two
position wing of the XF10F programme had
suffered from various mechanical defects,
but a NASA study into variable geometry
wings had suggested that simply moving the
points at which the wings pivot out from the
aircraft’s fuselage would result in a
mechanically simple, light and effective
solution. This study, which was published in
1958, made swing wings both attractive and
viable for the first time. So, by the end of
1960, the US Air Force and Navy were both
looking for different aircraft at a time when
the technology was maturing to allow them to
meet their needs.
Into the middle of this situation came a
new Secretary of Defence, Robert Strange
McNamara, appointed by the John F
Kennedy administration in January 1961.
McNamara was a graduate of Harvard
Business School and later an assistant
professor of accounting at that institution. He
had begun a programme to teach US Army
Air Force Officers analytical business
techniques in 1940, then in 1943 had joined
the USAAF where he served in the Office of
Statistical Control. He had successfully
applied his business acumen to the B-29 force
operating over the ‘Hump’ of the Himalayas
between India and China, improving the
efficiency of the force. Postwar success in
reforms at the Ford Motor Company, who
made him president of the company in 1960,
The US Navy Grumman XF10F-1
Jaguar (BuNo 128311) taking
off in 1952. US Navy
Republic F-105D Thunderchief in flight with a full bomb load of M117 750lb bombs. USAF
led President Kennedy to offer him the
defence post.
Once in post, McNamara studied the two
service requirements for new aircraft and
decided that they could both be met by a
single design. On paper, it must be said that
the idea had some merit and could
considerably reduce costs by having
commonality across the forces. Both
required low landing speed and high
maximum speed. Both required large fuel
capacity and the ability to carry heavy
weapons. Two seat and twin engined designs
had been specified by both services, so it is
understandable that to McNamara’s
accountant eyes, a common design would
suffice. On February 14, 1961, having been in
post a month, McNamara ordered the US Air
Force and Navy to commence a joint study,
which, in June 1961, was formalised when he
ordered the beginning of the Tactical Fighter
Experimental (TFX) programme.
Immediately problems arose – the two
services could only agree on the basic
characteristics. The Air Force wanted tandem
seats, Mach 2.5 at high altitude and Mach 1.2
at low level, with a 7.33G maximum loading on
its strike aircraft. The Navy wanted side by
side seats so the crew could share a single
radar display, Mach 2 at high altitude and high
subsonic at low level, a lower maximum
loading of 6G and a nose big enough to carry
a large and powerful radar dish. The Air Force
aircraft was to be large, larger than the Navy
could accommodate on an aircraft carrier, so
dissention ruled and progress was limited.
Interestingly, the baseline problem was a
simple one which was never really addressed
on reading the papers from the various
planning meetings. One was a bomber. One
was a fighter. If anything, history had shown
that you compromise any basic roles at your
peril, but, in the middle of all the technology
and conflicting specifications, those basic
lessons appear to have been somehow lost.
In the middlr of the discord thus created,
McNamara took personal control of the
programme and created his own set of
requirements, largely based on those of the
Air Force but changing a number of key
figures regarding the size of the radar and the
weight of the naval version. This paper aircraft
was ordered into development on September 1,
1961 with the subsequent Request for
Proposal being issued to aviation companies in
October. Of the five companies that replied,
Boeing and General Dynamics were selected
to provide detailed concepts. By April 1962,
after three rounds of modification updates and
further proposal changes, the Air Force
supported Boeing’s design, but the Navy
rejected both as unworkable in a carrier
environment. McNamara ignored them both
and selected General Dynamics’ design for its
greater commonality between the two
intended versions, signing the TFX contract
with the comopany in December 1962 for an
aircraft now designated F-111.
Robert H Widmer, the design team
leader at General Dynamics, had based his
design on a side by side cockpit as required
by the Navy. The two versions differed in as
much as the Navy version had a shorter
nose to fit on carrier elevators and carry
the large radar required, as well as
extended wingtips for better loiter
performance. The Navy fighter would carry
the Hughes AN/AWG-9 radar, a powerful
Lieutenant Steve Nevarez, from Houston,Texas, atop a F-14B Tomcat of VF-102.The size of the
AIM-54 Phoenix missile chosen for the TFX and VFX programmes is evident here. US Navy
pulse-doppler design developed from the
cancelled Air Force YF-12, and a developed
version of the long range missile from that
programme, the AIM-47, now called the AIM-
54 Phoenix. Both Air Force and Navy
versions of the F-111 would be powered by
the Pratt and Whitney TF-30-P-1 turbofan, the
world’s first turbofan engine with an
afterburner. He also recognised that the
success in winning this huge contract could
well become a poisoned chalice for General
Dynamics, as it had no experience in
developing carrier-based aircraft. To solve
this, General Dynamics turned to the masters
of naval aviation, a company which had
produced a long list of hugely successful
naval aircraft since 1929, the Grumman
Aircraft Engineering Corporation.
A colourised image of General Dynamics
F-111B (BuNo 151974) approaching the
aircraft carrier USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) in
July 1968. It was the only F-111B to
perform carrier operations after
completing arrestor proving tests at the
Naval Air Test Center Patuxent River,
Maryland (US), in February 1968. It crash
landed at NAS Point Mugu, California
(US), on October 11, 1968 and was
subsequently scrapped. US Navy
Grumman had wisely stayed out of the
TFX competition, but was all to pleased to
be selected by General Dynamics as its
partner in developing the naval version of
the aircraft, which was now designated the
F-111B. Grumman built the undercarriage
and rear fuselage of the Air Force F-111A,
as well as being responsible for the
assembly and testing of the F-111B. The
first F-111A flew on September 21, 1964,
followed by the prototype of the F-111B on
May 18, 1965. A number of problems with
engine stalls at high angles of attack and high
speed required a number of engine inlet
redesigns, and the weight of the aircraft was
a problem from the start. The Navy had
specified a maximum take-off weight of
50,000lb (22,700kg), which McNamara had
increased to 55,000lb (24.900kg) in his TFX
specification. The empty weight of the F-
111B was actually 46,100lb (20,910kg), but
the loaded weight was an enormous 79,000lb
(35,800kg) with a maximum take off weight
of 88,000lb (39,900kg). This was way in
excess of the stipulated design specification,
and was further enhanced with the addition
of the escape capsule system for the crew, the
first prototype having flown with standard
ejection seats. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 17
 Experiences filtering back from the
Vietnam War also changed the US Navy’s
perspective regarding the manoeuvrability
required of the new fighter. Trials of the
F-111B against an F-4 Phantom showed that
the new aircraft was sadly lacking in this
department, especially at medium altitude
where most of the engagements were
occurring. Despite efforts by General
Dynamics, Grumman and Pratt and Whitney
to lighten the airframe and increase the
available thrust, there was simply nothing
that could be done to turn the F-111B into an
acceptable naval fighter. In July 1968, the
Department of Defence ordered that all work
on the project be stopped. Seven prototype
F-111Bs were delivered up to February 1969,
one of which, BuNo 151974, took part in deck The engineering mock up of the F-14 at Grumman’s Calverton facility in May 1969.
trials aboard the USS Coral Sea in the same National Museum of Naval Aviation
month the programme was cancelled. Suffice
to say the flight tests and deck trials earned geometry, high and low mounted wings. was against the Department of the Navy’s
the F-111B the nickname of the ‘Sea Pig’. Of Some had the engines buried in the fuselage official position on the aircraft and could have
the seven F-111Bs built, three crashed, three and some with podded engine mounts below ended his career. Since Connolly had also
were dismantled or scrapped and one was the fuselage and wing joint. Single and twin been instrumental in encouraging
placed in storage at China Lake. The F-111 fins were considered, as was a single seat alternatives to the F-111B, the Grumman 303
for the US Air Force was a different story, version, with over 9000 hours of wind tunnel design was known unofficially in the
eventually developing into a successful strike testing on 2000 different configurations company by the nickname of ‘Tom’s Cat’,
aircraft and other roles, with 563 being built. before the final design was arrived at. Given since all the company naval fighters had had
As with all good stories, the failure of the the F-111’s engine inlet problems, over 300 feline names up to that point. This was
TFX programme to produce a multi-role, engine inlet and exhaust nozzles were also eventually to become the official name of the
multi-service combat aircraft was not the end tested to avoid any need for a similar project, shortened to Tomcat.
of the affair. Elements of the programme redesign. The 303E became the design of With the F-111B cancelled, July 1968 saw
were entirely too successful to be wasted for choice, a design instantly recognisable today. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
long. Even as the F-111B was struggling to Mention must be made at this point of announce the Naval Fighter Experimental
perform, the US Navy asked Grumman to Vice Admiral Thomas F Connolly, the deputy (VFX) programme and issue Requests for
consider alternatives and in 1966 awarded chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare at Proposals (RFP) to industry. The specification
Grumman a contract to generate designs for the time. He had flown the F-111A and found called for a Mach 2.2 tandem two-seat twin-
an advanced fighter. Grumman’s its handling for carrier operations to be sadly engined fighter with a secondary ground
investigations led to a design called the 303 lacking. He testified as much to Congress, attack capability. Armament was to be a single
by the company, which was considered in and was instrumental in getting the 20mm cannon and either six of the long range
seven variations, with fixed and variable programme cancelled, even though doing so AIM-54 Phoenix missiles (which necessitated

The second F-14,

BuNo 157981, in flight
at Calverton in 1971.
National Museum of
Naval Aviation
 At Norfolk,Virginia in March 1972, F-14A No 11 is taken into the hangar
An F-14A at Calverton for stress tests in 1972. National Museum of bay of the USS Independence (CVA-62) for a day of compatibility
Naval Aviation testing. National Museum of Naval Aviation

the large Hughes AN/AWG-9 radar and fire

control system also be fitted) from the F-111B
programme, or a mixture of AIM-54s, AIM-7
Sparrows and AIM-9 Sidewinders. Five
companies replied to the RFP with both fixed
wing and variable geometry designs, with
McDonnell Douglas and Grumman’s designs
being selected in December 1968, the
contract being awarded to Grumman in
January 1969.
Grumman’s track record of producing
excellent naval aircraft certainly helped in
winning the contract, but the invaluable
experience with the missile, radar system and
engines from the F-111B, all of which were to
be used in the new fighter, gave the group an
unassailable head start on the competition.
That so much developed and relatively mature
technology was going into the Tomcat also
made it an extremely cost effective and low-
risk programme, not to mention one where a
great many of the potential technology
problems had already been overcome before
the first aircraft was even built. Interestingly,
the limitations of the TF-30 engines were
already understood, the turbofan being
included in the initial design for reasons of
cost. From the outset it was intended to
replace these engines with the Pratt and
Whitney F401-PW-400 turbofan which was still
under development at the time.
Rapid expansion of Grumman’s Calverton,
Long island plant followed, with the first of
the now designated F-14s flying for the first
time on December 21, 1970. Considering the
complexity of the aircraft, from contract to
first flight in just 22 months is an incredible
achievement by any standard. In order to
avoid political interference in the
programme, the US Navy had skipped the
Prototype F-14A BuNo
157980. Keith Draycott
F-14A No 2 at the top of the image with its wings swept forward at 20º, F-14A No 4 in the centre has
its wings swept to 45º and F-14A No 1 (a replacement for the original) has its wings fully swept to
68º.The photo was taken near Calverton on October 26, 1971. National Museum of Naval Aviation
prototype stage, electing instead to go
straight into development production aircraft.
This was a minimal risk considering the
pedigree and the amount of already
completed work behind the F-14, and was
mitigated by the fact that the Navy had
written severe penalty clauses into the
contract for the fighter. Any failure of the
F-14 to reach its performance targets of
weight, acceleration, range, approach speed,
maintenance hours and delivery date would
impose financial penalties on Grumman. The
first flight must have been a tense time at
Calverton, but it was completed successfully.
Imagine, then, the horror on the second
flight on December 30, when a hydraulic line
failed, causing the complete loss of the flight
control system. The crew ejected safely, but
the aircraft, YF-14A BuNo 157980, was
destroyed in the ensuing crash. However, the
second aircraft was ready shortly afterwards,
and was the first of 14 F-14s to be used in the
rapid development and test programme,
which will be covered later in this issue.
Notwithstanding the loss of the prototype,
Grumman achieved a solid foundation to the
F-14 programme, a foundation which was to
quickly achieve real results. Test after test
was successfully passed, with the aircraft
finding favour with air and ground crews
alike. Perhaps the most telling statistic about
the Tomcat was that the first aircraft reached
VF-124, the Fleet Replacement Squadron, on
October 8, 1972, Initial Operational Capability
with the US Navy was achieved in 1973, and
the type entered front line service with VF-1
and VF-2 in September 1974. Consider the
gestation period of many modern combat
aircraft by comparison. Only 57 months
elapsed between the contract being awarded
and the first aircraft reaching the Navy’s
training Squadron. That one fact, like the
success of the aircraft itself, is a testament to
the people who designed it and built it. The
Navy had a Fleet Defence Fighter at last. ■
Words: Tim Callaway

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 19

Testing &
development
Views from the cockpit of Grumman’s
Superfighter, the F-14 Tomcat
With the design work done, the
testing began, prior to the F-14
being accepted into ser vice.
This work was to continue as
the fighter developed into other
roles during its operational
career. Here, Warren E
Thompson recounts inter views
with test and Squadron aircrew
that tell the stor y behind these
developments and differing
missions in an over view of the
career of the mighty Tomcat in
US Navy ser vice.
An F-14D Tomcat of VF-213 over
the Persian Gulf. US Navy
O
ver the past 70 years, there has
been a steady stream of
outstanding fighters designed
and built. This would include
all major powers friendly or
hostile. However, the timing on some of these
designs had a huge impact on potential
adversaries. When the US Navy retired its F-4
Phantoms allowing the new variable-sweep
wing supersonic Grumman F-14 Tomcat to
move into the number one air superiority role,
it was a move that put tremendous pressure
on the Russians. When General Dynamics
created the F-111, the Navy expressed an
interest in the F-111B which was to be a
carrier based large bomber type with the
variable-sweep wing technology. Due to the
size and weight of the airframe, the design
was doomed early on. In 1968, Grumman and
McDonnell Douglas were selected to evaluate
the F-111B and come up with a plan on how to
use this technology on a carrier based
aircraft. This was a monumental task that
consumed thousands of man hours in the
design and development. Grumman had
designed almost all of the fighter aircraft for
the Navy beginning before the Second World
War. Coming up with the final design for the
F6F Hellcat took only a fraction of the time
that it would take to get an airframe like the
F-14 ready to go operational.
The variable-sweep wings and the
sophisticated systems that had to go into it
caused a myriad of problems. Grumman
records show that during the process, at least
9000 hours of wind tunnel testing was
conducted on at least 2000 different
configurations. This included about 400
combinations of air inlets and exhaust
nozzles. By mid-1968 (over 2 years before the
 VF-1 F-14A Tomcats on the ramp
at NAS Miramar. Frank B Mormillo

Tomcat’s first flight), the final designs were he had the opportunity to test the Tomcat in
narrowed down to only eight in number. every segment of its flight envelope.
Critical factors were involved in determining Promoted to Chief Test Pilot in 1987, he
what they would go with, Grumman became director of flight test and director of
engineers and designers took into test and evaluation before his retirement in
consideration the behavior of the final designs 1995. What follows is his recollections of
during supersonic flight, supersonic combat testing and developing the Tomcat.
ceiling performance, trouble-free engine “I was involved in the F-14 testing early on.
performance and subsonic longitudinal The first flight of Tomcat No.1 (December 21,
stability... all of which were determined in the 1970) was uneventful as it consisted of a short
wind tunnel. The fixed wing version of the flight around the pattern. The second flight of
Tomcat was doomed due to excessive weight, No.1 resulted in the loss of the aircraft due to
carrier suitability and an inferior low altitude hydraulic failure. The reason was the new
performance. A lot of the basic technology for technology being introduced involving the use
the variable-sweep wings was pioneered by of titanium for the hydraulic lines. The fatigue
the Germans in 1943 and 1944. properties of this new material were not fully Final preparations are made for this F-14D to
understood at the time. In-flight vibrations get catapulted off the USS Carl Vinson during
TesTing The TomcaT caused the lines to fracture resulting in the daytime operations in the middle of the Pacific
A very interesting fact was brought up by complete loss of the hydraulic fluid used to in November 1996.The fighter was assigned to
Grumman Test Pilot Kurt Schroeder drive the Tomcat’s control surfaces.” ➤ VF-31 during this cruise. Warren Thompson
concerning steam catapults and jet aircraft
that would be operating from the aircraft
carriers. “In flight testing, not only do you
have to demonstrate the normal operating
envelope of the aeroplane, but also beyond it.
When the A-7 Corsair was first introduced, it
was discovered the TF-30 engine had little
tolerance for the small amounts of steam
leaking from the catapult piston during
launch. In fact, the first A-7 catapult launch
attempt on the shore-based catapult at
Patuxent River resulted in a compressor stall
and complete loss of thrust. Fortunately the
aircraft just rolled down the runway at
Patuxent, but the ramifications of such an
event on the carrier should be obvious. The
Navy subsequently added a steam ingestion
demonstration requirement for all aeroplanes.
In true fashion, the normal amount of steam
leakage from the catapult piston was not
deemed sufficient, consequently several seals
were intentionally removed from the cat to
allow significant amounts of steam to be
leaked. Fortunately for the Tomcat, the F-110
engine took it all in stride!” The vast amount of steam emitted by the Steam Catapult resulted in some compressor stalls
Captain Kurt Schroeder USNR (Retired) in the A-7 Corsair during its introduction.The Navy added a steam ingestion demonstration
had joined Grumman in 1972 as a Grumman requirement for all aircraft.This picture records a Patuxent River catapult shot of the flight test
Experimental Test Pilot on the F-14 Tomcat during the required steam ingestion demo with the GE F-110 engine.The GE engine
programme. Throughout his 23-year career, passed the test easily. Kurt Schroeder via Warren Thompson

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 21

The first prototype YF-14A 157980 seen in
flight on December 30, 1970, shortly before it
was destroyed due to a complete hydraulics
failure. National Museum of Naval Aviation
The potential of the Tomcat was almost
unlimited. One of the significant capabilities
added mid-life was the Tactical Airborne
Reconnaissance Pod System (TARPS). The
Navy was out of dedicated photo
reconnaissance platforms after the North
American RA-5C Vigilante and the RF-8G
were retired. Incorporating the TARPS Pod
solved the dilemma, and because of the F-
14’s inherent range, payload and
performance, it became a very valuable recce
asset, not only for the Navy but it filled a
similar gap in the USAF capabilities. Another
significant adaptation was incorporation of
the LANTIRN Pod, which gave the airplane a
precision guided weapon capability. Once
again, the range/payload/performance of the
Tomcat coupled with a two man crew,
resulted in the ‘smart bomber’ becoming the
air-to-ground platform of choice.
The original urgent fleet requirement for
the F-14 was Fleet Air Defense against the air-
to-surface missile. To provide the capability,
the aircraft had to accept the AWG-9/Phoenix
weapon system, launch and recover aboard
the carrier with large payloads of
expensive/heavy weapons, possess the high
22 aviationclassics.co.uk
The tremendous power of the catapult is shown here as the heavy F-14 is airborne before it
leaves the deck. This was taken in 1996 when VF-14 ‘Top Hatters’ were operating from the USS
John F Kennedy with Air Group 8. Joe Capalbo
speed dash capability to intercept inbound
targets. It also required a large fuel capacity
in order to reach a long range Combat Air
Patrol (CAP) station while retaining the
ability to loiter for an extended period. The
Navy also wanted an air-superiority fighter
with a long, medium and short range missile
kill capability and an internal gun. These
design requirements dictated a large
aeroplane. The size of the radar, the six AIM-
54 Phoenix missiles at 1000lb each and the
mission fuel requirements demanded it. Each
of these requirements normally serve to act
against the viability as an effective dogfighter,
nevertheless, the Tomcat became a dominant
air superiority fighter.
The F-14 didn’t have the benefit of ‘fly-by-
wire’ flight control technology. Instead, its
manoeuvring capabilities had to come from
the aerodynamics and limited authority
Stability Augmentation System (SAS). This
posed a big challenge for an aeroplane
designed to operate at the slow speeds
required around the carrier; as well as from
800 knots at low altitude to Mach 2.4 at high
altitudes. Using a variable-sweep wing was
innovative and proved to be effective and
essentially problem free.
Every previous Navy fighter had a
maximum angle of attack (AOA) beyond which
the wing stalled, lift disappeared and the
aircraft departed controlled flight. With the F-
14, the AOA could be increased past wing stall
without losing control. The Tomcat’s broad
fuselage separated engine design produced
fuselage lift, allowing the pilot to reach full aft
stick without experiencing any abrupt loss of
lift or control. Not having a limiting AOA while
A pair of F-14D’s from VF-31 return from a
training sortie with the USS Carl Vinson below
them. Dave Cully

This is noT To say ThaT The

aeroplane didn’T require
piloT aTTenTion during
aggressive manoeuvring,
buT The Typical navy Captain H B Tallent, commanding officer of Air Group-14 pulls into position for an early
fighTer piloT was more morning launch from the USS Carl Vinson. His colourful F-14D was destined for California as
the carrier was only one day out after a long six month cruise in the Middle East. Both
Than up To The Task. squadrons of Tomcats on board were the Super Tomcat ‘D’ models. Warren Thompson

manoeuvring proved to be brand new
territory for the Navy fighter pilot. This is
not to say that the aeroplane didn’t require
pilot attention during aggressive
manoeuvring, but the typical Navy fighter
pilot was more than up to the task. In my
estimation, no story on the Tomcat is
complete without discussing the Pratt &
Whitney TF-30 engine. The F-14 was
initially designed to be powered by a new
high thrust P&W engine. When it lagged in
its development, the Navy decided to use
the TF-30 to get the initial test aircraft
flying. Problems continued with the new
engine, resulting in cancellation of the
programme and the declaration of the TF-
30 as the F-14 production engine. Although
considered a ‘proven engine’ from the F-111
programme, the TF-30 was ill-suited for the
fighter mission. Both durability and
operability proved to be problematic. Engine
fan blades began to fail, sending shrapnel
through fuel lines resulting in fires and loss of
several Tomcats.
The engine also exhibited inadequate stall
margins in the manoeuvring envelope of the
F-14. Engine stalls required shutdowns to
prevent damage to the engine and more
importantly, the threat of stalling the second
engine required its throttle to remain at high
power. This created a situation where the
resulting asymmetric thrust generated yaw
rates capable of causing the aircraft to depart
controlled flight. Departure recovery became
complicated and required prompt pilot
control inputs to prevent entry into a fully
developed spin. The solution to all of these
problems came with the introduction of the
General Electric F-110 engine. Thrust levels
increased to performance levels originally
planned for the then-cancelled advanced
P&W engine, but more importantly, the F-110
exhibited operating compatibility throughout
the flight envelope. No longer did the pilots
have to ‘fly’ the engine because the new
General Electric engine answered every
throttle command asked of it. Now, should a
departure from controlled flight occur during
aggressive manoeuvring, retarding both
throttles to idle removed any possible
asymmetric thrust contribution, simplifying
and expediting recovery. Out of control flight
losses were no longer problematic.
Performance and mission capability of the F-
110 powered aeroplane was awesome,
unmatched by any other platform in the
carrier air wing, both then and now.
inTo squadron service
When F-14 squadrons were deployed on
cruises, they usually had flight operations
going full bore each day even if it was in a
peaceful region. RIO Lieutenant Dave ‘Bio’
Baranek logged a lot of time in the Tomcat
and he recalls some of his memorable
experiences. The time was October 1983 and
he was on his second deployment. “I had
been in my first squadron for two and a half
years and already had accumulated 1000
hours in the F-14. I still remember the first
time I looked into that cockpit and was awed
by the displays and switches and now I
operated them subconsciously. On this day I
was flying with a second-deployment pilot,
Tom ‘Cowboy’ Koelzer and another F-14. We
were in the middle of the Indian Ocean and it
was a beautiful day so we decided to try to
take a photograph of the mighty Tomcat in
the vertical. The only problem; the entire
battle group was ‘rationing’ fuel due to a
change in schedule that required us to remain
at sea longer than expected, but without a
significant increase in fuel allotment. ➤

A Tomcat from VF-41’s ‘Black Aces’

launches from the USS John F
Kennedy on a dawn mission.The The Swordsmen of VF-32 gained world wide attention when their F-14’s encountered and shot
squadron was part of Air Group 8
down two Libyan MiG-21’s over the Gulf of Sidra on January 4, 1989.They would turn in their F-
during this cruise in 1996. US Navy
14’s for the new F/A-18F Super Hornets in October 2005. US Navy

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 23

 “For the vertical photo, the pilots went into
a slight dive in military power only to get the
airspeed up to around 400 knots, and then
gingerly pulled their noses up into the vertical.
If we had been able to use burner, it would
have been much easier, but this required a
careful touch on the controls. We got the
noses up and paused for a second while I took
a couple of photos, then rolled away from each
other and recovered. After that, it was back to
conservative flying until recovery time. In
terms of tactical consideration, the F-14, at that
time, was near the top of the fighter pyramid
in the entire world. Nothing could match the
range and coverage of our AWG-9 and AIM-54
Phoenix missile. The Phoenix was primarily
planned to be used to defend the aircraft
carrier from raids by Soviet bombers in one of
Aircraft from Air Group-14 rest on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson at Pearl Harbor in November our basic missions; Maritime air superiority
1996.The Tomcats were assigned to VF-11 ‘Red Rippers’ and VF-31 ‘Tomcatters’.The ‘D’ models (MAS). This was a complex mission, but the
were operated by just a few Navy squadrons due to the limited number that were built. Tomcat weapons system was very capable of
Warren Thompson performing it successfully.
“Our other mission was the traditional
fighter mission of clearing enemy airspace of
fighters and escorting strike aircraft. Training
for the mission was, let’s face it, more fun, as
it involved close-in manoeuvring, The Tomcat
was a big fighter, but it had large control
surfaces so it was very manoeuvrable,
especially when compared to other aircraft of
the 1970’s and 1980’s. Training for the tactical
fighter mission required the pilot and RIO to
work closely together and it constantly
challenged both crew members. The RIO had
to take charge during a sweep to intercept any
detected targets. He had to be good at
operating the AWG-9 over land which took
some skill and also had to be able to paint a
picture for his pilot and their wingman. This
included directing the fighters into a tactically
advantageous position. The primary weapon
This colorful Tomcat was assigned to VF-101’s ‘Grim Reapers’.The squadron’s F-14’s dropped was the AIM-7 Sparrow which continuously
Mk 84 bombs for the first time on September 12, 1990.They were the Navy’s Fleet Replacement improved from the days of its early problems
Squadron based out of NAS Oceana on the East Coast. Warren Thompson in Vietnam. As the fighters approached the
enemy, the RIO would basically hand off
control to the pilot for final positioning,
weapons employment and the manoeuvring
engagement if required. Here the AIM-9 and
M61 cannon became the weapons of choice.
But the RIO remained an integral part of the
crew during the engagement, performing
defensive lookout, operating certain radar
modes and performing co-pilot duties. As you
can imagine, RIO’s enjoyed dogfights as
much as the pilots did.”
The Tomcats were designed for aerial
combat and air superiority from the start.
However, their exposure to enemy aircraft was
limited as they were essential to the defense of
the Battle Group. They didn’t range far out
like the USAF Phantoms and F-15 Eagles did.
However, F-14’s from VF-41’s ‘Black Aces’
claimed the first kills for the Tomcats over the
Gulf of Sidra on August 19, 1981. It was a brief
and deadly clash in that they had to evade the
Syrians Su-22 Fitter’s heat seeking ‘Atoll’
missiles before returning fire. Once they
locked on to the hostile fighters it was over
quickly. Several years later, January 4, 1989,
The Tomcat squadrons were in a heavy training mode when not on a cruise.This F-14 , from VF- Tomcats from VF-32’s Swordsmen
14, is firing missiles over a range sometime in the 1990’s. Note their new logo painted on the encountered two MiG-23 Floggers over the
tail fin. Grumman History Center Gulf of Sidra which resulted in quick kills.

24 aviationclassics.co.uk
An F-14 from VF-143 takes off to tangle with the Blue Force from its temporary base at Roswell,
New Mexico during a Roving Sands combat exercise. All of the Navy aircraft that operated
out of Roswell made up the Red Force. Warren Thompson

Introducing the LANTIRN The F-14
became operational with the US Navy in 1974
when it officially replaced the F-4 Phantom
II’s on board the USS Enterprise (CVN-65).
For almost 20 years, it was the Navy’s front
line air superiority fighter with all air groups.
In the early 1990’s, its role was expanded
when it added the Low Altitude Navigation
and Targeting Infrared for Night operations
(LANTIRN) pod system. This enabled it to
get into the realm of precision strike
missions. This was a major step forward for
the Tomcat and this insured its tenure as a
front line weapon for at least another 10
years.
One of the first combat trials on this
system took place over Bosnia in 1995.
Commander Bob Brauer was commanding
officer of VF-41 ‘Black Aces’ on the USS
Theodore Roosevelt during this period. He
recalls some of the details about these first
missions and the Tomcat’s new role as a
precision bomber.
“I had been in the F-14 since 1982 while
accumulating over 2200 hours in it. During
the summer and fall of 1995, we flew a lot of
missions operating off the coast of Bosnia
(Operation Deliberate Force). We had the
only F-14 squadron on board. In September,
we had the opportunity to do the first ever
delivery of air-to-ground ordnance in combat,
dropped by a Tomcat. We delivered laser
guided munitions and free fall Mark-82
bombs. I got to participate in the first section
Preparing to move up to the catapult, this
F-14A Tomcat from VF-1 creates a lot of
attention on the deck of the USS Ranger
(CVA 61).This was taken on July 27, 1990.
Grumman History Center
made up of a combination of Tomcats and
F/A-18 Hornets. We deployed in mixed
sections for a reason. Our F-14’s were loaded
with two 1000lb laser guided bombs on each
aircraft. The Hornets carried the same loads
and they laser guided our bombs dead center
on the targets. We rolled in at a very steep
angle, from high altitude against a complex of
munitions facilities. The Tomcats dropped
while the Hornets lased. ➤

Sporting its new Top Hatter emblem, this F-

14 from VF-14 flies low over the coast of
Ireland when the USS JFK made a visit in
the mid-1990’s. Grumman History Center
The commander of the Red Forces,flying in the CAG bird from Air Group-14, returns from a mission over northern New Mexico, during a Roving
Sands exercise.This Tomcat was assigned to VF-31. Dave Cully via Warren Thompson

“We egressed from the target area with
absolutely superb results which indicated we
had several direct hits that caused impressive
secondary explosions. Actually, this was not
our first drop as we had practiced at NAS
Fallon and also while working ‘Deny Flight’ in
the Arabian Gulf. However, the first time we
actually got to deliver live ordnance was over
Bosnia at a time when there was no air-to-air
threat. This didn’t mean that there was no
danger because the surface-to-air threat was
significant in many of the areas we flew over.
On the day of the first strike, the weather was
a big factor and it continued to be well into the
winter months. As we launched off the carrier
and headed in over the coast, it didn’t look
like the strike was going to go because of an
undercast. About 10 miles out from the target,
the weather cleared to the point that we could
see our target some distance away. It was an
incredible feeling as the 1000lb bombs kicked
off the aircraft. Even in a 50º dive with
airspeed of close to 500 knots, you could feel
the release. I pulled the nose up, rolled up and
looked over my shoulder to see the ordnance
impact right on target.”
This interview, with Commander Brauer,
was done on board the USS John F Kennedy
in late June 1996. He continues, “Now the
Tomcats are getting LANTIRN pods. VF-41
will get the capability within the next few
months and then we will be able to lase our
own bombs and also lase for other types as
well. This is a very potent capability and the
most important thing that the concept brings
is the fact that it carries a lot of heavy
ordnance, fast and accurate. We just had the
formal roll out of the LANTIRN pod on June
14. One major benefit with all of this is the
fact that the F-14 can launch with a heavy
load of laser munitions and can also bring it
back on board if something like bad weather
prevents us from reaching the target area.
This is an edge we have on the F/A-18
Hornet which has similar carriage
capabilities, because of fuel considerations; it
has got to get their bomb load off. If they
can’t drop, they have to jettison the bombs to

An F-14A Tomcat takes it into the vertical

during a routine combat air patrol mission
above the Indian Ocean in 1983.The
Fighting Renegades of US Navy Fighter
The Red Force assigned to Roving Sands was based out of Roswell New Mexico, utilising numerous Squadron 24 (VF-24) were deployed with
different aircraft types.There were two Tomcat squadrons involved in this one.This view shows the Carrier Air Wing-9 on the USS Ranger (CV-61).
CAG’s Tomcat lining up for the final approach into Roswell. Dave Cully via Warren Thompson David Baranek via Warren Thompson

26 aviationclassics.co.uk

Following an Operation Southern Watch mission, an F-14A from VF-211 ‘Flying Checkmates’
returns to the USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) during the 1997-98 deployment with Air Wing-9.
David Baranek via Warren Thompson
get back to the carrier. Another plus for the
Tomcat in all of this is that it can carry a very
significant air-to-air load; carry a Phoenix,
Sparrow and some Sidewinders along with
two 1000lb LGB’s… and fight its way into the
target, drop its bomb load and fight its way
back out. It is a self escort mission for us.
The big GBU-24’s will be coming soon to the
F-14 and they are the bunker-buster type
bombs which opens us up to taking out even
bigger or entrenched underground targets.
We face the future with our Tomcats having
greater capabilities in any environment.”
Not long after all of the F-14 fleet had taken
on the LANTIRN, they were able to launch
night strikes in Operation Desert Fox as they
guided their own 2000lb GBU-24’s against
targets in Iraq. This was a four day (December
16-19, 1998) bombing of select Iraqi targets by
US and UK aircraft brought about by Iraq’s
failure to comply with certain UN Security
Council resolutions. The terrorist attacks
against the United States on September 11,
2001 opened up a window of opportunity for
the Tomcats to show how effective and deadly
a 26-year-old fighter had become.
training for suCCess
During the Second World War, time was of the
essence and the Air Groups didn’t have much
time to work together before they were rushed
into combat. At that time, the aircraft and
tactics were relatively simple compared to the
aircraft of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. With
a highly sophisticated fighter like the F-14 and
the F/A-18 Hornet, each group has to work
through a complicated series of war games and
strike scenarios before they actually begin their
cruise in the carrier battle groups. The Radar
Intercept Officer (RIO) or ‘backseater’ plays a
vital role in the success of the F-14. Lt.
Commander Kirby Miller was one of this elite
group operating from the USS John F Kennedy
in 1996. He spent almost his entire tenure with
the Navy in the F-14 and he describes the rigid
training regime that every F-14 squadron had
to complete before launching on a cruise.
“When an air group returns from a combat
cruise, there is a short window of non-flying
because the maintenance crews have to get
the aircraft back in top shape. This normally
takes about six weeks. As an example, Air
Group-8 returned from a cruise on the USS
Roosevelt (Deny Flight and Deliberate Force)
in September 1995. With the brief rest period
completed, we began our standard training
cycle again in preparation for our next
deployment which would be on the USS John
F Kennedy (CV-67). In the interim, our entire
Air Group-8 did a 30 day shake down cruise
for the newest carrier (USS John Stennis)
where we provided adversary assets for the
USS Enterprise Battle Group. Our Tomcats
got a big work out during this period. Each
group goes through a slow process of re-
training for the next cruise and this is
necessary because we have a lot of new
personnel coming into the group and it takes
time for all of us to function as one.”
As each group gets closer to finishing, the
air wing will do a stint out at NAS Fallon in the
Navy’s Strike Warfare Center (NSWC) where
they learn to fly together in a combat
environment. The F-14’s have a huge amount
of airspace with an abundance of good targets
and simulations. This period is critical in that it
starts with basic combat operations and slowly
works up through more advanced scenarios
until they are in full blown integrated air
defense that would be encountered over
hostile airspace like Iran and North Korea.
The F-14’s role had become very important in
that they not only served in the air superiority
role but they now had tremendous capabilities
in the air-to-ground role.
Lt. Commander Miller adds, “The night
carrier landings are a big deal during the re-
training process. All of the Tomcat aircrews
Before each cruise, the assigned air group
has to re-qualify with both day and night
traps.This was taken on the USS John F
Kennedy during carrier quails.The Hornet
was assigned to VFA-87 and the Tomcat was
from VF-14. Warren Thompson
have to re-qualify. Each pilot is responsible
for what is known as the 2+2+2. This means
two day traps, two touch and goes and two
night traps... minimum. To give you an idea
of how these guidelines are adhered to; one
of our F-14 pilots had just come from Topgun
and had not been out on the carriers for a
couple of years. He was required to complete
10 day traps and six night traps. He got in
five night landings in one night which is
almost unheard of during this time frame
which would be the mid-1990’s. Once we
begin an official cruise, we stay busy most of
the time. While on a Med Cruise, we did
ACM exercises with the French during our
stint on the Red Sea. We also did numerous
combined exercises with NATO countries
such as Spain, Greece and Turkey.”
The response time for the Tomcats and
Hornets on any carrier is quick. For example;
the USS Theodore Roosevelt was off the
coast of Israel when Operation Deliberate
Force was starting. The Serbs had shelled an
area in Sarajevo where it was densely
populated with non military targets and
civilians. At that time the carrier was 900
miles away and 30 hours later, the two
squadrons of Tomcats were putting their
bombs on target during the first air strikes
flown by Naval aircraft. Since this was the
formative period for the Tomcats and their
bomb dropping mission, they flew in mixed
flights with F/A-18 Hornets that could guide
the F-14’s bombs to the target.
Capabilities and Constants
The F-14A was the ‘go-to’ fighter for the Navy
for several years. The Navy received a total of
478 ‘A’ models and another 79 were built for
Iran. In late 1997, Commander Dave ‘Bio’
Baranek was commanding officer of VF-211
on the USS Nimitz (CVN-68). He adds a few
comments on the Tomcat late in its career
with the Navy. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 27
 “The F-14A, with its AWG-9 radar and TF-
30 engines had been with the fleet squadrons
for more than 20 years. At this time I was
commanding a squadron and adjusting to the
many changes that had taken place since my
junior officer days when we performed the
air-to-air and reconnaissance missions in the
Tomcat. These changes included the fact that
the F-14 had become a strike fighter,
bringing respectable payload and fuel
capacity to the fight. Just as significant as the
new mission, the air-to-air threat had become
much more capable than it was in 1990. To
counter that, the F-14 routinely employed the
Phoenix in the tactical fighter mission and
were now using the AIM-54C which had
substantial improvements in capability
compared to the original AIM-54A.
“What has remained a constant over the
past 20 years is the enthusiasm, dedication
and patriotism that the F-14’s junior officers
bring with them. They have embraced the
complexities of all missions; air-to-air,
reconnaissance and strike and strove to be the
best while maintaining their passion for flying.
They have all been proud to fly the legendary
Tomcat and confident of our squadron’s ability
to prevail in combat. Of course, none of it
would have been possible without the
inspiring hard work of our maintenance
personnel, both enlisted and officers. Our
maintenance department worked long hours,
The ‘Tophatters’ from VF-14, along with VF-32 were the first two F-14 squadrons to arrived at
NAS Oceana.They transitioned from the F-4 Phantom to the new Tomcats in January 1974
right after they had finished a Mediterranean cruise.This Tomcat carried the colours of VF-14
while on a training flight. Dick Starinchak
Felix the Cat has been used as VF-31’s emblem since 1946. One of the squadron’s greatest
achievements was when they shot down a MiG-21 over North Vietnam, making them the only
Navy squadron to score aerial kills in three different wars; the Second World War, Korea and
Vietnam.This was taken over the Pacific on a practice mission after a combat cruise in the
Middle East. Dave Cully
28 aviationclassics.co.uk
frequently under arduous conditions to make
and keep our old Tomcats mission ready.”
War games and combat exercises were
and still are the most important events in any
fighter pilot’s flying career. They have always
produced the best pilots in the world. The
Tomcat pilots and RIO’s were no exception.
One of the most realistic and intense war
games is known as ‘Roving Sands’. It is a
three week joint training session that not
only involves numerous aircraft types, but
also includes Coalition ground forces. In the
past and present, it allowed other friendly
allies such as Canada and UK to participate.
All branches of the US military are also in
the mix which focuses on theater air and
missile defenses that might be faced in an
upcoming conflict.
exercising The TomcaT
The Commanding Officer of VF-31 (flying the
F-14D’s) was Commander Dave Cully. His
squadron had recently finished a cruise on the
USS Carl Vinson and they were in the process
of working up for another cruise when they
were part of the Red Force at Roving Sands in
1997. This adversary group would base out of
Roswell Airport in New Mexico, a base which
had an outstanding history; It was known as
Roswell Army Airfield during the Second
World War and when the war ended, it was
home for the 509th Bomb Group which
delivered the Atomic bombs on Japan and
later was renamed Walker AFB operated by
SAC. He comments on what their mission was
in this complex exercise.
“On this exercise, we were the bad guys
The Blue Force was made up of a composite
force including the entire surface to air missile
shooters, ground forces from Germany and all
branches of the US military. The big arena we
met them on was on the White Sands range
close to Holloman AFB. Although we were the
Red Force, we got some very valuable training
in all the areas we needed. The Blue Forces
are an Integrated Air Defense (IAD)
consisting of F-15’s, F-16’s, German F-4’s etc.
All of these weapons are tied closely together
and they were what we had to contend with.
The White Force was made up of referees and
data collectors.
“On one of the ranges, our Tomcats were
able to drop live ordnance, most of which
were Mk-76 bombs. We used our F-14’s in the
air-to-surface and air-to-air roles as we went
up against their IAD’s and tested their
effectiveness. We try to maintain our air
wing’s way of doing business. Each squadron
(Red or Blue) had a specific schedule that fits
in with other units and that is exactly the way
that Desert Storm was fought. It was a
master schedule for what everybody was
flying. It included the deconflict times, what
aircraft types others were flying, altitudes,
targets, frequencies and where each aircraft
was going to refuel. In a confined area of any
specific range, during the vulnerability
period, there could be as many as 70 aircraft
operating in a close space. That is why block
altitudes are so important from a safety
standpoint. During these exercises, risk
management is of the utmost importance.
Roving Sands was and still is the ultimate in
‘big picture’ warfare and our F-14’s always
held their own against all the competition.”
The F-14D
Most all of the pilots and RIO’s that flew the
Tomcat still revel in that exciting part of their
careers. It was a versatile hot rod that could
stay with just about any major air superiority
fighter in the world during its tenure with the
Navy. Some of the pilots that had flown the
early models of the Tomcat stayed on long
enough to fly the F-14D Super Tomcat. The
‘D’ was first delivered to the Navy in 1991 and
they were powered by two GE F110-400
afterburning turbo fan engines that could
handle over 74,000 pounds on take off. This
gave the Super Tomcat about a 30% increase
in thrust over the older F-14A models. It was
also equipped with a newer digital avionics
system which included a glass cockpit. The
older radar was replaced by the newer
AN/APG-71 radar along with other features
that enhanced its mission which included the
Airborne Self Protection Jammer (ASPJ) and
the infra-red search and track (IRST). These
imbued the multi-role F-14D with the same
capabilities as the USAF’s F-15E Strike Eagle.
Lieutenant Ian Anderson was assigned to
VF-124’s Gunfighters on the west coast which
was the F-14A/F-14D fleet replacement
(training) squadron. His tenure there as an
instructor RIO was memorable as he was
part of the F-14D flight demo team. He
finished his Tomcat time with 1860 total
hours and 500 of that was in the Super
Tomcat. He relates some of his experiences
while flying back seat in the F-14D.
“My favourite manoeuvres in the demo
routine were the ‘power moves’ that showed
off the jet’s thrust. In my mind, the most
impressive were the minimum radius turn
and the ‘wave-off’, where we came past the
crowd with gear, flaps and hook down, then
plugged in the blowers, raised the gear and
hook and took the jet up into a vertical climb A flight of F-14D Tomcats fly in tight formation enroute back to the USS Carl Vinson.This was
at only about 180 knots. This certainly was taken over the Pacific two days sailing out of Hawaii headed toward San Diego. Dave Cully
not a textbook ‘wave-off’, but it did show off
the Tomcat’s impressive thrust to weight and
low speed handling prowess... and it was loud.
“We usually started the show light loaded
on fuel, with just enough for the show and to
divert somewhere if the air show runway was
suddenly unavailable for landing. So, between
having the thicker air down at ground level,
the big engines and a light fuel load, the ‘D’
was fast mover. We added a Double
Immelmann to the demo because there was so
much thrust available from the F110-400
engines. It was something you could not
readily do with the GE TF-30 powered Tomcat.
The flight profile called for a low-transition
take off, staying in ground effect (with in one
wingspan of the runway) to minimize induced Two F-14’s,from the famous Black Aces Squadron (VF-41) are paired with two F/A-18 Hornets
drag and help the jet accelerate. on a practice mission out of NAS Fallon in 1996.These mixed strike flights were common
“One other impressive aspect of the F-14D during that time. Once the Tomcats were able to lase their own bombs, many of their missions
demo was the final manoeuvre known as the were comprised of four Tomcats working together. Ken Neubauer
‘carrier break’. We would come in at 500 feet
above the runway at 400 to 450 knots, plug in them what things they liked best in the demo. aircraft than other fighter types like the F-16
the afterburner and ‘break’ into the landing I learned that overwhelmingly the most and it only seemed that we were closer than
pattern. We performed the 180º turn break popular manoeuvres were the high speed... we really were. It is harder to appreciate its
manoeuvre at around 6.5 Gs. At that light fuel and the ‘kneel and bow’ that we did with the size when parked on the flight line, but the
load and low altitude, we would typically exit nose gear and wing spoilers after landing. top-down view of the F-14 is significantly
the break at the same speed we started with. Heck, that last thing wasn’t even a flight larger than almost any other fighter in the
There was almost no energy bleed, which manoeuvre. It seemed that many air show world. It didn’t come by the nickname ‘flying
was really impressive. It made me realize just spectators were not impressed with the power tennis court’ without some justification.”
what a formidable opponent the F-14D would moves as the pilots were. Another interesting The F-14D was a formidable foe in any
have been in a low altitude dogfight. perception of the F-14D demo was actually a mock air-to-air combat. It locked horns with
“One thing I found out doing the air show mis-perception; many spectators told me they many F/A-18 Hornets during its short tenure
circuit is that what impressed the pilots wasn’t were convinced that the F-14 had some official with the Navy. There have been numerous
what impressed the average spectator. After a waiver to fly a show line that was lower and pictures taken of current fighter types
demonstration flight, I’d make my way back closer to the crowd than the other flight breaking the sound barrier and the eerie
into the spectator area and look for people demonstrations. Although the simple reality shock wave clearly visible. Lt. Anderson
who were not pilots (civil or military). I’d ask was that the Tomcat was a much bigger relates an experience he had while flying
back seat in the Super Tomcat. “We were
tangling with some adversary Hornets over
the range close to MCAS Yuma, Arizona a
few years ago. At the conclusion of the
dogfight, we were egressing fast and went
supersonic. Out of the corner of my eye,
something caught my attention. Arching
back from the intake of our airplane, a shock
wave developed and became visible. In
humid climates supersonic shock waves are
routinely visible as a cone shaped cloud of
water vapor formed around the aircraft. In
dry desert air, however, you don’t get a
cloud, but if the lighting and conditions are
just right, you can see the shock wave
distortion form. In my 4000+ hours of flying
Roving Sands is is one of the most intense training exercises in military aviation. For several time, I was only fortunate enough to see one
years, it was held annually, but due to budget cuts, it takes place every two years.This VF-143 of these three or four times. The conditions
Tomcat was playing the part of the aggressor force based at Roswell, New Mexico.The have to be just right and believe me, it is
squadron was assigned to the USS John C Stennis (CVN 74). Warren Thompson impressive.” ■ Words: Warren E Thompson

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 29

 The
Tophatters
Formed in 1919, the Tophatters were to become the first
American carrier based fighter squadron in 1926 when
assigned to the USS Langley, the Navy’s only aircraft carrier
In his three part article, Norm
deWitt examines the history of
one of the US Navy’s most
famous F-14 Tomcat
Squadrons, VF-14, the
Tophatters. During his research,
the story was to lead from San
Diego to Hollywood, then to
New Zealand and finally, into
space aboard the Space Shuttle.
The Tophatters really have been
everywhere. The first part of
this article deals with the
operational history of the unit…
The Vought VE-7 was also fitted with floats and used as a catapult aircraft from capital ships.
National Museum of Naval Aviation
30 aviationclassics.co.uk
B
uilding upon the foundation
provided by Glenn Curtiss’ from
1911-1914 and the furious pace of
aircraft development that
followed from 1914-18 during
The First World War, the US Navy was keen to
expand and develop its aircraft operations.
Given that the US air corps had used allied
aircraft built by others for its operations in
Europe, and that the vast majority of that
demand had come from the US Army, the US
Navy created its Naval Aircraft Factory in
Philadelphia during 1917-18 to develop and
manufacture naval aircraft. This would ensure
that it would have designs that met the Navy’s
own unique requirements, initially focusing
upon flying boats.
The formation of the Pacific Fleet Air
Detachment in 1919, marked the beginning
of the first Naval Air Squadron, based at
North Island in San Diego bay. The following
year, this squadron was given the designation
VT-5, as a torpedo and bombing squadron.
1921 brought more new designations with
VP-4-1 (Patrol and Observation) and VP-4, a
Fighting Squadron. By July 1922, the
designation had changed again, this time to
perhaps the most famous designation, VF-1
(or the later VF-1B) where they were known
as Fighter Plane Squadron One.
Soon after, VF-1 first received the Vought
VE-7 fighter, previously used as a trainer by
the US Army, which used the Hispano-Suiza
V8 engine made famous in the SPAD S.XIII.
The production aircraft were built by Vought
as well as the Naval Aircraft Factory. Despite
having a similar appearance, the Vought was
inferior in almost every category to the
220hp French SPAD. The SPAD had double
the firepower (twin Vickers machine guns),
higher maximum speed, better rate of climb
and a massive superiority in service ceiling.
These aircraft were equipped with floats for
deployment by crane from a ship… much as
Glenn Curtiss had demonstrated to be
possible with the USS Pennsylvania in San
Diego bay 11 years before.
1923 brought the latest design from the
Naval Aircraft Factory, the TS-1. These planes
were built by Curtiss, and were retrofitted
with floats. The performance was enough of
an improvement over the VE-7 to where
maximum speed was now a match for the
SPAD, however the VE-7s were still to remain
in service for many years. It was a VE-7 that
made the historic first takeoff from the
newest ship in the Navy’s arsenal, the aircraft
carrier USS Langley, named after the aviation
pioneer Samuel Langley, an early competitor
of the Wright brothers with his ‘Aerodrome’
designs at the turn of the century.
The first American aircraft carrier had
been the gunboat USS Fanny, which in 1861
 Designations of the tophatters
Sep 1919 Jul 1, 1939
Pacific Fleet VB-4
Air Detachment Bombing Squadron

Jun 15, 1920 Mar 15, 1941

VT-5 VS-41
Torpedo & Bombing Squadron Scouting Squadron

Sep 7, 1921 Mar 1, 1943

VP-4-1 VB-41
Patrol Squadron Bombing Squadron
The US Navy’s first aircraft carrier, the USS Langley, at San Diego with the
USS Arizona in the background. National Museum of Naval Aviation Sep 23, 1921 Aug 4, 1943
VF-4 VB-4
Fighting Squadron Bombing Squadron

Jul 1, 1922 Nov 15, 1946

VF-1 VA-1A
Fighting Squadron Attack Squadron

Jul 1, 1927 Aug 2, 1948

VF-1B VA-14
Fighting Squadron Attack Squadron

Jul 1, 1934 Dec 15, 1949

VB-2B VF-14
Bombing Squadron Fighter Squadron

Jul 1, 1937 Dec 1, 2001

VB-3 VFA-14
The Boeing F2Bs of the VF-1 aerobatic team regularly flew its displays Bombing Squadron Strike-Fighter Squadron
tied together with bunting! National Museum of Naval Aviation

deployed a tethered observation balloon near
Hampton Roads to report on the locations of
nearby Confederate artillery. This was
followed by the CSS Teaser in 1862, a
Confederate version of the same concept.
However, the first American aircraft carrier
with a now-conventional permanent flight
deck for heavier than air flight operations
was the USS Langley. Langley began life as
the USS Jupiter, which had been built in 1911
at Mare Island, in north San Francisco bay.
The conversion to aircraft carrier came after
the First World War, and it was
commissioned in 1922. The ship was then the
subject of numerous testing and training
missions, as they were developing a new
class of ship, and Langley was not to arrive at
North Island until late 1924.
Oops! The Boeing F2B, like many aircraft of its day, was tricky to handle on the ground. Here a
Tophatters aircraft has come to grief. Rich Dann
San Diego, the birthplace of naval
aviation, had, by the 1920’s, expanded into a
hotbed of naval aviation development. VF-1
was assigned to the USS Langley in 1926,
flying the TS-1. With that assignment, VF-1
had become the first carrier based fighter
squadron in the US Navy. In 1926, the
powerful Boeing FB-5 was delivered to the
squadron, which was equipped with twin
machine guns, state-of-the-art at the time.
During this period, the squadron adopted
their High Hat logo, along with being given
the new designation VF-1B, all the while
remaining the fighter Squadron on the USS
Langley. One of the most popular dance
groups of the late 1920’s was singer Frank
Luther and the High Hatters, which may
have been an influence, given Luther’s
A rare photograph of a Boeing FB-5, this one
of Fighting Squadron VF-3B, pictured in flight
on December 13, 1926. National Museum of
Naval Aviation
popular single Barnacle Bill the Sailor. In
those early days what later became known as
the Top Hat was known as the High Hat…
different terminology for the same logo.
By early 1928, the High Hatters, as VF-1B
was now known, had received the new
Boeing F2B, and with the completion of the
newest carriers USS Saratoga and Lexington,
VF-1B was assigned to Saratoga during
1929. The Saratoga had originally been meant
to be a battle cruiser, but the Washington
Treaty, which limited the international
building of capital ships, had meant the ship
could not be completed for its intended
use. As a direct result of this treaty, the US
Navy was forced into a direction that would
eventually help save the day for America in
the Pacific war, forcing the early development
of a carrier strike force. This was proven in
January 1929 when during fleet war games,
carrier based aircraft from USS Saratoga
successfully attacked the Panama Canal. ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 31

About this time the squadron received the
new Curtiss F8C-4 Helldiver, which although
unremarkable, may be the most visually
recognisable plane flown during the ‘High
Hatters’ era, mostly due to being in multiple
movies like Hell Divers and King Kong. It
was used for a year or so, despite poor
performance figures almost unbelievably
similar to the SPAD XIII of 14 years earlier.
The Boeing F4B arrived the following year,
and variations of this fighter were flown
throughout the early 1930s. 1934 brought the
600hp Curtiss F11, and along with the name
change for that aircraft to the BFC-2, the
squadron designation also changed to
Bombing Squadron VB-2B. This later became
VB-3 in 1937, and then VB-4 in July of 1939. By
1938, thankfully the new monoplane Vought
SB2U Vindicator was coming into service, as
American aircraft development had fallen
tremendously far behind Germany, Japan, and
Britain. Each nation was preparing for war in
an ever-escalating arms race, one with national
survival very much at stake. Compared to the
previous Curtiss BFC-2s, the SB2U had an
increase of 50mph in top speed and an increase
The Vought SB2U Vindicator was a leap forward for US Naval Aviation, its Pratt and Whitney R-
1535 825hp engine gave it a maximum speed of 251mph and a ceiling of 27,500 feet.These
are SB2U-1s of VB-3. National Museum of Naval Aviation
A Curtis F11C of VF-1.These aircraft were to be redesignated during
their service life… National Museum of Naval Aviation
32 aviationclassics.co.uk
A Curtiss F8C-1 Helldiver, A-8431, of VF-1B wearing the Squadron code 1-F-11. Lt. Langford was
flying this aircraft on January 29, 1931 for this picture. Rich Dann
in operational ceiling of an additional
2500ft. The new monoplane dive bomber was a
huge leap forward, but far more was needed in
a world of Bf-109s and A6M Zeros, and soon.
In the mid of this modernisation, the
Squadron was relocated from the Saratoga to
the USS Ranger, eventually to see combat in
the Atlantic theatre of operations. Although
Ranger was the first US ship built from the
outset as an aircraft carrier, she was smaller
...to become the Curtiss BFC-2.This one, 9336, is from VB-3B, wearing
the Squadron code 3-B-17. Rich Dann
and slower than the other carriers built
before the war. She left San Diego in 1939, to
new base assignments in the Atlantic theatre
of operations. In 1941, there was yet another
change of Squadron name to VS-41 (Scouting
Squadron), followed two years later to VB-41
(Bombing Squadron).
During the war, USS Ranger took part in
the attacks upon the Vichy French bases at
Casablanca and carried out various other
missions in European waters. These included
the 1943 attacks upon German shipping in
Norway, carried out with the newer Douglas
SBD Dauntless. USS Ranger was the only
American aircraft carrier to not engage the
Japanese in battle, but by 1944 VB-4 (yes,
changed again) had been transferred to USS
Bunker Hill, an Essex class carrier, for the
Leyte battles, before being transferred to the
USS Essex itself in 1945.
During this time, the Squadron had re-
equipped to fly the 1900hp Curtiss SB2C
Helldiver. The dive bomber combined a top
speed of almost 300mph with poor stability
and handling, which led to the plane’s
nickname of ‘The Beast’ or ‘Son of a Bitch
2nd Class (SB2C)’. American pilot Jerry
Coleman flew the Helldiver near the end of
the war, and was unimpressed with its flight
characteristics in comparison to his usual
SBD Dauntless. Others went so far as to
describe the SB2C as having appalling
handling. The saving grace of the latest
Helldiver was that it carried double the bomb
load of the SBD Dauntless and that, coupled
with increase in speed, led the US Navy to
deploy the SB2C into combat operations.
 Postwar, the squadron was assigned to the
USS Tarawa, changing designation again to
VA-1A, then to VA-14, and finally in 1949 to
VF-14 (fighter squadron), a designation that
was to last for over 50 years. The Vought F4U
Corsair came into the mix, and remained the
primary equipment of the squadron until the
arrival of the latest jet fighters after the
Korean War. The Douglas F3D Skyknight
was only in service for a short time until the
McDonnell F3H Demon arrived, which
remained the mainstay for VF-14 into the
1960s. The Tophatters, as they were now
known, were deployed for two cruises on the
Still designated VA-1A, the Squadron then
USS Forrestal, before finding a long term
operated the Chance Vought F4U Corsair.
home aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt National Museum of Naval Aviation
in the late 1950s. The arrival of the F-4
Phantom in 1964 spelled the end of the
McDonnell Demon era, as the F-4 was to
hold a decade long position as America’s
premier operational naval fighter.
1969 brought the assignment of VF-14 to
the USS John F. Kennedy, where the
Tophatters were to remain through 1982. In
the mid of these many deployments, came
the arrival of the F-14 Tomcat to the fleet
during 1974 and 5. Peter ‘Pistol’ Ulrich was
one of the pilots with the Tophatters that flew
the F-14. Peter: “My grandfather died in a
plane accident during the Second World A VF-14 Douglas F3D-2 Skyknight on board the A VF-14 McDonnell F3H Demon is ready for
War. When I finished flight school and got USS Intrepid (CVA-11).This jet night fighter had catapult launch on USS Franklin D. Roosevelt
my fleet assignment, my first squadron was a short career with the Squadron. Rich Dann (CVA-42) in 1961. Rich Dann
the Tophatters, VF-14. When I told my mom
and showed her the insignia, she got this ‘Snort’ Snodgrass. He’d been around for quite as he’s going by. Shortly after that, he was
funny look on her face, went down to the a while, well known for being quite the selected to be the Flight Wing Commander at
basement and a little while later came up with character, and doing some pretty fancy flying Oceana for the Atlantic Fleet, in charge of all
a few things from this old trunk… my over the years.” Peter mastered the art of the Tomcats. He would occasionally take
grandfather’s logbook and an old patch from understatement with that summary, as the advantage of that prerogative and fly with the
when they were VB-4… Bombing Squadron history of the F-14 will forever be intertwined individual squadrons. As a Junior Officer, I
4, flying Vindicators… it turned out that his with that of Dale Snodgrass. A brief summary was tasked to go out on a mission with Snort,
first squadron was also the Tophatters. His of Snort’s career would include being the first we were going to go to a local range and
name was David ‘Woot’ Taylor. It’s funny how pilot to go into F-14s straight out of flight practice strafing before climbing up for some
things come full circle.” school, an honours graduate at Top Gun, over one-v-one dogfighting. One of the Junior
How did Ulrich become ‘Pistol Pete’“When 5000 hours of time in the Tomcat, the most RIO’s was going to fly with Snort, and we
I was in practice bomb drops and shooting the ever, with over 1200 carrier landings. Seeing were going to give ‘em quite a ride. It was a
guns and rockets out in the desert, I was action as commander of Strike Force 33 during matter of pride, and I wasn’t going to lose to
doing really well. When I came back, Desert Storm, he led 34 missions of over 30 the old man.” ➤
everybody was comparing notes on their aircraft without a loss. He was the US Navy’s
scores and the skipper said “Wow, this guy’s fighter pilot of the year in 1985 and
like Pistol Pete (Pete Maravich, a remarkable Grumman’s F-14 pilot of the year in 1986.
basketball player during the 1970s).” Pistol continues: “He’s the one with the
Pistol continues: “My favorite F-14 story famous photo where that plane looks awful
was fighting against a fellow named Dale big when the wingtip is below the flight deck

Wearing a very early colour scheme, this

Grumman F-14A Tomcat of VF-14 was
pictured in 1975, the year the Tomcat joined
the fleet. US Navy

A Grumman F-14A Tomcat of VF-14, usually

A pair of VF-14 McDonnell Douglas F-4B Phantoms from the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVA-42), based aboard the USS John F Kennedy but
pictured in 1967. Rich Dann seen here ashore. Rich Dann

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 33

 Dogfighting with Snort was facing a real-
life Kobayashi Maru, the Starfleet Academy
simulated no-win scenario that James Kirk had
defeated in Star Trek lore by reprogramming
the game. Pistol Pete went the James Kirk
route – “My RIO and I talked it over and
decided that we were going to cheat. In the
old Tomcat A’s that we were flying at the time,
you had a bleed air source that was used to A VF-14 Grumman F-14A Tomcat. Keith Draycott
cool a lot of the aircraft… the electronic boxes,
especially the radar which puts out a lot of
heat. You could select that ‘off’ in the cockpit
for emergency situations. If you did that, it was
like getting an extra zone of burner. You had
five zones of afterburner, and we called that
zone six. We figured we had a minute or so
before we fried the radar completely. As long
as the engagement didn’t last more than a
minute, we’d be alright.
“The second one was playing around with
the wing sweep, as the Tomcat has a variable
sweep wing. They were programmed
automatically most of the time to optimise the
lift or minimise the drag for different
airspeeds or angle of attack… but you could
over-ride that with a manual handle in the The F-14s of the US Navy were modified to include a ground attack capability. Here a VF-14
cockpit that could set the wings to the Tomcat carries a pair of Mk 84 bombs on the underfuselage forward stations. Rich Dann
position you wanted. The plan was that when
I hit the merge, I was going to be going 500 edge of the wing. They are automatically knew what happened.” So, did you hear about
knots but instead of having the wings back programmed to shape the wing a little more a Tomcat with every control linkage or surface
where they’d normally be, I was going to concave when you slow down. They also move being bent? “(Laughs) we never heard from
have them fully forward, like we were going a to a full down position for takeoff or landing, maintenance that anything was bent or broken,
lot slower. It was going to confuse Snort as to when you are going really slowly. So, to put so I think we successfully escaped that.”
how fast I was really going, and I wanted to these flaps in that position while manoeuvring The F-14 fighter, with all its variants
be able to whip that plane around quicker was a really risky move, as you could easily through to the Super Tomcat, was to have a
than Snort, which was a real danger as you over torque the tubes and controls… it’s only previously unbelievable operational life of over
could over-stress it with more wing than designed to go a couple of degrees either way three decades. Given this long tenure it is only
you’d expect to have at that speed. We had an in manoeuvring configuration. But, I was not appropriate that for most (including
advantage on him after a couple of passes, so going to lose this fight. So, I pulled the handle numerologists, one assumes) VF-14, the
he got really slow and we got really slow.” with the main flaps all the way down and it was Tophatters, will always be primarily associated
Time for surprise number 3… “We looked like getting on an elevator, we popped up a with the F-14 Tomcat. However, in the mind of
across at each other and I cut back and got couple of hundred feet above him, got right the public, it may be their many appearances in
behind him, by lowering the flaps down. On over to get a quick guns call to lock on Snort, the movies during the Golden Era of Hollywood
the Tomcat there are these automatic slats on then re-set the flaps, got the air source back that will forever make the 1930’s High
the front edge of the wing, and on the back on, put the wings back… I don’t think he ever Hatters Squadron the most memorable. ➤

Tophatters today. Seen here in

Squadron 90th Anniversary colours, a
VF-14 F-18 Super Hornet is catapulted
from the USS Nimitz. US Navy
VF-14 – The Kong Killers! Design copyright Travis Getz,
All Rights Reserved, www.SquadronStore.com

Hollywood
The Tophatters and the Silver Screen
B
y 1930, the VF-1B Squadron
was well known for its flying
prowess through the
appearances of its
demonstration flying team, so it
was understandable that the Squadron was
chosen for a new Hollywood production in
1931 called Hell Divers with Wallace Beery
and Clark Gable. In a case of art imitating
life, this story of competing flyers in the High
Hatters Squadron took place on the USS
Saratoga with the cooperation of the US
Navy, using the Squadron’s real Curtiss F8C-
4 Helldivers appropriately enough.
Two years later came the blockbuster
movie of its day… King Kong. A legendary
film which set the standard for stop-motion
special effects for a generation, Kong met his
demise at the hand of these same biplanes, the
Curtiss O2C-2 being essentially the same as
the F8C-4 Helldiver. The logos were an
invention, and the planes did not carry the logo
of any individual squadron, instead featuring a
graphic of Mickey Mouse riding a glider.
The producer, co-director and co-writer of
King Kong for RKO studios was former
combat pilot Merian Cooper. Flying as a
bomber pilot in the US Army during the First
World War, he was shot down by the
Germans, and became a POW for the
remainder of the war. Soon after, he was a
volunteer in the American Kosciuszko
Squadron that defended the Polish in the
36 aviationclassics.co.uk
Hooray for
1920 conflict with Russia. Shot down, he
again spent months as a POW, this time
escaping. Cooper also was to portray the pilot
that killed King Kong in the movie on the
final strafing run, with his rear gunner being
the other co-director of the movie, Ernest
Schoedsack. Not that many years later during
the Second World War, Cooper was to return
to active duty, involved with the logistics of
the Doolittle raid on Japan and then the airlift
of supplies into China, before becoming the
chief of staff for Claire Chennault and his
China Air Task Force, previously known as
the Flying Tigers. Having risen to the rank of
Brigadier General, Cooper was on the
battleship USS Missouri during the
surrender of the Japanese in Tokyo Bay.
The creator of Kong had not only been the
actual Kong Killer, but also was a veteran of
three wars. In 1973, 40 years after the debut
of his greatest movie, Merian Cooper passed
away in San Diego at age 79, having led a full
life by any definition. Rightly, his star
remains on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
The movie poster for the first film to star
The Tophatters Squadron was to gain
the High Hatters, as they were known at
further fame by being the squadron of choice the time, Hell Divers of 1931. Norm deWitt
in the wildly popular 1941 movie Dive
Bomber, where Errol Flynn and Fred
McMurray tried to overcome the challenges with the famous Point Loma lighthouse as a
that pilots faced during high altitude flight. backdrop. In the closing scenes of the movie,
Filmed mostly at North Island NAS, McMurray’s Vought SB2U with its Tophatter
McMurray’s fatal crash while developing the logo is front and centre at the memorial
latest pressure suit was on Point Loma just service on North Island.
past the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, All this fanfare on the silver screen, plus
the Squadron’s stellar real life
history likely played a part in New
Zealand’s Peter Jackson deciding
upon using the Tophatters (or High
Hatters considering when the film is
set) Squadron for the attack on King
Kong in his 2005 remake of the 1933
classic, a film that Jackson had
adored since childhood. The Vintage
Far left: Fred MacMurray and Errol
Flynn on the Tophatters flight line
during the making of Dive Bomber.
Norm deWitt
Left: In the final scene of Dive Bomber,
a Tophatters Vought SB2U Vindicator
takes centre stage. Norm deWitt

Aviator Ltd (TVAL) in New Zealand built two
of the Curtiss Helldiver replicas that were
used for filming the final battle scene atop the
Empire State Building. TVAL’s Gene
DeMarco – “Regarding the Curtiss Helldiver
replicas used in Sir Peter Jackson’s remake of
King Kong; the aircraft were chosen because
they resemble the aircraft used in the original
film and ‘could’ have been nearby at the time.
In the original movie I believe the film
featured several Curtiss O2C-2’s (Navy F8C-
4’s) and at least one consolidated NY-1. These
planes were flown by Navy pilots stationed on
Long Island, New York. I believe Mr. Jackson
wanted to remain faithful to the original
production and chose these aircraft for that
very reason. Two non-flying replicas were
built for the film by The Vintage Aviator Ltd. I
believe at the time the movie takes place the
Top Hatter Squadron was known as VF-1B
and was assigned to the carrier Saratoga and
she ‘could’ have been in the vicinity when
Kong was terrorising New York.”
Just one of many references to Merian
Cooper’s original film came early in the film
when Denham (Jack Black) is trying to cast
the female role in his movie, and inquires
about using Fay (Wray). Denham’s assistant
replies “She’s doing a picture with RKO”.
Denham’s response – “Cooper, huh? I might
have known”… as music from the original
1933 King Kong is heard in the background.
VF-14 – The Kong Killers! shirt design.
Design copyright Travis Getz, All Rights
Reserved, www.SquadronStore.com
Fay Wray was approached about doing a
cameo in the final scene of the movie, but
sadly she passed away before the opportunity
could be realised. The lights of the Empire
State Building were extinguished for 15
minutes in her memory.
In a further homage to the original, much
as Merian Cooper had done in the 1930s,
Peter Jackson is the gunner in one of the
Curtiss Helldivers strafing Kong on the
Empire State Building. Jackson’s pilot is Rick
Baker, the actor who put on the Gorilla suit to
play King Kong in the less memorable 1976
version. The 2005 film was dedicated to those
who made the 1933 original, Producers
Merian Cooper, Ernest Schoedsack, Max
Steiner (who had created the stellar score),
and Fay Wray.
James Dietz was one of the pilots used in
the filming for that 2005 version of King Kong.
James: “This all came about because Peter has
been nice enough to buy a painting of mine
from time to time. When I heard rumours that
he was doing King Kong again, I mentioned
that I had always planned to do a painting of
Kong. Peter asked if I would still like to do that
painting, and that he would commission it.
Then he asked if I would like to come over
when they were filming it and fly one of the
airplanes. A year or so later Peter emailed and
said that if I came over in February or March, Producer Merian C Cooper, a military pilot in
that he would fit me in.” ➤ three wars, with star Fay Wray. Norm deWitt
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 37
Above, left to right:
King Kong star Fay Wray in a publicity still
from the 1933 film. Sadly, she died before
she could take part in Sir Peter Jackson’s
2005 film. Norm deWitt
Kong’s revenge! One of the Curtiss O2C-
2s falls to the mighty ape. Norm deWitt
Wallace Beery and Clark Gable in flying
clothing from Hell Divers, note the High
Hatter badges on their jackets. Norm deWitt
Biplane two seater aircraft attack King
Kong in a scene from the 1933 classic
film. Norm deWitt
Merian C Cooper and Earnest B
Schoedsack were the producers of King
Kong but also played the victorious aircrew
in the final scenes of the film. Norm deWitt
38 aviationclassics.co.uk
Soon after, James was making his film
debut. “I still didn’t believe it… but it seems
like everybody in New Zealand has worked
on one of Peter’s movies. Same with Lord of
the Rings… all the extras are friends, family,
the mayor of Wellington… everybody shows
up. And the people who worked on the
movie… there were very few inflated egos
involved, and everybody seemed to be having
a pretty good time. They love their work and
they love working for Peter. Richard Taylor
(now Sir Richard) who runs WETA is a
stickler for doing things that you won’t
notice… he is a genius, that’s the only way to
put it. Everyone there works on computers
and at the time of making King Kong, they
said they had the ninth greatest amount of
computing power in the world.”
TVAL’s two replica Helldivers were not
flying replicas, as they were made specifically
for the close-up shots during the attack on
Kong. James: “The airplane was really
perfect, and they put the whole thing on a
giant gimbal. The rudder was connected,
the ailerons were all connected. For all the
world, it was like the little coin operated
airplane that rotated and rattled around
outside the supermarkets, except it was way
up off the ground and it had two very real
and firing Browning machine guns. Peter
wanted to make sure that when they fired,
you would see real shell casings coming out
the shell chute. On this gimbal they had,
through the magic of computers, built into
the room a sun… a very bright light that was
on a track. They would program the
airplane’s relation to the sun that would tie in
with the computer graphics that would be
added later on.”
James Dietz’s stunning King Kong artwork
was commissioned by Sir Peter Jackson
and still proudly hangs on his office wall.
Many thanks to James and Sir Peter for
permission to reproduce the image here.
James Dietz and Sir Peter Jackson.
 There was an enormous effort to get the
correct location of the sun vs. aircraft, in
relation to where the moving plane was in
relation to Kong. James: “That’s exactly right,
and they had a good idea of where all this was
as they had done a rough animation so that
the computer guys, and the camera guys, and
the assistant director had a good idea as to
how it would all work out scene to scene. This
was all put into a ‘blue room’… which is
actually a green room. Most of the people
involved were friends of Peter, who got in
some of the shots as well. Another friend of
Peter’s, one of the assistant producers for
Lord of the Rings, was the gunner and that’s
how I can tell the scenes I’m in, because he
stands up and does a lot of the firing. A
delightful guy, I spent two days with him, as
the seven seconds that we appear on the
screen took two days of shooting… part of
which was that I’m an inept actor, and that the
twin Brownings refused to fire all the time.
“They were antique guns from the 1920s,
and they had a really hard time trying to get
a steady burst from both guns for a long
enough period of time. They had an
armaments guy from Australia who was
supervising everything, but they jammed all
the time. Every time they’d jam, they’d have
to put a ladder up to the airplane. He’d crawl
up, clear the jam, and then get back down
again so we could do the shot. If the guns
worked, then it was something that I or the
other guy did wrong… we had a moment to
moment thing we were supposed to do, as we
were supposed to see the ape, fire, and then
turn our heads to look over our shoulders as
if we had just flown by the Empire State
Building. If I did everything right, the guns
didn’t work. If the guns worked, I did
something wrong. We were in the flight gear
all day, and they had it so that the plane
would shake and turn. It was a massive ‘I
need a bathroom break’ kind of day. I asked
the assistant director what was the hardest
shot he’d ever had to do for a film… he
looked at me bleary-eyed after blown shot
after blown shot and said ‘It may be this one.’
It was fun to be involved, but I don’t know if
the director would say the same thing.
“The plane that Gene made had an easily
removable top wing. The second day of
filming the wing was off to clear the
computerised camera that was about a foot
from my face. It would swing around the
front of the aircraft and go right by my ear.
But you are concentrating so hard on not
doing something wrong that you are hardly
aware of the camera anymore except when
it’s right in front of your nose. Then, after the
second day, they took me to something like
an MRI and did full scans of my face… I don’t
know if they were just doing that for
animated backup in case they needed my
head to be doing something.” Any future
plans for a film career? “No, I believe in
starting at the top and quitting.
“Peter is just nuts about First World War
airplanes, and practically nothing else gets him
going. He had a table full of 1/32nd one-off
models, perfect little unpainted models. Now
they are available as model kits, the best in the
world. He is just in love with that, he told me it
goes back to when he would watch the Blue
Max as a little kid. A couple of years ago he
In 1941, the Tophatters were again in the
was doing tests on doing a remake of movie spotlight with the release of the
Dambusters. He had built maybe six full scale hugely popular Dive Bomber. Norm deWitt
plastic Lancaster bombers, and looking at
them from across the runway you could not
tell that they weren’t Lancaster bombers. I also All of us involved with vintage aviation can
heard there was a gorgeous model made of a be thankful that we have such a highly visible
Messerschmitt 110 night fighter with about a and talented proponent. If there is such a thing
six foot wingspan. I’d love to get my hands on as an honorary Tophatter, one has to assume
that… I have the perfect place in the house.” that Sir Peter Jackson has made the cut. ➤
The Vintage Aviator Ltd (TVAL) in New Zealand One of the Curtiss F8C-4 Helldiver replicas on
built two Curtiss F8C-4 Helldiver non-flying set at WETA.The Tophatters badge is clearly
replicas for the 2005 King Kong. James Dietz visible on the side. James Dietz
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 39
Tophatter
in
– Pierre Thuot
P
ierre Thuot was destined to be a
Naval Aviator from the
beginning. Pierre: “My dad was
a Naval Aviator, he flew AD’s in
Korea, and all kinds of different
prop planes, so I grew up around Naval Air
Stations and airplanes. I wanted to follow in
my father’s footsteps.”
The maiden launch of Space Shuttle
Endeavor on STS-49 in May 1992. NASA
The scene at the Kennedy Space Centre as the Space Shuttle Atlantis is rolled out for mission
STS-36, Pierre Thuot’s first trip into space. NASA
40 aviationclassics.co.uk
space
Getting his degree in physics from the US
Naval Academy, he was on his way. “When
you get out of the Naval Academy, you go to
flight training. Somewhere along the way
based upon merit and what your choices are,
they try to match it together and you either
go into fighters, attack or ASW (Anti-
Submarine Warfare)… I was fortunate
enough to fly fighters. When I graduated I
got an assignment to F-14s and went to VF-
101, the Grim Reapers. It was what we called
the ‘replacement squadron’,, where
they train all the replacement pilots
and RIO’s (Radar Intercept
Officers) for the Fleet
Squadrons. My first carrier
landing was with the
Commanding Officer of the VF-
101. When I eventually got to
the fleet I only had two traps
(carrier landings), and two touch
and go’s. It was pretty exciting, as
you’re coming aboard at about The official mission
135-140 knots, with a sink rate of patch of STS-36. NASA John F. Kennedy. I have a couple
600-700 feet per minute, so it’s
quite a whack. I reported in May 1979 to VF-
14 as an Ensign, just about to be Lieutenant
Junior Grade. I was a back seater, a RIO, and
my call sign was ‘Pepe’.
“There were guys who graduated flight
training in 1978 who were still going into F-4
Pierre J Thuot, a former Tophatter, in
his Shuttle mission work suit. NASA
Phantoms… some went Phantoms, some
went Tomcats. I wanted to go Tomcats, as it
was a relatively new airplane. It was
considered the premier fighter so I wanted to
go into that. When I was with the Tophatters,
we won two Battle Efficiency awards, and the
‘Battle E’ is for the best fighter squadron. We
also won the Safety award one of those years,
and we got a Meritorious Unit
Commendation because of that performance.
Two of our Commanding Officers
made Flag rank, Rear Admiral Tim
Wright, who was my first CO,
and Rear Admiral Jack Dantone
who was my second CO… I
flew with him as his RIO. We
had a pretty good Squadron.
“The year before the Libya
shootdown, we were operating in
the Gulf of Sidra. We intercepted
some Libyan Mig-23s and some
Su-17s. We were operating off the
of pictures on my wall of the Mig-
23 and the Su-17. Back in that day, there was
Vietnam… which was pretty far behind us
with nothing else on the horizon, so that was
pretty exciting. I was with the Tophatters for
three years, and one of the things about the
VF-14… it is the oldest continuously active
squadron in the Navy.
“We had made a lengthy cruise to the
Mediterranean, almost eight months. We
came back and we had 12 F-14s on that ship.
Our maintenance folks who were responsible
for keeping those airplanes up had every
single one of them up. When we got close
enough to Oceana, we flew all 12 of them off
the ship and did a three diamond fly-by. Not
very often can 12 airplanes be flown off a ship
like that. The Tophatters were back to
Oceana… and it was pretty exciting.” The
long tradition of excellence continued.
“After I finished with VF-14, I went to Pax
(NAS Patuxent) River for test pilot school.
After that in 1983, I spent a year doing flight
testing, got a little F-4 Phantom time, F-14s
and A6s. The F-14 cockpit is so much nicer for
a back seater than the F-4. The field of view is
unbelievable compared to a Phantom, where
you can’t see behind you very well. In the F-14

On his last flight, Pierre Thuot took a
Tophatters 75th Anniversary patch into space
with him. It hangs today in the Smithsonian.
you can turn around in your seat with your
shoulder perpendicular to the seat and see the
entire aft fuselage of the airplane, you can see
between the tails. From a fighter standpoint,
one of your jobs being a back seater, is to keep
your Six clear (directly astern), and it is a
fabulous airplane for doing that.”
Many still bemoan the loss of the F-14
Tomcat. Pierre: “Absolutely, it was a
tremendous airplane, one of a kind as far as
some of its capabilities. Extremely long
range radar, the two seat capability that
gives you things that a single seat
airplane doesn’t do. Tremendous
weapon system, the airplane was a
huge leap over the F-4. But the F-
18 is a big advancement over the
F-14 in terms of maintenance man-
hours, and costs per flight hour and
all that kind of thing. At some point, you
have to retire the old airplanes.
I remember at one point when The official mission
they were decommissioning F- patch of STS-62. NASA to NASA for 10 years.” His first
This photo shows the successful capture of
the Intelsat VI satellite. Left to right, astronauts
Richard J. Hieb,Thomas D. Akers and Pierre J.
Thuot have handholds on the satellite. NASA
With his feet anchored in a portable foot restraint on the remote manipulator system end
effector, astronaut Pierre J.Thuot is pictured during one of four sessions of extravehicular
activity. The STS-49 mission specialist awaits with a special grapple bar as the space shuttle
Endeavour heads for a rendezvous with the Intelsat VI communications satellite. NASA
14 squadrons, turning them into F-18 spaceflight was in February 1990 on Atlantis
squadrons, and they were talking about STS-36, carrying a DOD payload. “One of the
retiring the Tophatters, but thankfully guys that I was crewed with in the Tophatters
cooler heads prevailed and the was Stuart Witt. We flew together, we went to
Tophatters continue on. Top Gun together… when I came back from
“Once I finished test pilot school, my first Shuttle mission he was there to greet
and did the testing, I worked as an me at Edwards Air Force base. A couple of the
instructor for a year until being other Tophatters were there, it was really cool
selected by NASA. It was a phone call to have some of my squadron mates there
from George Abbey, the director of flight after my first space flight to say ‘hi’ and
crew operations at the time who welcome me back to the planet. Stu and I…
called and said I was selected. I went we’re Tophatters and still very much in touch
with each other 30 years later.” ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 41
 Pierre J Thuot’s last
launch into space was as
part of the five man crew
of STS-62 aboard Space
Shuttle Columbia. NASA

The entry door to the VF-14 ready room exhibit

in the Smithsonian includes an appropriately
dressed Tomcat badge. Norm deWitt The Smithsonian
National Air and
The maiden flight of Endeavor STS-49 in Space Museum
May 1992 was one of the most challenging Naval Aviation
exhibition area
missions in shuttle history. “Probably the
includes a complete
most exciting thing was the second Shuttle VF-14 ready room,
mission, where I did three space walks to with exhibits such as
repair a satellite. It had launched on a Titan this complete set of
rocket a couple of years before, and it was Tophatters badges.
supposed to have its own rocket motor that Norm deWitt
was supposed to separate from the Titan.
Since it didn’t separate from the Titan, they
had to send a command to separate the
satellite from its rocket motor. The Titan and
the rocket motor re-entered the atmosphere
and burned up while the satellite was left in
this 200 mile orbit that was useless.
“The satellite needed to go to 22,000
miles, so we put together this mission to
bring up a new rocket motor. The objective
was to grab the satellite, attach a new rocket
motor, and deploy it out of the Shuttle’s bay.
What pushes it out of the Shuttle bay were
some springs that are canted in such a way
that when the satellite comes out, it starts a
rotation… it causes the thing to spin so it is
stable like a top. A day later they fire the
rocket when it’s away from us. I didn’t plan to
do three space walks… we had all kinds of
difficulty but were eventually successful. The
last of the three spacewalks had three
persons, the only time that’s ever been done.
Dan flew the Shuttle up under the satellite
and we just grabbed it.”
Pierre had some special cargo for what
was his final shuttle flight, Columbia STS-
62… a 75th anniversary Tophatters patch.
“The patch thing was cool, as the Tophatters
were having a big 75th reunion, where I got
to present it. We can bring up a few personal
items… our ‘personal preference kit’. I flew a
little Tophatters flag too.” Today that 75th
anniversary patch hangs in a place of
honour… the Tophatters ready room, which
is on display at the Smithsonian National Air
and Space Museum in Washington DC. ■
Words: Norm deWitt

42 aviationclassics.co.uk
 T he largestselec tio n o fo p tic s in the U K !

Please visitourw ebsite to see ourfull

range ofBinoculars,D igitalCam eras,
M onoculars,NightVision equipm ent,
S potting S copes,Tripodsand m uch m ore.

Enterthe d is c o u ntc o d e ‘ACLASSIC’ a nd get

5% DIS CO U N T
o ff o u ra lrea d y lo w pric es !

For Sales & A dvice 01253 300600

T iger H o bbies L im ited

S pecia list Im po rter o f D ieca st M ilita ry M o dels

C entury W ings 1/72 F14 To m ca t m o dels a re the best o f the best w hen it co m es to dieca st m o dela ircra ft.
C W 782976 F 14 T om cat V F -41 A J102 G ulf of S idra In ciden t C W 782983 F 14 T om cat V F -41 A J107 G ulf of S idra In ciden t

A llm odels com e w ith

fullop tion alw eap on s,
P ilots an d un der-
carriage an d stan d an d
in credible detail.
In stock £74.99 In stock £74.99

C W 944817 F -14D T om cat U .S .N avy V F -2 B oun ty H un ters A lso due in 2012 a T iger H obbies E xclusive
N E 100 2003 F 14 T om cat V F -1 W olf P ack

TH ESE AR E N OT
C H EAP B U T TH E B EST
N EVER IS
T hese are your very ow n
highw ay to the dan ger
zon e in m in iature
D ue D ecem ber 2011 £94.99 Verylim ited run ofjust1000 m odels £94.99

T iger H o bbies L im ited w w w .dieca stm ilita rym o dels.co .uk

U nit 18B G o ldtho rpe Industria lE sta te C o m m ercia lR o a d G o ldtho rpe R o therha m S 63 9B L
Tel: 01709 890940 E m a il: sa les@ tigerho bbies.co .uk W ebsite: w w w .tiger-ho bbies.co .uk

aviationclassics.co.uk 43
Tomcat Squadrons
of the
United States
Navy
W
ith the establishment of the
first two US Naval Fighter
Squadrons as part of the
Pacific Fleet in 1973, the
F-14 programme of re-
equipping units quickly got into top gear. The
Tomcat was eventually to equip no fewer than
24 US Navy front line fighter Squadrons, 10 of
the Pacific and 14 of the Atlantic Fleets, along
with two Fleet Replacement Squadrons, four
US Naval Air Reserve Squadrons,
three Squadron Augmentation Units
and three Test and Evaluation
Squadrons. On top of these there
were a number of training and
trials units such as the US Navy’s
Fighter Weapons School, the
famous Top Gun and the Naval Air
Test Centre. From 1973 to 2006, the
Tomcat formed the core of the US
Navy’s fighter force, eventually augmenting
the strike and attack units as the F-14
developed into that role.
Here is a complete list of all of the units
who were equipped with the Tomcat, along
with the dates they operated the aircraft for
and a short history of the operational use of
the Tomcat by each unit. To break the list up,
they are arranged by role order to make the
pages easier to search.
Fleet SquadronS
VF-1 Wolfpack – Callsign Wichita.
The Squadron was reformed on October 14,
1972 and received its first F-14As on July 1,
1973. In April 1975, VF-1 flew patrols over
Saigon to cover the last
withdrawal of US
personnel from
Vietnam. In 1991,
VF-1 scored the F-
14’s only air-to-air
victory in Operation
Desert Storm when
NE103 used an AIM-9
Sidewinder to shoot
down an Iraqi Mil Mi-8
44 aviationclassics.co.uk
helicopter. With the number of F-14 Squadrons
per carrier being reduced from two to one, VF-
1 was disestablished September 30, 1993.
VF-2 Bounty Hunters – Callsign Bullets
Reforming alongside VF-1 on October 14,
1972 at NAS Miramar, VF-2 also flew patrols
over Saigon in 1975. In 1991, VF-2 flew over
500 missions in Operation Desert Storm, and
in 1994 was re-equipped with the F-14D. In
1996, VF-2 received aircraft capable of
carrying the LANTIRN laser
designation pod, which were put
to good use seven years later
during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Later that year, the Squadron
gave up its Tomcats and was
redesignated VFA-2, equipped
with F/A-18Fs on July 1, 2003.
VF-11 Red Rippers – Callsign Ripper
During mid 1980 VF-11 received its first F-
14As. During 1984, it flew combat air patrols
over a strike force despatched to Syria after
F-14s of VF-31 had been engaged by Syrian
anti-aircraft fire. On July 12, 1992, the
Squadron began to convert onto the F-14D,
taking the ‘Super Tomcat’ on its first cruise
aboard the USS Carl Vinson in February
1994. During 1994, VF-11 introduced and
developed the use of Night Vision Goggles
and an associated cockpit lighting
system for the Tomcat,
unusually developing the
system in service, rather
than through a test or
evaluation Squadron. In
the summer of 1996,
VF-11 flew missions in
support of Operation
Southern Watch, then,
in September of that
year escorted B-52s
during Operation Desert
Strike. In 1997, due to
shortages of the D model,
VF-11 converted on to the F-
The F-14 Tomcat first entered
ser vice with US Naval Fighter
Squadrons VF-1 and VF-2 at
NAS Miramar in California,
when both squadrons received
their first F-14As in July 1973.
For the mighty Tomcat, this
was just the beginning.
14B, returning to Operation Southern Watch
for a tour in 2000. Operating from the USS
John F Kennedy, VF-11 took part in
Operation Enduring Freedom in February to
May of 2002, then, moving to the USS
George Washington, flew bombing,
reconnaissance and Forward Air Control
missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom in
April 2004. In May 2005, the Squadron
became VFA-11 and converted on to the F/A-
18E, the Tomcats being delivered into the
Davis-Monthan storage facility in Nevada
during April.
VF-14 Tophatters
– Callsign
Camelot
The oldest
Squadron in the US
Navy converted on
to the F-14 in
January 1974. In
October 1983 VF-14
took part in
Operation Urgent
Fury over Grenada, followed immediately
by fighter support missions for the multi-
national forces in Beirut in December of
that year. Three years later saw VF-14 in the
same theatre in response to the Lebanon
Hostage Crisis. In August 1990, the
Squadron was deployed in support of
Operation Desert Shield, and
then took part in Operation
Desert Storm in January
1991. VF-14 was again in
the Mediterranean in
October 1992, taking
part in Operation
Sky Monitor over the
former Yugoslavia.
After many successful
cruises and deployments,
on December 1, 2001,
the Tophatters became
VFA-14, equipped with
the F/A-18E.
VF-21 Freelancers –
Callsign Lance when BuNo 164603 was 32 returned to
In early 1984, VF-21 delivered from NAS Operation Southern
was declared Oceana to the Watch, then in 2002
operational on the F- American Airpower moved to Operation
14. After deployments Museum. Also in that Northern Watch. In
to the Middle East, month, VF-31 2003, VF-32 flew
Far East, Japan and became VFA-31 275 ground attack,
Taiwan, VF-21 was flying the F/A-18E reconnaissance and
disestablished on Super Hornet. FAC sorties during
January 31, 1996. Operation Iraqi
VF-32 Swordsmen Freedom. The
VF-24 Fighting – Callsign Gypsy Squadron returned
Renegades – Callsign Rage VF-32 converted from the F- to Iraq in 2004, the
On December 9, 1975, VF-24 received its first 4B on to the F-14A in July first naval unit to re-
F-14As, upgrading to the F-14B in April 1989. 1974. The Squadron deploy in support of
In August 1990, VF-24 became the first F-14 conducted the first fleet test Operation Iraqi
Squadron to drop air to ground ordnance of the Television Camera System Freedom. After an eventful
from its aircraft. The Squadron flew air (TCS) in June 1978. It then received career on the F-14, VF-32
support and fighter missions during TARPS pod capable aircraft in 1982, using became VFA-32, re-equipping with the F/A-
Operation Desert Storm in 1991. VF-24 was them to gather intelligence over both 18F on October 1, 2005.
disestablished on August 31, 1996. Grenada and Lebanon in 1983. On a routine
patrol over the Gulf of Sidra off Libya on VF-33 Starfighters – Callsign Tarbox
VF-31 Tomcatters – January 4, 1989, two MiG-23 Floggers VF-33 converted on to the F-14A in June
Callsign Tomcat now Felix intercepted two F-14s of VF-32, AC202 and 1981. On April 15, 1986, the Squadron flew air
The aptly named VF-31 with its ‘Felix the Cat’ AC207. Both aircraft were shot down by combat patrols with VF-102 from
emblem received its first Tomcats on January the Tomcats, one by an AIM-7 USS America in support of
22, 1981. The Squadron deployed to the Sparrow, the other by an Operation El Dorado Canyon,
Mediterranean on the USS John F AIM-9 Sidewinder. the airstrikes on Libya in
Kennedy in September 1983, Both Libyan pilots retaliation for terrorist
during which the fighters ejected. In 1990, attacks. Again aboard the
flew patrols over both VF-32 took part USS America, the Squadron
Lebanese and Syrian in Operation flew fighter cover missions
positions. Strikes against Desert Shield during Operation Desert
these were carried out on then in Desert Storm in 1991 from both the
December 4, with VF-31 Storm, flying 403 Red Sea and Persian Gulf. With
flying escort. Alongside missions in that the drawdown to one F-14
VF-11, VF-31 converted conflict including 38 Squadron per carrier, VF-33 was
on to the F-14D in 1992. TARPS reconnaissance disestablished on October 1, 1993.
LANTIRN pod capabilities missions. In September
were added during 1997 and 1994, a detachment of TARPS VF-41 Black Aces – Callsign Fast Eagle
in 1998 VF-31 used this equipment equipped VF-32 Tomcats provided The Black Aces first received the F-14A in
on Operation Southern Watch. The air support to Operation Restore April 1976. On
Squadron took part in Operation Enduring Democracy over Haiti, followed by a August 19, 1981
Freedom over Afghanistan in July 2002, as deployment in November to the two VF-41
well as returning to Operation Southern Mediterranean flying sorties in Operations Tomcats, Fast
Watch. On the way home from this Southern Watch and Deny Flight over Iraq Eagle 102 and
deployment, the USS Abraham Lincoln was and Bosnia with the new digital camera 107 were
turned around to take part in Operation Iraqi equipped TARPS pod. In February 1998 VF- intercepted by a
Freedom, starting on January 1, 32 converted to the F-14B, and in pair of Su-22
2003. During this cruise, VF- November returned to Fitters, one of
31 flew 585 combat Operation Southern Watch whom fired an
sorties, mostly as and what was now AA-2 ‘Atoll’
ground attack Operation Deliberate missile at the F-
aircraft, one of Force. On 14s. Both F-14s used AIM-9 Sidewinders to
which made the December 16, shoot down the attackers, the first air-to-air
Squadron the last 1998, Operation victories for the F-14, both Libyan pilots
F-14 unit to drop Desert Fox ejected. In 1982 and 1985, VF-41 was
a bomb in began, lasting deployed off the coast of the Lebanon, flying
combat. VF-31 four days, during missions in support of the multi-national
was also the last which VF-32 flew peacekeeping force initially, then in response
F-14 Squadron in 38 sorties and 16 to the hijacking of TWA847. In 1991, the
service, its last strike missions Squadron took part in Operation Desert Storm
flight from a over Iraq. On these then in April of that year covered Kurdish
carrier, the USS tit was the first F-14 refugees in Operation Provide Comfort. 1995
Theodore Roosevelt, unit to use LANTIRN saw VF-41 fly 530 sorties as part of three
taking place on in combat and to operations, Operations Deliberate Force and
July 28, 2006. drop multiple Deny Flight over Bosnia and Operation
The very last GBU-24 bombs, Southern Watch over Iraq. During Operation
flight by a VF-31 some of which were Deliberate Force, on September 5, 1995, VF-
Tomcat took place autonomous drops, 41 became the first F-14 unit to drop laser
on October 4, 2006, another first. In 2000, VF- guided bombs in combat. ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 45

In 1997, the Squadron returned to the
Mediterranean and flew exercises as well as
sorties as part of Operation Deliberate Guard
over Bosnia and Operation Southern Watch.
This was followed in 1999 by more combat
over the former Yugoslavia as part of
Operation Allied Force and continued
support for Operation Southern Watch,
during which 384 sorties were flown. April
2001 saw the last deployment by VF-41
on the F-14 when it operated as part of
Operation Southern Watch and Operation
Enduring Freedom from the USS Enterprise.
On October 8, VF-41 flew its first strike of
many against Afghanistan. After
returning to the US, VF-41
became VFA-41 and re-
equipped with the F/A-18F
on December 1, 2001.
VF-51 Screaming Eagles
– Callsign Eagles
On June 16, 1978 VF-51
received its first F-14A
Tomcat, conducting the first
automatic landings with the
aircraft in both day and night.
Although it was planned to convert
VF-51 on to the F-14D, this was cancelled,
and the Squadron was disestablished on
March 31, 1995.
VF-74 Bedevilers – Callsign Devil
VF-74 began training with the F-14A in
February 1983, and only two years later were
involved in capturing the hijackers of the
Italian liner Achille Lauro. The hijackers had
boarded an Egypt Air Boeing 737, which was
forced to land at Sigonella in Sicily by four F-
14s, two from VF-74 and two from VF-103.
Once on the ground, they were arrested by
the Italian Police. The following year, 1986,
saw VF-74 take part in two operations against
Libya, Operation Attain Document between
January and March, and Operation El
Dorado Canyon on April 15. On August 11,
1988, the Squadron received the F-14B. In
1990 they took part in Operation Desert
46 aviationclassics.co.uk
Shield, then Desert Storm,
flying from the USS John F
Kennedy. In 1992 VF-74 was
again in the Mediterranean
flying sorties over the
former Yugoslavia which
was to be its last cruise.
During 1993 and 1994, the
Squadron’s aircraft were
painted in Warsaw Pact
camouflage schemes for a
new role as an Aggressor
Squadron for Dissimilar Air
Combat Training (DACT).
On April 30, 1994 the
VF-74 was
disestablished.
VF-84 Jolly Rogers –
Callsign Victor y
VF-84 converted on to the F-14
in early 1976 and became the
first fleet TARPS Squadron in
1979. The skull and crossbones
markings became
internationally famous when the
Squadron starred in the 1980 movie
The Final Countdown. In 1983, VF-84
was deployed off the coast of Lebanon in
support of the multi-national peacekeeping
force there, returning in 1985 after the
hijacking of TWA847. In 1990, aboard the USS
Theodore Roosevelt, VF-84 was part of
Operation Desert Shield, followed by
Desert Storm where it flew 468
fighter escort and TARPS
reconnaissance missions. VF-
84 then flew 111 missions as
part of Operation Provide
Comfort. In 1993 the
Squadron was
deployed to the
Mediterranean to
take part in Operation Deny
Flight and Operation
Southern Watch. A second
movie appearance in
Executive Decision came near
the end of the Squadron’s
operational career. VF-84 was disestablished
October 1, 1995, but the skull and crossbones
live on, as the Squadron heritage and
nickname was transferred to VF-103.
VF-102 Diamondbacks –
Callsign Diamond
Transitioning on to the F-14A in July 1981,
VF-102 saw its first action in March 1986
when its aircraft were engaged by Libyan
anti-aircraft fire (AAA) and surface to air
missiles (SAMs) during Operation Prairie
Fire and again on April 15, when it flew
fighter cover for Operation El Dorado
Canyon. In 1990 VF-102 operated alongside
VF-33 from the USS America during
Operation Desert Shield and Storm. During
1993 and 1994, the Squadron took part in
Operations Provide Promise and Deny Flight
over Bosnia, Operation Restore Hope over
Somalia and finally Operation Southern
Watch over Iraq. Converting to the F-14B in
June 1994, the Squadron
returned to the
Mediterranean in 1995,
flying again over Bosnia as
part of Operation
Deliberate Force and Iraq
as a continuation of
Operation Southern
Watch. It returned again
to the latter operation
during 1999, striking
AAA and radar sites as
well as flying
reconnaissance missions.
2001 saw VF-102 in the
Persian Gulf for
Operation Enduring Freedom, beginning
strike missions over Afghanistan in
September, the first of over 5000 hours of VF-
102 combat flying in that conflict. On return
to the US, the Squadron was redesignated
VFA-102 on May 1, 2002, flying the F/A-18F
Super Hornet.
VF-103 Sluggers/Jolly Rogers –
Callsign Victor y
VF-103 the Sluggers (a baseball term),
converted onto the F-14A in January 1983.
Along with VF-74, they were involved in
capturing the hijackers of the Italian liner
Achille Lauro in October 1985. In 1986 VF-103
took part in two operations against Libya,
Operation Attain Document between January
and March, and Operation El Dorado
Canyon on April 15. In 1989, the
Squadron received the F-14B. In
1990 they took part in Operation
Desert Shield, then Desert
Storm, flying from the USS
John F Kennedy. During
this conflict, one VF-103
F-14B was shot down by an
Iraqi SA-2 SAM, but the crew
ejected safely. With the
disestablishment of VF-84 in
October 1995, VF-103
requested to adopt the Jolly
Rogers’ insignia and name, which
was approved. VF-103 also
introduced the LANTIRN pod into fleet use in
1995, and in 1998 were flying sorties over
Kosovo as part of Operation Deliberate
Guard. June 2002 saw VF-103 in the Persian
Gulf flying close air support, FAC and
reconnaissance missions as part of Operation
Enduring Freedom over Afghanistan. While
in theatre, the Squadron also flew missions as
part of Operation Southern Watch. In 2004
VF-103 made its last F-14 deployment, again
to the Persian Gulf, taking part in Operation
Southern Watch and
Operation Phantom Fury.
The latter occurred in
October and was aimed
at giving air support to
US and Iraqi troops in
Fallujah. On return to
the US, VF-103 was
redesignated VFA-103,
flying the F/A-18F, on
May 1, 2005.
VF-111 Sundowners – Callsign Sundowner deployed to take part in Operation Deny Flight
In October 1978, VF-111 was equipped with over Bosnia, then in December was deployed
the F-14A. Success in exercises and again as part of Operation Decisive
deployments included a Endeavour over Bosnia and
deployment aboard the USS Operation Southern Watch,
Kitty Hawk around South flying TARPS, FAC and
America in 1991, ground attack missions. In
conducting air exercises 1998, VF-143 returned to
with Argentina, Operation Southern
Venezuela and Chile. VF- Watch, but now with the
111 was disestablished digital TARPS and
on March 31, 1995, but LANTIRN capabilities. In
has since been re- March 2002, VF-143 was
established as VFC-111 aboard the USS John F
flying the F-5F since Kennedy to take part in
November 1, 2006. Operation Enduring Freedom
over Afghanistan. More combat
VF-114 Aardvarks – Callsign followed in 2004 when VF-143 flew
Aardvark strikes from the USS George Washington
On December 15, 1975, VF-114 received its during Operation Iraqi Freedom, including
first F-14As. Numerous deployments providing air support to US and Iraqi troops in
followed, including, in 1985, patrolling off Fallujah on April 28-29. On returning from this
the coast of Libya from the USS Enterprise. deployment, VF-143 was redesignated as VFA-
The Squadron flew patrols over 143, flying the F/A-18E from early 2005.
Kuwait in the wake of
Operation Desert VF-154 Black Knights –
Storm in 1991 and Callsign Black Knight
was disestablished on In October 1983, VF-154 was VF-211 Fighting Checkmates
April 30, 1993. equipped with the F-14A and – Callsign Nickel
due to its relatively late On December 1, 1975 VF-211
VF-142 conversion to the type was began to receive its first F-14As
Ghostriders – equipped with the TARPS to replace its F-8 Crusaders. In
Callsign Dakota aircraft from the beginning. October 1980, the Squadron
Converting to the F- In 1987 a cruise aboard the began to operate with the interim
14A in late 1974, the USS Constellation included TARPS pod. Following many
Ghostriders flew many operations against Iranian P-3Fs successful cruises, the Squadron
successful deployments before being deployed in the Persian Gulf. The Squadron converted to the F-14B in April 1989.
off Lebanon in 1983 to provide support to the returned to the region to take part in This upgrade was short lived, as F-14D
multi-national peacekeeping forces. On March Operation Desert Shield and again production was limited to just 55
24, 1989, the Squadron converted to the F- in April 2003 as part of Operation aircraft and the F-14Bs were
14B. In 1990 VF-142 deployed to the Persian Iraqi Freedom. In September of assigned to Atlantic Fleet units, so in
Gulf and took part in Operation Desert Shield, that year, the Squadron gave up 1992, the Squadron returned to the
returning to the Gulf in September 1991 as the F-14, and was redesignated F-14A. Prior to this revision, in 1991,
part of Operation Southern Watch. VFA-154, flying the F/A-18F VF-211 had deployed to the
Finally, VF-142 was deployed to the on October 1, 2003. Persian Gulf to take part in the
Mediterranean in May 1994 to take support to Operation Desert Storm,
part in Operation Deny Flight over VF-191 Satan’s Kittens – flying reconnaissance and
Bosnia and Operation Southern Callsign Hellcat air superiority missions
Watch over Iraq. On its return, One of the shortest in the aftermath of
as part of the drawdown in lived F-14 Squadrons, VF-191 the conflict on the F-
the F-14 fleet, the formed on December 4, 1986 14B. In 1996 the
Squadron was and began training with VF-143 F-14As
disestablished April VF-124. Before the unit received the
30, 1995. was deployed on its LANTIRN pod
first cruise, VF-191 and returned to
VF-143 was disestablished the Persian Gulf
Pukin’ Dogs – on April 30, 1988. in 1997 as part of
Callsign Dog Operation Southern
The famous Pukin’ VF-194 Red Watch. This tour was repeated
Dogs, a name that refers Lightnings – Callsign in 2000, then in late 2001 VF-211 returned to
to the winged Griffin Red Flash the Gulf, but this time to take part in
emblem, were re-equipped Like VF-191, VF-194 did not Operation Enduring Freedom over
with the F-14A in late 1974. In operate the F-14 for long. The Afghanistan. On this deployment, the
1983, the Squadron was flying Squadron was formed on Squadron flew 1250 combat sorties
TARPS missions over Lebanon as December 1, 1986 and from the USS John C Stennis.
well as conducting patrols off Libya. trained hard for its planned Finally the F-14, VF-211 flew in
During 1989, VF-143 converted on to first deployment aboard the support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
the F-14B, and in 1990 were deployed as USS Independence. Two in 2003, after which it returned to
part of Operation Desert Shield, returning months prior to this first cruise, the US and was redesignated as
to the Gulf in September 1991 in support of VF-194 was disestablished April VFA-211 flying the F/A-18F on
Desert Storm. In May 1994 the Squadron was 30, 1988. October 1, 2004. ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 47

VF-213 Black Lions – Fleet Replacement 1993 and later could
Callsign Black Lion SquadRonS carry the TARPS
In September 1976, VF-101 Grim Reapers – pod. The Squadron
VF-213 began Callsign Gunfighter also operated as an
converting to the VF-101 began training air Aggressor unit,
F-14A, taking and ground crew for fleet providing Air
part in three Squadrons in January Combat Training
cruises prior to 1976, the first conversion for many other
receiving its class being in June to Fleet and Reserve
first TARPS support VF-41 and VF- Squadrons. In 1996
capable aircraft 84. 1988 saw the VF-201 flew from the
in 1982. In May introduction of the F- USS John C Stennis
1991, VF-213 14B, and on September carrying out live firing exercise with air to air
flew missions 12, 1990 VF-101 dropped missiles, bombs and the 20mm cannon.
over Iraq from the first Mk 84 These training and Aggressor operations
the USS bombs from a continued until VF-201 became VFA-201
Abraham Tomcat as part of the equipped with the F/A-18A on
Lincoln in development of a strike January 1, 1999.
support of UN capability for the Tomcat.
Resolution 688, the With the disestablishment of VF-202 Superheats –
mission that later VF-124 in 1994, the Squadron Callsign Superheat
became Operation Southern Watch. 1993 saw became the training unit for the F-14A, and VF-202 began converting
the Squadron take part in that operation, as D. From September 1996, the unit moved on to the F-14A on
well as Operation Restore Hope over Somalia. entirely to NAS Oceana, with the exception of March 27, 1987,
1995 saw another return to Operation a detachment at NAS Key West for ACM completing this re-
Southern Watch, then in December 1997 VF- training, and carried out equipment in May
213 converted on to the far more capable training on all three 1988. Although TARPS
F-14D. In 1998 while again on Operation variants, the A, B and equipped from an early stage, and
Southern Watch from the USS Carl Vinson, D there. With the cited as an outstanding unit in terms
VF-213 took part in the four day Operation drawdown of the of professionalism, the high
Desert Fox beginning on December 16. On F-14 fleet, VF-101 airframe hours on the F-14s led to
January 5, 1999, two VF-213 F-14Ds engaged a was disestablished the Squadron being
pair of MiG-25 Foxbats in the no-fly zone, but on September disestablished on December 31,
the AIM-54 missiles had not been armed 15, 2005. 1994 as part of the defence
properly and the rocket motors failed to ignite. cutbacks.
On October 7, 2001 VF-213 dropped the first VF-124
bombs of Operation Enduring Freedom on an Gunfighters – VF-301 Devil’s Disciples –
SA-3 SAM site near Kabul airport. During this Callsign Callsign Devil
deployment the Squadron flew 500 sorties, Gunslinger Receiving its first F-14As in
flying ground attack, FAC and reconnaissance On October 8, 1972, October 1984, this was the first F-
missions. 2003 saw VF-213 aboard the USS VF-124, which had 14 Squadron in the Naval Reserve. By
Theodore Roosevelt flying 198 missions as been the F-8 Crusader August 1985, VF-301 was fully equipped
part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The last training Squadron, received its and began carrier qualification aboard the
deployment for the F-14Ds of VF-213 occurred first F-14As. Work had begun on training US USS Ranger in January 1986. The Squadron
in 2005 when the Squadron and VF-31 were Navy personnel on the new aircraft as early became the first Reserve F-14 unit to drop air
aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt in as 1970, when production began. This meant to ground munitions and established a safety
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Between the first two F-14 Fleet Squadrons, VF-1 and record for US Navy jet Squadrons. VF-301 was
them, the two Tomcat Squadrons flew 1163 VF-2, were established only six days after VF- disestablished September 11, 1994.
combat sorties on this tour, before returning 124, on October 14, 1972. VF-124 was also
to the US in March 2006. The Tomcat’s time responsible for training crews form the US
was over, and VF-213 became VFA-213, Marines before the aircraft was deemed too
converting to the F/A-18F in May 2006. expensive for the Corps in 1976, and the
Imperial Iranian Air Force after this. This
programme was suddenly halted with the
overthrow of the Shah in 1979. 1980 saw
VF-124 become responsible for TARPS
pod training, and 1990 saw the
introduction of the F-14D into the
training programme. As the F-14 fleet
was reduced, so was the need for
training units, so VF-124 was
disestablished on September 30, 1994.

naval aiR ReSeRve

SquadRonS
VF-201 Hunters – Callsign Hunter
This Reserve Squadron converted on
to the F-14 in early 1987, completing
the conversion from the F-4 by
December. As a fully capable F-14 unit, the
Squadron added ground attack capabilities by

48 aviationclassics.co.uk
VF-302 Stallions – Training,TesT
Callsign Stallion and evaluaTion
In February 1985 VF- squadrons
302 began to The US Navy also
convert to the F- operated F-14s with
14A from the F-4S the following
Phantom. Deploying specialist training,
aboard USS Ranger in development and
January 1986 evaluation units:
alongside VF-301, VX-4 “The
the unit carried out Evaluators”, the
carrier qualification VX designation
exercises. Later that standing for Air
year, VF-302 also Development
began training with the Squadron, operated
TARPS pod, taking the F-14 in all its
part in the variants from
Reconnaissance Air October
Meet, a joint service 1972 until
exercise, in Texas in September
1988, where it achieved 30, 1994
first place among all the when the unit was
participating US Navy and Marine Corps disestablished and merged
Squadrons. With the end of the Cold War, VF- with VX-5 to become VX-9.
302 was disestablished on September 11, 1994.
VX-9 “Vampires”
squadron augmenTaTion uniTs was formed by merging VX-4 and VX-5 in
These units were responsible for the training September 1994. The unit operated the F-14
and support of Reserve air and ground until June 2004.
personnel in order to
provide combat-ready The Naval Air Warfare
personnel to augment Centre (NAWC) flew
Fleet Squadrons during F-14s as part of their
mobilizations. Aircraft Division (now
VF-1285 Fighting VX-23 – Callsign Salty
Fubijars – Believed to Dog) as well as with the
have been established Naval Weapons Test
from 1980 to 1994. Squadron (NWTS, now VX-30 at
Augmented VF-301 and Point Mugu and VX-31 at China Lake), the
VF-302 Naval Strike Aircraft Test Squadron
(NSATS), the Pacific Missile Test Centre
VF-1485 (PMTC) and the Naval Weapons Centre
Americans – 1984 (NWC).
to 1994. Augmented
VF-124 The Navy Fighter Weapons School
(NFWS or more commonly known as
VF-1486 Fighting Hobos Topgun), and the Naval Strike Warfare
– March 1983 to September 27, 1991. Centre (NSWC) both operated F-14s from
Augmented VF-101 and 13 enlisted personnel 1970, before merging with the Carrier
from the unit were mobilised in support of Airborne Early Warning Weapons School to
Operations Desert Shield and Storm. form the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center
(NSAWC) in 1996. The last F-14s left the
NSAWC in October 2003.

The Naval Air Test Center (NATC) carried

out wide ranging evaluations on the F-14
from the projects inception throughout its
development during
its service.

National Aeronautics &

Space Administration
(NASA) operated F-14s
from 1979 to 1987, as
will be recounted in a separate
article. ■
Words: Tim Callaway

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 49

Tomcats
versus Eagles
Since the prototypes made their first flights just two years apart, it is inevitable that
comparisons would be drawn between the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and the McDonnell Douglas
F-15 Eagle. Debate rages on as to which aircraft was the better fighter, which, as former F-15
pilot Robert “Scout” Winebrenner explains, is like comparing apples to bananas, a somewhat
pointless exercise. What is more relevant, as he explains, is an understanding of the intentions
behind each design and the roles each aircraft was designed to fulfil.

S
hould the gentle reader be
clamouring for the final word
on which was the better fighter,
I’m sorry to disappoint: You will
not find it here. My flying
experience was almost exclusively in the
F-15C in Europe; throughout the 1980s, the
end of the Cold War and beyond. I never
flew the Tomcat, which I regret, as I believe
I would have been richer for the experience.
I did, however, have the opportunity to fly
Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT)
with 6th Fleet Tomcats in the Mediterranean.
On these occasions the briefings and
debriefings would frequently digress in
an unproductive direction with the central
point of contention being whether a
Phoenix was effective against a fighter
target or not.
This was destined to be the major
disagreement, because once within about
15 miles, the outcome was very rarely in
doubt. The Eagle had the better avionics and
agility for the close-in fight. The Tomcats of
the day with TF-30 engines were severely
thrust limited, and that with an airframe
already significantly heavier than the Eagle.
Once the turning began, it was over very
quickly, almost embarrassingly so. We also
noted how owing to the automatic wing
sweep, the Tomcat’s energy state was readily
apparent to an adversary. Once we saw the
wings come forward, we knew the Tomcat
was slow and would not be able to counter
our next hard turn or vertical reposition.
Thereafter, it was back to the debriefing,
where the Tomcat crews would claim that we
were already all dead pre-merge from
Phoenix shots anyway. We would say we
weren’t, they would say yes we were, and the
disagreement continues until the present day.
Cue Argument Clinic.

A pair of F-15As of the 525th Tactical Fighter

Squadron, part of the 36th Tactical Fighter
Wing based at Bitburg AB in 1977. US Air Force
 The F-14 was designed as a carrier based fighter and
had to take tremendous punishment on catapult
launches and arrested landings.The structural and
undercarriage strengthening to take these forces
added a great deal of weight not required on a land
based aircraft. Here, an F-14 of VF-102 traps aboard
the USS John F Kennedy. Luigino Caliaro

Such a hypothetical matchup between F-

14 and F-15 has long been a subject of lurid
speculation by amateurs and experts alike.
There have been innumerable discussions
and many heated ones about which was the
better fighter, accompanied by enough name-
calling, distortion, fantastic claims and
outright exaggeration to last us well past the
operational lives of the aircraft involved.
Because this is so, I believe it is vital to bring
some important facts to the forefront:
• There has never been an actual Tomcat-
Eagle engagement with live weapons fired in
anger. I hope everyone can agree that this
should be viewed as a good thing.
• Simulations involving radio calls, on-board
computers or even instrumented ranges,
regardless of the degree of fidelity, are much,
much different to actually shooting and being
shot at.
• Simulated missiles may have a 100%
probability of kill (Pk) but real missiles do
not. This not only applies to the Tomcat’s
Phoenix, but also to the Sparrows and
Sidewinders carried by both aircraft.
• Simulations involving the Phoenix cannot An F-15 of the 22nd TFS gets airborne from Bitburg AB, the home of the 36th Tactical Fighter Wing.
replicate the terminal phase active seeker The F-15 was designed from the outset as a land based air superiority fighter. US Air Force
illumination. This makes it impossible for the
would-be defender to execute an evasive I propose that to delve further into a requirements. In my role as a fighter planner
manoeuvre acceptable to whatever the hypothetical matchup is a waste of time, in joint/combined air operations centres, I
simulation might be. because there will never be agreement on was able to gain more insight into these
• The USN has never successfully engaged a that fundamental question about Phoenix operational requirements and the respective
fighter with the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, and effectiveness against fighter aircraft at longer strengths and limitations of the two aircraft in
only three shots were ever attempted. Iranian ranges. If there is test data out there, the fulfilling those requirements.
claims of success with the missile against people who have it are not telling. Therefore, As it turns out, the Tomcat was the better
fighters in the Iran/Iraq War have not been I stipulate a more valuable comparative Fleet Air Defence fighter and the Eagle the
confirmed and must be viewed with the examination would involve the specific roles better Air Superiority fighter. Funny old
appropriate scepticism. and missions intended for these aircraft. thing: that is the way it was intended. But
• And finally, lest the reader think my facts Although both aircraft replaced Phantoms why? Why, for example, would an Eagle not
are one-sided; claiming that a missile is easy and were developed at around the same time do as well as the Tomcat in Fleet Air Defence
to evade is much easier than actually evading (the Eagle’s first flight was two years later), operations, besides the obvious answer that
it, especially if it is coming at you from above the Eagle and Tomcat proceeded from the Eagle is not a carrier aircraft with
at Mach 5 and you cannot see it. completely different operational everything that entails? ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 51

Fleet Air DeFence versus
DeFensive counter-Air (DcA)
The ability to engage targets beyond
visual range (BVR) is a significant advantage
in the fighter world. In comparing BVR
performance, the Tomcat’s AWG-9 boasted
true multiple target track and multiple target
engagement with the AIM-54 Phoenix while
the Eagle did not gain a multiple target
engagement capability until the late 1980s
and the introduction of the AIM-120
AMRAAM. AIM-7 Sparrow employment
required single-target track radar
illumination to support missile guidance, and
this was the same in both aircraft.
Let’s apply the multiple-target
engagement capability to the scenario of a
blue-water fleet air defence mission in
conflict/war during the 1970s or 80s. In this
case, the air threat was long-range bombers,
cruise missiles or if close enough to land,
tactical aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles.

The 100 nautical mile (190km) range and 135lb (61kg) explosive warhead, coupled with
multiple targeting capabilities, made the AIM-54 Phoenix a fearsome weapon. Here pilot Lt.
West McCall and RIO Lt. Kimberly Arrington of VF-103 test fire a Phoenix as part of the annual
proficiency test during Exercise Mediterranean Shark in Morocco in September 2002. US Navy

Aviation Ordnancemen of VF-103 manually
load the much lighter AIM-7 Sparrow semi-
active radar homing missiles on to an F-14B
Tomcat aboard USS John F Kennedy (CV 67).
The Sparrow weighs 510lb (230kg) with an
88lb (40kg) warhead and a range of 31
miles (50km). US Navy
The Tomcats formed the leading edge of a
defence-in-depth against such a threat. It’s
important to note that in such a scenario, an
aerial target approaching the fleet is
presumed hostile unless proven otherwise;
the Tomcats would have no restrictions on
their BVR Phoenix employment.
Assisted by E-2 Hawkeyes and using Link
4 for situational awareness and battle
management, each Tomcat could bring long-
range weapons to bear simultaneously on a
maximum of six targets (but nominally four,
as the 6-Phoenix configuration was too heavy
and stressful on the airframe). This firepower
could inflict severe losses on an incoming
raid. Moreover, once the missiles reached
active range, the Tomcat could reverse course
and accelerate, keeping the enemy at a
distance and the engagement zone free of
friendly aircraft. It was vital to kill the enemy
aircraft outside their own anti-ship weapons
launch range. Clearly, it’s far better and easier
to kill one large launch platform than a dozen
small missiles. It is also important to note that
under these conditions, the Tomcats would
normally not be facing an agile fighter threat.
In this scenario, an Eagle would have not
been nearly as effective. The Sparrow had
nowhere near the range of the Phoenix, and
without multiple target engagement capability,
the Eagle could only get one or maybe two
shots away pre-merge. In order to bring more
weapons to bear, the fighter would be forced
in among the targets to chase them down.
Trailing fighters approaching the engagement
zone would then face a more complicated and
dangerous BVR environment, with targets and
friendly fighters at the same position and
same heading. During all this chasing down,
the targets get closer and closer to their own

The 1040lb (470kg) weight of the AIM-54 required specialist loading winches and equipment. Aviation Ordnancemen load the M-61A1 20mm
Here, weapons specialists of VF-2 load an AIM-54C Phoenix on to the wing glove pylon of an F- cannon of an F-14 from VF-103 aboard the USS
14 on the flight deck of USS Constellation (CV 64). US Navy George Washington (CVN 73). US Navy

52 aviationclassics.co.uk
 In air combat there is a saying – ‘lose
sight, lose the fight’.This view of a Pacific
Missile Test Center F-14A Tomcat shows
the large bubble canopy and excellent
pilot’s forward view which afforded both
crewmembers excellent visibility from
their cockpits. Frank B Mormillo
weapons launch range. So, the Eagle of the
day was not as effective in this role quite
simply because it could not engage multiple
BVR targets simultaneously.
By contrast, in a Central European
Defensive Counter-Air (DCA) scenario from
the same time period (as we envisaged it),
the Tomcat’s long-range BVR advantage is
nullified and the poor dogfighting capabilities
become a serious liability. There, the Eagle
pilot was faced with a much more complex
environment: the scope literally filled with
returns, friendlies flying all directions,
enemies flying all directions, with a variety of
transponder modes and codes to try to sort
out the friendlies as well as procedural
airspace control measures which needed to
be considered. We also expected autonomous
operations owing to the limited number of
The last air to air missile in the Tomcat arsenal is the infra-red guided AIM-9 Sidewinder with a
range of 22 miles (35.4km). Weighing only 188lb (85.3kg), these Aviation Ordnancemen from
VF-143 aboard the USS John F Kennedy can manually load and unload them. US Navy
GCI sites, the numbers of fighters and
targets and the difficult ECM/radio
environment. There were no useful fighter
data links in those years, as JTIDS/Link 16
was not operational until much later.
In this scenario, long range Phoenix
employment would have been nigh-on
impossible. The numbers of targets, the
dynamic environment and the constant mixing
of friendlies and enemy aircraft rendered the
Tomcat’s “longer stick” unusable except in the
most unusual circumstances. At shorter
ranges, the APX-76 IFF interrogator meant
that it could fulfil the basic requirements to
shoot BVR in the Central Region. Considering
the agility deficit of the TF-30 powered F-14
already alluded to, if you take the long range
BVR away from a Tomcat, then it has few
advantages left.
Across the Fence
Part of the fighter business is taking the fight
to the enemy, and when necessary, crossing
the FLOT to clear an area of enemy aircraft
(Sweep) or protect friendly cross-FLOT
operations from enemy air attack (Force
Protection/Escort).
Tomcats could be very effective in a
sweep mission provided the area was clear of
other friendly aircraft and BVR weapons
could be freely employed. This would be the
case, for example, if Tomcats were sweeping
ahead of a carrier-based attack package.
They could pepper opposing fighters or
aircraft in the target area with Phoenix
missiles in such a fashion that enemy forces
would be destroyed, or at the very least,
would be very unlikely to stick around. If the
enemy refuses an engagement with the
Tomcats and leaves the area, then the
mission has also been accomplished.
Additionally, the Tomcat’s respectable station
time meant that local air superiority was
more than just a fleeting thing.
By contrast, if the task is to protect
an attack package cross-FLOT from enemy
air with limited air superiority assets, it is
critical not to chase after enemy aircraft
that are not a factor to the package, and
not to expend weapons on targets that are
not a direct threat to the package. Because
of this, the fighters normally have rather
restrictive commit and shoot criteria on
escort missions. These commit and shoot
criteria vary depending on the size of the
package, the self-defence weapons present in
the package and the nature of the threat.
However, a common rule of thumb in those
days was to not commit on hostiles until
they were within 20 miles of the package with
an aspect greater than 150° (the enemy
fighter has the friendly package within 30° of
its nose).➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 53

A VF-101 F-14 at speed with its wings
swept fully aft. One of the drawbacks
of the automatic wing sweep system in
air combat was that it was a tell-tale
sign of the energy state of the Tomcat.
Frank B Mormillo
As this F-14D Tomcat of VF-31 begins to
tighten its turn and increase its G loading,
the aircraft begins to slow, so the wings
begin to move forward. US Navy
An F-14B of VF-32 from the USS Harry S.
Truman (CVN 75) is pulling hard and
decelerating in the turn as evinced by the
span-wide condensation and wing tip
vortices.The wings are nearly fully forward
now. US Navy
As the VF-32 F-14B continues its turn it has
now slowed down, the condensation and
vortices have ceased and the wings have
moved all the way forward, a clear
indication to an opposing pilot as to its
energy state. US Navy
54 aviationclassics.co.uk
Waiting until this late to commit and shoot
negates many of the advantages of the Phoenix.
Moreover, good agility and acceleration are
needed to quickly kill threatening enemy
fighters and then rejoin the package.
Incidentally, most fighter pilots love sweep
and hate escort. This should come as no
surprise: to do escort well is very difficult
and nerve-wracking.
RestRIcteD BVR
The preceding were just some examples at
opposite ends of the spectrum, but for
anything in between, the BVR Rules of
Engagement (ROE) would have a significant
effect on the relative success of the Tomcat
or Eagle in any given situation. Although
both Tomcats and Eagles dream of scenarios
allowing unrestricted BVR employment, the
reality often falls far short of unrestricted.
The ROE will specify under what
circumstances a fighter is permitted to
engage BVR, and definitions become a very
important part. For example, is an aircraft
hostile when it lacks any of a number of
friendly electronic identifiers or
characteristics? Or is it only considered
hostile when it can be unequivocally proven
to be hostile; for example, electronically or by
unambiguous track origin? Is an aircraft
presumed friendly because it lacks hostile
characteristics or does it need to be proven to
be friendly? A lot of thought is put into these
BVR ROE by planners and ultimately
commanders to allow the best use of fighter
assets without unnecessarily endangering
friendly aircraft, or in some cases, even
civilian aircraft or neutrals.
So what does this all mean? With
unrestricted BVR, as described in the Fleet
Air Defence scenario above, the Tomcat’s
ability to engage multiple targets
simultaneously at longer ranges made it the
most effective. In any scenario short of
unrestricted BVR, the Eagle was equipped
with the better suite of sensors to sort out
friendlies from enemies and had a clear
advantage in this department over the
Tomcat. That is, unless the ROE were so
The F-14 may not have had the close-in ACM agility of the F-15, but it was fast, powerful,
manoeuvrable, heavily armed with the longest range air-to-air missiles then in service and a radar
powerful enough to illuminate targets for them, and offered its crew an unsurpassed view from the
cockpit. In the right hands, this combination of capabilities could be incredibly effective. Lastly, and
nothing to do with air combat, it was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed. US Navy
restrictive that visual identification (VID) was
required for weapons employment. In that
case, the Tomcat armed with Sparrows and
Sidewinders gained the advantage again
owing to the Television Camera Set (TCS).
TCS was a chin-mounted optical sensor
which could be slaved to radar line of sight.
The Tomcat crew could lock on to a target,
and if VID was required, zoom in with the TCS
to get a very early look at the target aircraft.
The Eagle had nothing like this. It pains me to
admit it, but we were flying around with rifle
scopes strapped on to the Head-Up Display
frame, allegedly boresighted. In order to
achieve an early VID, we would lock on to the
target, put the HUD’s boresight symbol on the
target designator box, lean forward and look
through the rifle scope. This was not that easy.
Maybe other pilots thought it was great, but I
didn’t. It was not user-friendly by any stretch
of the imagination.
Clearly, the Eagle’s engineers put more
emphasis on the electronics as opposed to
optics. Even the late-model air-to-air Phantoms
in USAF service which the Eagle replaced had
TISEO – a system similar to the Tomcat’s TCS.
It is worth mentioning that Tomcats had
an early TCS VID during the famous Gulf
of Sidra incident with a pair of hapless
Libyan Su-22 Fitters. After a (futile)
forward-quarter launch of an AA-2 Atoll at
the Tomcats, the engagement ended quickly
with Sidewinder missiles fired at short range,
destroying both Fitters.
It DepenDs
So which is the better fighter? The reason the
F-14 versus F-15 argument has gone on so long
is because there is no easy answer; in sum, it
depends. It depends on the mission. It depends
on the ROE. It depends on the threat. Yes, it
was easy for Eagle pilots to disparage the
Tomcat’s close-range dogfighting performance
in relation to their aircraft, but the Tomcat’s
unique ability to throw around 1000lb air-to-air
missiles with 135lb warheads must objectively
be viewed as impressive. Could such missiles
be easily evaded? The world will probably never
know. ■ Words: Robert “Scout” Winebrenner
An unusual top view of a
F-14D showing the wings in
the ‘overswept’ position used
to save space on carrier
decks. Luigino Caliaro
 Flying the
Tomcat
– an F-14 pilot’s eye view

A VF-2 F-14A Tomcat over the

Pacific Ocean near the Southern
Calfiornia coast. Frank B Mormillo
As has been explained, the
F-14 was a large, powerful and
complex aircraft. The big
fighter impressed ever yone
who came into contact with it
through both its performance
and capabilities. Because of
these, for many years flying the
Tomcat was considered to be
the best job in naval aviation.
Operating it successfully,
especially at sea, could be
fraught with incident however,
as Jonathan K Schreiber
illustrates with two memorable
sorties from his logbook…

M
ay 5, 1961; John Kennedy
was the president of the
United States. The interstate
highway system, as we know
it today, was just being
constructed. Elvis had not yet left the
building. I was just a few months short of my
6th birthday, yet I clearly recall this particular
day as the dawning of the Space Age.
In Richmond, Indiana, my dad and I were
watching a fuzzy black and white newscast of
some crazy stuff going on down in Florida.
Although I was unable to discern many details
of the rocket and gantry, I remember being
transfixed while watching a Navy pilot,
Commander Alan B Shepard Jr, walk to his
spaceship. Even though the spaceflight lasted
mere minutes, I knew then and there I wanted
to be an astronaut and embraced the belief
that becoming a Navy pilot was the way to get
there. I did not make it into the astronaut
corps but I was very happily afforded the
opportunity to enjoy a career flying very cool
Navy jets. One of the most impressive
airplanes I was fortunate enough to fly was
the F-14 Tomcat… and this is my story.
My opportunity to fly the Tomcat came
about 25 years after my decision to be a Navy
pilot. During May of 1986, I was on shore
duty in Beeville, Texas, when my detailer
called me. The detailer is the person
responsible for assigning flight crews to
airplanes and squadrons. The phone call
ended up being a very short conversation; it
went something like this:
ring ring…
Me: Lt Schreiber speaking.
Detailer: Hooter, Flakes… What airplane?
What coast?
Me: uhhh, F-14s, West Coast.
Detailer: Done, have fun, check 6!
Click
The die was cast, I was headed to
Miramar to fly Tomcats. Sweet! ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 57

A VF-2 F-14A Tomcat ‘traps’ – makes an arrested landing – aboard the USS Ranger. Dave Baranek
The F-14 was a beast of a machine forged
within the storied hangars of the Grumman
‘Iron Works’ Aircraft Company in Long Island,
New York. The Tomcat was big; nearly 63 feet
long, standing 16 feet tall with a wingspan of 64
feet. It was nearly the size of some commercial
regional jets. The mighty Tomcat had an
incredible maximum take-off weight of almost
37 ton and when wrapped up in a 6.5G turning
fight the F-14 carried more inertia than a 777.
The Tomcat was able to track multiple aircraft,
launch multiple missiles and kill enough
enemy aircraft in a single engagement to make
the aircrew of a Tomcat aces before the
opposing forces merged. No other fighter
plane was able to do that, then or now. With all
that size, two big motors, Phoenix, Sparrows,
Sidewinders, 20mm gun, bombs, TARPS and
everything else, it remained an agile and
globally respected fighter that took on
allcomers, ‘Anytime Baby!’.
A Yellow Shirt guides an F-14 Tomcat into
launch position on the USS Theodore
Roosevelt, showing just what a big aircraft
the F-14 was for a carrier aircraft. U.S. Navy
58 aviationclassics.co.uk
My transition to the Tomcat was a serious
period of hard work. The systems in the
Tomcat were complex, integrated and loaded
with options for multiple missions and future
evolution. It was a lot of work and a lot of fun.
With that in mind I would like to tell you about
some of the experiences I had while flying the
Tomcat and perhaps give you a bit of the
feeling of what it feels like to strap on 74000
pounds of fury. You can’t tell a story about a
Navy airplane without talking about flying
from the boat. So I shall start with a tale about
the Tomcat in its natural environment at sea.
I was assigned to the Fleet Replacement
Squadron (FRS) at Miramar (VF-124) to learn
to fly the F-14. My logbook shows my first
flight in the F-14 was on October 2, 1986. I
completed training and was assigned to
Fighter Squadron 2 (VF-2), The Bounty
Hunters, on May 26, 1987. In my mind I had
learned everything I needed to be a steely
Chief Aviation Boatswain’s Mate Wilson Theodore, one of the Yellow Shirts or aircraft handlers, directs
an F-14D Tomcat into position for launch aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). U.S. Navy
eyed F-14 pilot. Although as it turned out I
had missed one particular piece of
information, not anything critical, the training
is too good for that. This particular piece of
information is a nuance, a bit of the mystique
that every airplane has to offer, even, perhaps,
a hidden charm. I discovered this particular
behaviour during my first night mission off
the USS Ranger. My XO (squadron executive
officer) was in the back seat and we were fully
loaded, as this would be my very first full
weight catapult (cat) shot in the F-14. The
reason for this was that while training to fly
the F-14, we did not land aboard the ship with
weapons, nor did we launch from the boat
with a full load of fuel. Therefore, while doing
carrier qualifications, we only put enough fuel
in the plane to get a few traps (arrested
landings) and then refuel. Generally our
weight would be less than 52000 pounds for a
launch from a ship during carrier
An F-14D Tomcat of VF-31 gets set on the number three catapult prior to making the last ever White Shirt troubleshooters give a thumbs
catapult launch of an F-14 Tomcat. White Shirts – troubleshooters – make last minute checks up, indicating that the F-14 is safe for launch.
for problems with the airframe. U.S. Navy U.S. Navy

qualification. So what’s the big deal? Whether
the plane weighs 52000 pounds or 74000
pounds the cat shot should be about the
same, shouldn’t it? At least, that was the
thought lodged in my head at the time. Upon
honest reflection I have to say that several
experienced F-14 guys had already told me
otherwise. I too was an experienced carrier
pilot and frankly… thanks a lot but I knew
what I was doing or so I thought.
Our squadron XO and I were scheduled for
a night launch for my first full cycle operation
from the Ranger Boat; my logbook shows a 2.2
hour flight on June 1, 1987. I don’t recall
exactly what our load out was, but it included a
full bag of gas, which weighs about 20000
pounds more than I was familiar with, and
probably a couple of missiles and some 20mm
ammo chained up to the gun. Therefore, there
was about 50% more mass getting ready to be
slung off the boat than I was used to. This was
my first opportunity to wrap my brain around
the physics I was going to be part of (you
know; F=MA; Force = Mass x Acceleration,
the V was going to be the same as other cat
shots but the M was going to be a lot higher)
Okay, now ... YOU ARE IN THE COCKPIT:
You have gone through all the normal
starting procedures and pre-taxi checks. This
was your second chance to understand what
was about to happen. You and your RIO
acknowledged the system Built in Test (BIT)
checks and your Tomcat is unchained and
summoned to catapult three. The XO puts the
Inter-cockpit Communications System (ICS)
on hot mic, meaning you can hear each other
without pushing a button. The XO tells you the The catapult is in tension, the aircrew ready
weight board numbers (this was your third themselves for the shock of launch, watching
chance to understand what was going to the Yellow Shirts’ signals. U.S. Navy
happen) and you roger that, meaning you
heard the numbers and understand them. You
are lined up on the cat track and the Yellow
Shirt (the person directing you to move your
aircraft on the flight deck) gives you the signal
to stop. At this point the Yellow Shirt has both
of his hands balled into fists in front of his face
then he gives you a vertical clapping sign like
a University of Florida Gator, arms extended
in front of him one hand below his waist and
the other hand coming down from in front ➤

Catapult Officer Lt Cmdr Molly Boron gives

the signal to launch an F-14 from the USS
Theodore Roosevelt. U.S. Navy

Catapult Officer Lt Cmdr Richard Kramarik

At sea aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73), Aviation Boatswain’s Mate Airman Heath signals to launch an F-14D of VF-213 while
Oelman, a Green Shirt, performs final checks on the now fully compressed nosewheel strut of Green Shirts take shelter from the blast of the
an F-14, along with the holdback link and the catapult shuttle engaged on the hook. U. S. Navy departing aircraft. U.S. Navy

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 59

An F-14D Tomcat of VF-31 is positioned on the
catapult track of the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
U.S. Navy
of his face to clap the other hand. This is a
signal that the aircraft is going to ‘kneel’. The
nose landing gear compresses to store energy
to be used at the end of the cat shot to help the
Tomcat rotate to a flying attitude. The Yellow
Shirt directs you forward a couple of feet, his
hands are open and oscillating laterally across
his face, thumbs touching then apart, repeat.
You advance power slightly to take up slack in
the hold back fitting and feel it engage the
catapult buffer unit with a slight bump, like
your car rolled into a curb.
The Yellow Shirt balls up his hands again
and you press on the toe brakes. He has both
hands balled into fists on either side of his
face and after a brief inspection of the
holdback fitting he opens both hands and
throws his left arm forward. This tells you to
release the brakes, push the throttle forward
going to military power. Below the flight
deck the catapult shuttle moves forward just
enough (about six inches) to ensure there is
no slack between the catapult and the
aircraft. This is called ‘being in tension’, the
Tomcat is literally crouched and tensed,
ready to pounce on whatever evil dares to
invade its million square mile domain.
The Tomcat shudders as the TF-30s (or F-
110s) spool up and shed their angst in a 600
knot 600 degree stream of exhaust over the
jet blast deflector behind you. The gauges
jump to life, no caution or advisory lights,
engine instruments look good, nozzles closed.
You tell the XO, over the ICS, that everything
looks good up here and he concurs. You look
back at the Yellow Shirt. He passes control to
the catapult officer about 10 yards forward.
He has his right arm and hand extended
above his head at about a 45 degree angle. He
is shaking his hand back and forth with his
index and middle fingers extended in what
Looking back down an F-14 of VF-2
at the USS Ranger as the aircraft is
launched. Dave Baranek
In full afterburner, the nosewheel leg extends and an F-14 leaps off the deck of the USS
Enterprise (CVN-65). Frank B Mormillo
could be described as a ‘peace sign’ which
could not be further from the truth. There is
no peace at that particular moment. First
your left leg straightens then the right leg as
you check the rudders. Your right hand
traces out an octagon with the control stick
as you check the spoilers and elevons to
make sure they work to their limits.
With a loose grip on the stick you ask the
XO if he is ready to go. He says: “Let’s go!”
You look back towards the catapult officer
who opens his right hand like he wants to
give you a high five, this is his signal for you
to advance power to zone five afterburner.
You actually move your left hand forward like
you are going to reciprocate the high five.
The noise in the cockpit increases to a roar,
the airplane shakes a bit more violently when
the afterburners light. Your instruments
confirm the afterburner nozzles have opened
and you take one more look around for
caution and advisory lights. You flip on your
aircraft external lights with your left pinky
which indicates you are ready to go flying
and you settle into your ‘normal’ cat shot
position in your Martin-Baker ejection seat.
The ocean in front of you is bobbing up
and down as if it is going to swallow you, a
bead of sweat runs down your forehead and
into your right eye and then the catapult
fires. RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW! You
realise you have not listened to the
experienced guys who told you how to take a
full weight cat shot. All your XO knows is that
he hears you utter two words no backseater
wants to hear: “Holy Shit!” No further
explanation is forthcoming. The XO is left in
stunned anticipation as we race towards the
inky black ocean. You are about halfway
through the cat shot now, you are going
flying. The question on the XO’s mind at this
point is… for how long? The XO offers up a
critical question as you leave the flight deck,
“Hooter, you got it?” You mutter: “Yeah I’m
good.” The Tomcat is airborne, rotated to 12
degrees nose up; accelerating as you have
slapped the gear handle to the up position
and brought the flaps up. As things settle
down a bit, the Tomcat appears to be flying
okay and the XO’s grip on the lower ejection
handle is relaxed. Ten immensely long
seconds after your expletive, you offer an
explanation.
You: Sorry for the alert back there Sir.
XO: What’s up?
You: When the Cat fired it felt like I was
dropped off a roof, I think I tore a muscle in
my back, it’s a little uncomfortable to breathe.
XO: (in a somewhat irritated voice) You okay?
You: (In a falsely confident voice) Yeah!
I’m fine. I have a visual on the tanker.
(Translation, I hate being a new guy).
XO: (in his most officious voice) Rog,
going cold mic. (Translation, I hate flying
with new guys)
What happened is, according to the F-14
NATOPS manual… ‘Initial catapult firing
results in short-term vertical acceleration of
15-20g caused by full compression of the
stored energy nose strut’. That is a lot of Gs.
I had failed to put my upper body into the
proper position. Proper position is like you
are going to do a squat with free weights,
head back aligning your spine, back straight
and shoulders compressed. I was leaning
forward a bit, leaving my head dangling over
open space meaning that at 15-20g my head
now weighed approximately 100-140 pounds
and I was not supporting it with anything but
hubris. In addition, by not being tightly
attached to the seat, I had left just a little
space between me and the airplane. When
the catapult fired, the Tomcat closed that
space in a microsecond like a sledge hammer
closing on a tent peg. The Tomcat didn’t care
if I was ready to go; it leapt from the deck
with or without me. I had to catch up if I
wanted to play.
After that I made it a point to listen
intently to my experienced squadron mates...
 Two F-14A Tomcats from VF-2, tailhooks
extended, orbit above USS Ranger
(CV-61) before recovery following a
training mission in the northern Indian
Ocean, 1987. Note the different tail
designs and paint schemes. The
aircraft are Bu.Nos: NE 201/162596
and NE 200/162594. Dave Baranek
So how about flying the Tomcat in a fight?
It was highly manoeuvrable, nimble, and
armed to the teeth. The enemies of the
Tomcat were in some sort of weapons
envelope from about 100 miles to a few 100
feet (Phoenix to guns). I fought the Tomcat at
speeds in excess of Mach 1 down to below 100
knots. The variable geometry wings gave it an
agility unmatched at its introduction. It had a
respectable roll rate and an eye-watering pitch
rate. Yes it was big, variously described as a
flying tennis court or the geographic centre of
any fight. Yet, given the right rules of
engagement, no other fighter plane would
ever be able to get to a point of actually seeing
the Tomcat in a furball or close-up fight.
A couple of months after I learned to take
a full weight cat shot, we were patrolling the
MiG-23 Floggers, a single-engined Russian-built swing wing fighter, of the type encountered by
the author over Camh Ran Bay. Editor’s collection
South China Sea off the coast of Vietnam. On
this particular day I was in one of the five
minute alert aircraft (Alert 5) we always had
manned up while deployed. The Alert 5 is an
aircraft that, as its moniker suggests, could be
airborne five minutes from the time the need
arose. Needless to say this was generally
done in a situation where the need was actual
and urgent. The skipper and I were positioned
on Cat 3 when the call came to launch the
Alert 5. We started our Tomcat, went through
our checks and were airborne in less than five
minutes. We were told that a MiG-23 headed
towards the ship. I was excited to be actually
launching on a threat, but not overly so,
basically I thought… this should be fun.
Since we were operating under normal
peacetime rules of engagement our only
mission was to keep the bogey from flying
near the ship. Failing that we were to make
sure we were at least escorting the bogey if
he went by the ship. When we launched we
were about 100 miles east of Cam Rahn Bay,
which meant I would be pretty heavy at the
merge unless I dumped fuel. Being heavy at
the merge would limit my manoeuvrability by
about 1.5Gs but that should not be a problem,
unless things spiralled out of control. The
skipper and I chose not to dump fuel. The
skipper got a radar lock very shortly after we
vectored west and I could see a black dot in
the heads up display (HUD) target
designator diamond at about 20 miles. We
went through our intercept checklist and
talked about our game plan on the way in.
At the speed we were closing we would be
at the merge in a little over a minute. During
this moment of relaxation, I recall taking in
the view. A thin overcast made the ocean
appear grey rather than blue. There was little
natural wind so the ocean almost blended
into the sky to the north and the south. To
the west, through my HUD, I could make out
the verdant mountains of Vietnam breaking
the monotony of grey sea and grey sky. The
overcast was actually a nice environmental
element that would take sun glare and sea
glint out of the engagement calculus. We
were at about 5000 feet when we went head
to head; passing closely port to port (left side
of each aircraft). The Flogger reversed to the
right and went obliquely nose up. I continued
to the left and pulled a little more nose up to
get an altitude advantage and hopefully to
pull a little behind the Flogger. After about
180 degrees of turn I passed about 1000 feet
above the bogey a little aft of his wingline.
This was going well. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 61
 The F-14 was a far superior fighter plane
than the Flogger in a turning fight. The
Flogger pilot reversed again and I continued
to roll through about three quarters of an
aileron roll and pulled back into him now in a
right-hand turn. The Flogger pulled a little
more nose high and we ended up in a
scissors both aircraft maintaining a basically
neutral position flying in a corkscrew path to
the south west. This continued for a couple of
turns until the bogey levelled off and pointed
back towards the mainland. The skipper and
I rolled out and tried to join up as the Flogger
steadied up heading towards his base. We
had a good Television Camera System (TCS)
picture of the plane as we got closer.
The skipper and I made sure we were not
going to violate the 12 mile limit and cause
some sort of political blunder. We double
checked our position with the E2-C Hawkeye A Grumman F-14A Tomcat of VF-2 with a Grumman E2-C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft,
and the ship. Both of which were keeping us the type that gave the author radar cover during his encounter with the Flogger. Dave Baranek
aware of our geographic location and other
potential threats in the area of operation. As went through the same dance, head on pass, the F-14A+, B and D did not suffer this
we got closer to the Flogger we wanted to join rolling scissors, jink and jive jaunt back shortcoming. I only wish I had the longevity
up and snap a few photos. We thought that the towards the beach, I break it off, and the MiG to fly these versions. The TF-30 P414s were
pilot of the Flogger would be willing and then heads back towards the ship and I re- fragile in the envelope in which the F-14A was
photogenic. The MiG pilot had other plans. He engage; a ‘Ground Hog Day’ sort of flight. On allowed to operate. Several aircraft were lost
began modulating his thrust from burner to the third and final engagement we were finally due, at least in part, to the TF-30s basically
idle, his speed brakes were deploying and able to join up briefly, whereupon I saw this eating themselves alive at high angle of
retracting and his spoilers and elevons were ‘Vietnamese’ pilot was about 6ft 2in with red attack. I never experienced a problem with
flapping up and down like he was sending us hair and a relief pitcher moustache, indeed the engines that was not caused by myself. I
semaphore signals. Perhaps, if I had ever quite photogenic. was aware of and respected the limitations
learned to read semaphore, I might have The Tomcat has been referred to as an associated with the compromised engines. I
understood that he was saying, Don’t join up interceptor, versus a fighter, by its detractors, also knew that the engine limitations were the
on me, Yankee war dog. This went on for a but in this fight and many others I was result of short-sighted misapplication of post-
while until we got close to the 12 mile limit engaged in I found the Tomcat to be fully Vietnam cutbacks documented in great detail
and we had to break off which I did by turning capable and in total control of the situation. I in many other forums. Even with a sub-
south east and heading back to international give credit to the Grumman design of the F- optimised key system, the Tomcat was the
airspace. My skipper reminded me not to lose 14 and to the training and teamwork that best of its time. It was formidable, agile and
sight of the Flogger as it was drifting behind enabled this fortunate outcome. downright nasty. I enjoyed every hour I was
us. We kept sight of the Flogger until he It is widely known that the F-14A was blessed to fly that magnificent machine.
turned back to the right and the E2-C said he delivered with engines that were less than Currently, the last remaining F-14s are
was outbound towards the ship again. We optimised. That is fact! There is a long story immortalised on pedestals and in museums,
turned hard right back into the Flogger and as to how that happened and as we all know being sandblasted in the Iranian Air Force or
being cut up to deny spare parts to the IAF.
These days the steely-eyed pilot and author
of this article may be seen patrolling the skies
of Southern California at mach .17 in a Cessna
182 or DA-40. ■ Words: Jonathan K Schreiber

Bounty Hunter fly-off! December 1987, F-14A

Tomcats from VF-2 in loose formation as they
fly from USS Ranger (CV-61) at the end of a
Rocket men. An F-14 of VF-2 illustrates the raw power of the type in a zone 5 climb, full six-month deployment. Note three jets in the
afterburners producing flames as long as the aircraft. Carefully handled, the power of the TF- clouds (in front of the oxygen mask hose).
30s could be awesome. Dave Baranek Dave Baranek

62 aviationclassics.co.uk
 Back Issues From
MISSING A BACK ISSUE? Fear not, we've got a few left for you to complete your
collection of the Aviation Classics series, but remember, when they're gone, they're gone, £ 5 . 5 0 K
so get your order in soon! Order today: www.classicissues.com or call 01507 529529. E R BAC
P E!
ISSU
www.classicissues.com

www.classicissues.com
ISSUE 4 ISSUE 5 ISSUE 6
Knights of the Sky English Electric Lightning Battle of Britain

ISSUE 7 ISSUE 8 ISSUE 9

Avro Vulcan Boeing B-17 F-86 SABRE

ISSUE 10 ISSUE 11 ISSUE 12

MOSQUITO HARRIER F4U CORSAIR
BACK ISSUES

I wish to order the following back issues:.........................................................................

Title ..................................................Forename ................................................................................................................... at UK & ROI £5.50, Europe £6.45, ROW £7.95, all including p&p

Surname ................................................................................................................................................................................. ❏ I wISH TO pAY BY CHEQUE

Address ................................................................................................................................................................................... I enclose my cheque for £.........................(payable to Mortons Media Group Ltd)

...............................................................................................................................................Postcode ................................. ❏ I wISH TO pAY BY DEBIT/CREDIT CARD

Email ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏
Card number:
Telephone ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Valid from: ..................................................Expires: ....................................................................
Are you a subscriber? ❏ YES ❏ nO
Security code:............................................Issue number (MAESTRO ONLy): ............................
Mortons Media Group may wish to send you details of other special offers and promotions in the future that we
think may be of interest to you. We will NOT pass your details on to any other third party. If, however, you do Card holder: ....................................................................................................................................
NOT wish to be contacted, please tick here ❏ Signature:.........................................................................................................................................
Solving the
problems
extending &
the envelope
NASA 911 and 834
The first squadron operations of the Tomcat revealed that in
certain circumstances, high angle of attack manoeuvres could
lead to an eventual loss of control. David G Powers tells the stor y
of two Tomcats, modified and operated by NASA to investigate the
full Tomcat flight envelope. The first of these aircraft was to solve
the control problems, the second revealed much about the
aerodynamics of a variable-sweep wing.

I
n the clinical presentation of the
accident report, the words on paper
are simple and their meaning quite
clear: ‘The aircraft departed
controlled flight’. For the aviator who
lived through the event, these words are a bit
more personal. During uncontrolled flight the
aviator experiences a number of emotions:
wonder, incomprehension, disorientation,
frustration, denial, fear and panic. Physically
NASA 991 in flight sporting a later paint scheme. Items of note include the spin chute
container on the tail, aero probes on and under the nose, and the absence of an ejection
seat in the rear cockpit.The black area on the nose is the location of the anti-spin canards,
seen here retracted. September 12, 1982. NASA
there are forces acting upon the body that
are quite foreign, and rarely felt in normal
flight conditions, and visual clues, an aviator’s
most accurate input, can be a confusing blur.
Hopefully, skill, training and a cool head will
prevail, and the aircraft can be wrestled back
under control. However, for the F-14A,
despite the best efforts of the highly capable
aviator in the cockpit, reining in a wayward
Tomcat was not always that easy.
NASA 991, seen here with high
visibility orange paint, is chased by a
fleet Tomcat from VF-51 over Rogers
Dry Lake. August 5, 1982. NASA
Although there are several scenarios from
which an aircraft can depart controlled flight,
for the Grumman F-14A Tomcat the most
vexing problem was the unrecoverable spin,
in particular the flat spin. By 1993, 31
airframes were written off as the result of
unrecoverable flat spins, accompanied by the
loss of six naval aviators/naval flight officers.
One later US Navy report stated that fully
one third of all Tomcat total loss accidents
were attributed to this cause. In 1976, shortly
after the F-14 hit the fleet in January 1973,
the Navy lost its first Tomcat to a flat spin.
Before describing how a Tomcat enters a
flat spin, a short description of the aircraft’s
flight control system is in order. All aircraft
need to be controlled in the three basic axis,
namely pitch, yaw roll yaw. To control pitch
the Tomcat uses two large elevators, which
more accurately could be described as
stabilators as there are no fixed horizontal
stabilisers. The effectiveness of these
elevators was such that the Tomcat could
easily reach maximum pitch load factors,
adding to the aircraft’s capabilities as a
fighter. Two conventional vertical stabilisers
and rudders control yaw. While most aircraft
control roll with wing-mounted ailerons, the
Tomcat designers dispensed with this control

64 aviationclassics.co.uk
surface, and instead used differential
elevators, sometimes referred to as rolling
tails. Displacing the control stick laterally
would result in an asymmetric displacement
of the elevators to produce roll. It was noted
that while the deferential elevators provided
extremely high roll rates, they did produce a
rather large amount of adverse yaw.
On the upper surface of the wings roll
control spoilers augmented the differential
elevators. The spoilers were noted to be most
effective in low to medium Angle of Attack
regimes, while beyond 57 degrees of wing
sweep they were locked out. During slow
speed flight, such as coming aboard the boat
in the landing configuration, these spoilers
may be used in the Direct Lift Control (DLC)
mode, during which they operate
symmetrically to vary the lift produced by the
wing. The DLC allows the aviator to vary his
position on the glide path without changing
the aircraft’s airspeed or pitch attitude.
The primary flight control system on the
Tomcat consisted of conventional mechanical
linkages and hydraulic control surface
actuators. All aviator control inputs are routed
through an analog Stability Augmentation
System (SAS), consisting of pitch, roll and
yaw computers. The SAS then commands the
actuators to move the control surfaces. The this separation of the airflow over the wing
SAS could be turned off, but this would result results in a loss of lift – a stall.
in a reduction in flight control surface Simply put, the wing stops flying. While a
deflection and less manoeuvrability. stall is most often associated with slow speed
The SAS did a number of things. For flight, it can actually happen at any air speed.
example, the roll SAS Regardless of speed, when
limited the aircraft to 180 the AOA gets to a certain
degrees of roll per second During point, expressed in Units of
due to structural
considerations; however
uncontrolleD AOA, airflow separation
occurs and results in a stalling
the SAS allowed aviators to flight the aviator of the wing. A modern high
achieve this rate as quickly experiences a performance jet fighter
as possible. Considered the conducting Air Combat
most critical, the yaw SAS number of Manoeuvring (ACM) – the
helped stabilise the aircraft emotions:wonDer, current term for a turning
throughout the flight and burning dogfight – is
envelope, helping to incomprehension, often operating at the very
dampen out yaw excursions Disorientation, limit of its AOA. Exceeding
and moderating yaw this value and stalling the
rates that if not checked, frustration, Denial, wing requires the aviator to
could push the aircraft out fear anD panic lessen the magnitude of the
of control. manoeuvre, possibly losing
The concept of Angle of the fight. For Tomcat drivers,
Attack (AOA) should also be understood as it high AOA manoeuvring, combined with
played a key factor in the Tomcat entering a some unique aspects of the fighter’s flight
spin. AOA is a measure of the angle of the controls, and at times some rather
wing chord and the airflow over the wing. At temperamental engines, meant that the
a high enough angle the airflow can no aircraft could ‘depart controlled flight’ if not
longer remain in contact with the wing, and handled correctly. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 65
 Soon after the F-14A was introduced into
service, naval aviators began to experience a
phenomenon where at high AOA the Tomcat
tended to show marked signs of un-
commanded roll oscillations – wing rock. This
made it difficult to track and engage an
opponent. Additionally, aviators found that at
high AOA, the rudders were more suitable for
roll control, and in certain situations lateral
control stick input in the direction opposite of
the desired turn was required. Indeed, the
highest roll rates, and the best ACM
capabilities, were achieved with this
rudder/opposite stick cross-control input.
The trouble was that these inputs were also
the classic pro-spin inputs. As long as the
Tomcat’s wing was still flying, everything was
fine. However, let’s imagine the Tomcat driver
is closing in for the shot, and needs just a bit
more pitch to centre the pipper on the enemy
and complete the engagement criteria. As the
aviator eases the pitch up just a shade more,
those big elevators do their job and the
critical AOA is exceeded, the wing stalls, and
with the cross control inputs the Tomcat
departs controlled flight. This is not the
benign stall/spin that one learns in flight
training, but rather a violent departure that if
not recognised quickly and acted upon with
rapid – and correct – control inputs, often
resulted in a spin.
One should also keep in mind that the
large stabilisers were so powerful that the
aviator could easily, and quite quickly, pitch to
a point that the critical AOA is exceeded. The
pitch SAS did not prevent exceeding this
AOA. Other factors such as stores loading
and external fuel tanks, especially in
configuration that moved the centre of gravity
aft, could result in a degradation of stability
and a reduction in spin departure resistance.
In addition to the above scenario, it was
also found that the Tomcat’s Pratt & Whitney
TF-30-P-412A engines were prone to stall and
Note the air data probe mounted on the nose radome of 991. September 5,1979. NASA
66 aviationclassics.co.uk
The Dryden fleet – including NASA 991 – pulled out for a group portrait, 1983. NASA
flameout within certain flight envelopes. If
the aircraft was being operated in the high
AOA environment, and one of the engines
quit, the resulting asymmetrical thrust, if not
recognised and acted upon very quickly, was
enough to send the aircraft out of control.
There was an old adage in the Tomcat
community: “Tomcat drivers flew the
engines, not the airplane.”
A review of the F-14A NATOPS (see
footnote) manual reveals page upon page of
instructions, procedures and notes about the
Tomcat’s flight characteristics, including
extensive coverage of the departure
phenomenon and the stall/spin scenarios –
what would put you into one, and what would
get you out. An entire section is dedicated to
‘Departure from Controlled Flight’. It was
noted that these departures tended to occur
at subsonic speeds, and that departure
resistance increased as airspeed – Mach
number – increased. No departures were
experienced in actual flight testing at
supersonic speeds. Nearly all departures
were as a result of adverse yaw resulting
from control inputs or asymmetric thrust.
There is a note in the NATOPS manual
that states: ‘The most important factor of any
departure recovery is reducing the AOA’ and
‘countering, to the extent feasible, any
yawing moment of the aircraft’. If this is not
done quickly and correctly, the very worst
flight condition an aviator could encounter is
a flat spin. A flat spin was recognised by a
fairly flat aircraft attitude – 10 degrees nose
down – with no pitch or roll moments. The
yaw moment, however, is considerable – over
180 degrees per second that produces a
longitudinal – eyeballs out – g force that
could reach over 6.5g very quickly. Once in a
flat spin, these g forces can incapacitate the
flightcrew. The NATOPS manual states:
‘Successful F-14 flat spin recovery
procedures have not been demonstrated’ and
the ‘decision to eject should not be delayed’.
Although the US Navy was satisfied with
the Tomcat as a first-class fighter aircraft, it
was clear to them that it could be one less
prone to foibles in the high AOA region. It was
not simply a matter of never pushing the AOA
envelope, since most fighters of the day flew
and fought within this arena. It would be easy
to write a restriction in the NATOPS manual
preventing the aviator from getting near this
critical AOA. No, what the US Navy needed to
figure out was whether or not there was a
modification to the Tomcat that would both
retain its superior fighting qualities and at the
same time alleviate its nastier characteristics.
In the late 1970s, a co-operative
programme of wind tunnel, simulator and
flight testing was initiated involving the US

The cockpit of 991. Several yellow discs in the
centre and to the left are emergency
actuators for the spin chute and the
canards.The vertical panel on the right
mounts the controls to arm the spin chute
and canards, as well as the controls for the
back-up APUs. July 2, 1980. NASA
NASA ReSeARch Pilot eiNAR K eNevoldSoN
Einar K Enevoldson was a civilian
research pilot for the National
Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s Hugh L Dryden Flight
Research Center, Edwards, California,
from 1968 until 1986. He was involved in
many research programmes, including
those with experimental wings,
propulsion and digital computer flight
control systems. Among the NASA
aircraft that he flew were the F-111,
F-14, F-8 DFBW and SCW,YF-12A, the
oblique wing AD-1, Controlled Deep
Stall Sailplane, sub-scale F-15 RPRV
spin research vehicle and the X-24B
Lifting Body.
Born in Seattle, Washington, on
June 15, 1932, Enevoldson attended
several colleges. He received his BS
degree in Mechanical Engineering and
his MS degree in Aeronautical
Engineering from the University of
Wyoming in 1963.
Enevoldson was a jet fighter pilot in
the US Air Force, and as an exchange
officer with the Royal Air Force attended
the Empire Test Pilots’ School in
Farnborough, England. Following
graduation, he served as a test pilot on
the Hunter, Lightning and Javelin British
fighter aircraft from 1966 to 1967.
In 1974 Enevoldson was awarded the
NASA Exceptional Service Medal, for his
contributions as NASA Project Pilot on
the F-111 Supercritical Wing Program
and on the F-15 Remotely Piloted
Research Vehicle. In 1980 he was
awarded the NASA Exceptional Service
Medal for contributions as project pilot
on F-14 stall and spin resistance tests.
Enevoldson retired from NASA in 1986.
Later he co-piloted the first stratospheric
flight of a sailplane, which the late Steve
Fossett piloted.That 2006 flight set a
sailplane record altitude of 50,671 feet.
Biography by NASA

Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) and the Grumman
Aerospace Corporation (GAC) to attempt to
solve the Tomcat’s control troubles. The US
Navy had accepted the Tomcat and its
idiosyncrasies, and viewed this new
programme as purely investigatory. There
were no plans, at least in the beginning, to
incorporate the findings into the current
stable of Tomcat fighters.
The fix for the Tomcats’ control quandary
was relatively simple, and involved minimal
mechanical or hardware changes. Rather, it
was an introduction of what were called new
control laws into the aircraft’s analogue flight
control system. NASA called this new system
Aileron-Rudder Interconnect, although one
report acknowledges that since the Tomcat
did not actually have ailerons this was
perhaps not the best title. The US Navy opted
for the title Automatic-Rudder Interconnect
or just Auto-Rudder. Regardless, everyone
simply called the system ARI. As the title
suggests, the new control laws introduced Einar K Enevoldson. NASA
with the ARI systems were a way of properly
co-ordinating aircraft roll and yaw based on
the flight regime, AOA, aviator control inputs were both ARI systems, differing mainly installed in the interest of safety and
and myriad other factors. It should be in the extent of their inputs to the flight redundancy. After all NASA 991 was going
emphasised that the ARI system was control system. Since each system was to be operated in the extreme regime which
designed to both improve stability and essentially a programming function, it was had sent many a fleet Tomcat into an
controllability at high AOA, as well as provide possible to change from one to another in extremis situation. Most of these
for a degree of departure/spin resistance. flight. Various pitot-static probes, airflow modifications were installed to aid in the
sensors and AOA vanes were installed on the recovery to controlled flight. Included were
NASA 991 nose of the aircraft. Other than that, and a spin chute mounted on the aft fuselage,
The airframe selected to flight test the ARI noting the safety modifications described while up front on the nose were two
system was Grumman F-14A-55-GR – Bureau below, the airframe was virtually a stock F- hydraulically actuated retractable canards.
Number (BuNo) 157991, which was returned 14A. Some US Navy references refer to this Both would be deployed in the event of a fully
to GAC for modifications. The aircraft could aircraft as a JF-14A – the J prefix meaning developed spin. Deemed the most important
be configured with three flight control ‘Special Test, Temporary’. for controllability, however, was the fact that
systems. System A was the basic, unmodified Alternatively called NASA 991 or Aircraft the differential elevators were given more
F-14A flight control system. Systems B and C 1X, BuNo 157991 had a number of systems range of travel. ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 67

In a photo dated March 14, 1988, the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards AFB, California.
The Center is located on the North ‘Shore’ of Rogers Dry Lake.

As previously mentioned, the TF-30 exhaustive functional checks. The basic

engines were prone to engine flameout under operation of the ARI systems, both at low and
certain conditions, including in a spin. A dual high Mach numbers, was tested. Flights
flameout would result in both the engine- were conducted in various operational
driven hydraulic pumps and electrical regimes with the canards both retracted and
generators dropping off line. With this in extended. The spin chute was deployed and
mind, a pair of battery-powered hydraulic worked properly. The back-up hydraulic
auxiliary power units (APUs) were installed power systems were exercised by shutting
to provide hydraulic pressure to the control down the normal hydraulic supply and flying
surfaces, as well as an additional battery to solely on the hydraulic APUs. In a report
provide electrical power to the aircraft. Since dated June 26, 1979, GAC reported that
there would be only the pilot on board during NASA 991 was operational.
the test flights, the cockpit was set up for On August 8, 1979, Enevoldson ferried
single pilot operation. Real world ejections NASA 991 from Calverton to Edwards Air
from a spin had shown that Force Base, California, via a
without a forward airflow over If the aIrcraft fuel stop at El Paso, Texas.
the fuselage, the jettisoned Flight testing of NASA 991
canopy tended to remain near was beIng and the ARI systems began on
the aircraft, with the chance of operated...and August 27, 1979, and was
the pilot hitting the canopy conducted mainly at NASA’s
after ejecting. The possibility of one of the Dryden Flight Research
having to punch out during one engInes quIt,the Center at Edwards. The flight
of the tests was a very valid test programme was initially
concern, therefore the ejection resultIng scheduled for 40 test flights. As
seat and canopy were changed asymmetrIcal mentioned, chief test pilot for
to facilitate ejecting through the programme was NASA’s
the canopy, jettisoning the thrust,was Einar Enevoldson; however apparent. In a real world fight, this improved
canopy and then firing the seat. enough to send several NASA as well as stability at high AOA meant it would be
With the modifications Grumman test pilots stepped in easier to track and engage an opponent. Also,
complete, GAC published a the aIrcraft out from time to time. Additionally, the ability to turn the aircraft without having
Functional Flight Test Plan on of control several naval aviators from to cross control meant that the aviator could
January 23, 1979, which called Flight Test at Naval Air Station more intuitively operate close to the edge
for both NASA and Grumman pilots to (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, came out without having pro-spin control inputs ready
complete a series of test flights, just to see if west and flew hops in NASA 991 to ensure to push the aircraft out of control. Overall,
everything worked properly. Leading the that the developments, if accepted, would be the ARI test programme was a success.
NASA team was test pilot Einar Enevoldson, suitable for fleet use. During the flight test Initially the ARI programme was meant to
who went to Grumman’s facility at Bethpage, phase no intentional fully developed spins improve high AOA performance and help
New York, for a series of familiarisation and were entered; however high yaw rate prevent departure/spin scenarios. Fleet
pilot checkout flights in NASA 991. departures and departures with pro-spin experience had shown that at slower speeds,
Enevoldson flew four such flights between control inputs were conducted. such as on final for landing, the Tomcat
March 17-30, 1979. Next, on April 5, 1979, Although 40 flights were planned, a total exhibited a tendency to wander due to
Grumman test pilot Charles A ‘Chuck’ Sewell of 168 were eventually flown during the ARI adverse yaw upon lateral stick displacement,
ferried NASA 991 to the company’s facility at flight test programme, and as anticipated the and marked sideslip, both due to the control
Calverton, New York. Here Enevoldson and improvements to Tomcat’s controllability in system. For example, the aviator would apply
Sewell put NASA 991 through a series of the high AOA environment were quite left lateral stick input to turn left, and the

68 aviationclassics.co.uk

nose would move to the right. This adverse
yaw was present both rolling into as well as
out of a turn, and a generous amount of
rudder was required to correct. The Tomcat
also exhibited a slight Dutch roll mode while
in the landing configuration. Lateral deviation
from the centerline of the approach line-up
resulted in a large dispersion in the
touchdown location. Not exactly a desired
condition coming aboard the boat. The fleet
aviators flying the Tomcat adapted to this
phenomenon, but the workload was still high.
To see if the ARI modifications could help
calm these excursions, the NASA/NAVY
team initiated a series of simulator tests at
the NASA simulator at Langley Research
Center, Virginia.
The simulator used for this test series was
Langley’s Visual Motion Simulator (VMS),
which was actually a transport aircraft-type
simulator reconfigured with basic F-14
components. More importantly, the
computers running the simulator were
programmed to simulate an F-14 with the ARI
incorporated. Three aviators were involved: a
NASA engineering test pilot and two fleet F-
14 pilots. For the tests, each aviator was set
up approximately 6000 feet behind the carrier
and instructed to complete a visual, night
carrier landing. In order to deduce any lateral
stability improvements from the ARI, each
aviator began his approach 150 feet right of
centerline, and was required to make prompt
corrections for this placement.
Each aviator flew several approaches, both
with and without the ARI engaged. Without
the ARI engaged each experienced the flight
characteristics then typical of the F-14,
In this image the canards are extended,
and the spin chute container is clearly
visible. September 5, 1980. NASA
resulting in tendency to overshoot the
correction to centerline. Each aviator
did complete his approaches, but the
workload was high. With the ARI engaged
overshoots were greatly reduced, and once
on centerline heading control was much
more precise. Adverse yaw with lateral stick
inputs was virtually eliminated due to the
rudder co-ordination feature of the ARI. One
benefit of the improvement to the lateral
stability was that each aviator could shift a bit
more of his concentration to glide slope
control. This, combined with the more
precise heading control meant more
consistently accurate traps aboard the boat.
In a report dated May 1980, NASA concluded
that the ARI system significantly improved
the stability of the F-14 Tomcat in the low
speed environment. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 69
NASA 834 with Glove I installed on the left wing. July 2, 1986. NASA
Upon completion of the simulation
programme, NASA initiated a limited flight
test schedule to validate the results gleaned
in the simulator. On July 23, 1982, NASA 991
was used in a short – only one flight –
programme conducted at Dryden. NASA test
pilot Richard Gray flew four approaches with
the ARI system off, and four approaches each
with the two different ARI system
configurations. It was acknowledged that this
was only an abbreviated test, and the Dryden
had no field carrier landing facilities;
however the improvements in handling
qualities with the ARI system engaged were
quite clear.
In addition to the High AOA and
departure/spin flight testing, NASA 991 was
also flown in conjunction with four other test
programmes. One of these resulted in an
updated aeromodel, which is the data used to
programme flight simulators. Others
included testing of a flush mount air data
sensing system, the collection of wing’s
natural laminar airflow baseline data, and
flight test of low altitude stability with
asymmetric thrust.
While in NASA’s stable of aircraft, NASA
991 was flown a total of 279 times, including
the above mentioned flight test programmes,
as well as various pilot checkouts flights,
maintenance hops, functional check flights
and systems validation runs. After over six
years of work NASA 991 was returned to the
US Navy, and on September 6, 1985,
Lieutenant Commander Charles M Baucom
ferried the Tomcat to NAS Pax River. BuNo
70 aviationclassics.co.uk
157991 was stricken from the US Navy list on
September 30, 1990.
In the end, the improvements to the
Tomcat’s handling that were validated by ARI
test programme were never incorporated into
fleet F-14As, funding being a major
consideration. A better engine held a higher
priority. However, the handling improvements
were certainly kept in mind when Grumman
and the US Navy developed the digital flight
control system for the F-14D Super Tomcat.
This allowed the fighter to carry on its
challenge to all rivals – ‘Anytime Baby’.
Note to the above: The acronym
NATOPS stands for Naval Air Training and
Operating Procedures Standardisation, a
large library of documents consisting of a
number of different manuals. For the naval
aviator/naval flight officer the most
important NATOPS manual was the aircraft
operating manual, which contains
procedures, emergency procedures,
limitations, performance planning etc. In
short, it is the bible of the aircraft.
For years these thick tomes have been
bound within a blue plastic cover, and
because of the dry, clinical and somewhat
boring text, were sometimes called the Big
Blue Sleeping Pill. Regardless, one had to
know their particular NATOPS manual from
cover to cover. It was jokingly said that if you
slept with a NATOPS manual under your
pillow, you would assimilate all the knowledge
contained therein through the process of
osmosis. As a former naval aviator, the author
can assure you that this did not work.
NASA 834
While NASA 991 was flown primarily to
improve the controllability of the Grumman
F-14A, another Tomcat was operated by the
agency in a purely research role. Bureau
Number (BuNo) 158613 was an F-14A-60-GR
originally delivered to the US Navy in 1972,
and assigned to the Naval Air Test Center
(NATC) at Naval Air Station Patuxent River,
Maryland. Indeed, except for one assignment
out West at Dryden, BuNo158613 would
spend the majority of its career flying out of
Pax River.
In the mid-1980s, NASA initiated a test
programme that took advantage of the F-14’s
variable-wing sweep. The programme was an
investigation of the natural laminar airflow
patterns over the wing at subsonic speeds,
and over a wide variety of wing sweep
positions. Called the Variable-Sweep
Transition Flight Experiment (VSTFE) the
programme would establish a database for
use in future wing development and design.
The overall goal was to find ways to control
the laminar airflow over the wing, thus
reducing drag and improving aircraft
performance. The VSTFE was a follow-on to
the experiments conducted in 1979 with the
General Dynamic FB-111.
Because of the requirement for a variable-
wing sweep, the F-14 was a perfect vehicle of
the VSTFE. BuNo 158613 was loaned to
NASA, arriving at the Dryden facility on April
8, 1984, and being assigned the serial NASA
834. In general, except for data gathering
modifications, NASA 834 was a stock, fleet F-
 NASA 834 with Glove I photographed on April 1, 1986. NASA

14A. In order to facilitate the VSTFE

programme, two temporary ‘gloves’ were The fix for The TomcaTs’ conTrol quandary was
installed on the wings. Each glove was just
over one-half inch thick, made of a relaTively simple,and involved minimal mechanical
foam/glass fibre/resin laminate, and differed or hardware changes. raTher, iT was an inTroducTion
as required for the test.
Glove I was installed on the left wing and of whaT were called new conTrol laws inTo The
was simply a clean-up of the Tomcat’s wing, aircrafT’s analogue flighT conTrol sysTem. nasa
and was used to establish a baseline for the
remainder of the test. Glove II was installed
called This new sysTem aileron-rudder inTerconnecT
on the right wing, and used to determine
pressure distributions at a speed of Mach 0.7.
Wind tunnel testing indicated that regardless
of which glove was installed – Glove I, Glove
II, either or both – the slight difference in lift
was easily controlled and was simply
trimmed out by the pilot. During the test, the
Tomcats’ leading edge slats were locked
closed, which also locked out the trialling
edge flaps, with an attendant increase in take-
off and landing speeds. Other than that, no
other flight limitations were imposed. As can
be seen in the photos, the gloves terminated
prior to the roll control spoilers, which
remained operational. The wing fuel tanks
did, however, remain empty.
A total of 35 hops were flown during the
VSTFE programme. Since this programme
was essentially a data-gathering plan, a
validation of an experimental concept, the
results were seen as favourable.
NASA 834 was returned to the NATC on
September 11, 1987, and was ultimately Seen here is Glove I, installed on the left wing of NASA 834. Glove I was simply a basic clean-
withdrawn from use on April 9, 1992. ■ up of the stock F-14A wing, making the wing surface as smooth as possible. Glove II is on the
Words: David G Powers right wing. April 22, 1987. NASA

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 71

Topviewing
Gun companion:
The F-14 scenes
I feel the need... the need for speed! To some, this is a memorable quote from their all-time
favourite movie. To others, it is a grating reminder of what they consider a parody of the noble Navy
fighter community. So let’s set aside differences of opinion and look at what it took to bring the F-14
Tomcat to the big screen in Paramount’s 1986 hit, Top Gun. Author Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek, former
F-14 radar intercept officer (RIO) and instructor at the real-life Topgun school who helped film the
movie, provides this insider’s view of the action with the help of several key participants.

T
he inspiration for the Paramount
motion picture Top Gun is
unambiguous: an article in the
May 1983 issue of glossy
California magazine by writer
Ehud Yonay, which told of an F-14 pilot and
RIO going through the demanding five-week
Topgun class. The title was Top Guns. Yonay
used dramatic, high-quality photographs
taken by Charles J Heatley to illustrate the
article, which attracted the attention of
Hollywood producers Don Simpson and
Jerry Bruckheimer.
In a 1986 magazine article, Simpson said:
“We were attracted to this uncommon
environment (Navy fighters), with its own
terminology and its bigger-than-life characters.”
Bruckheimer added: “The pilots that
attended the Topgun school are a
combination of Olympic athletes in the sky
and rock and roll heroes. We immediately
saw a movie.”
The stress of Topgun training and the
potential for fireworks during real-world
aircraft carrier deployments – Navy F-14s shot
down two Libyan Su-22 Fitters in a head-on
confrontation less than two years earlier –
would provide all the drama necessary. The
two-man crew of the Tomcat would support a
classic Hollywood plot line of an aggressive,
unproven lead character balanced by a more
stable supporting character, played with
humour, of course. And the large Tomcat, with
its angular lines and roaring afterburners, was
a natural for the big screen. It had already
shown star quality in the 1981 science fiction
adventure movie The Final Countdown.
The fact that photographer Heatley was an
F-14 pilot and former Topgun instructor himself
adds a nice plot twist to this story. Known in the
Navy fighter community as Heater, he would
become one of the key players in successfully
bringing the movie to the screen.
The producers approached Navy
leadership with their idea and received the
necessary support. Simpson and
Bruckheimer hired writers Jim Cash and Jack
Epps, Jnr, and British director Tony Scott,
who would bring a flashy, edgy style. To play
the lead character they signed Tom Cruise, at
the time a young actor whose career was just

The black paint was reported to be

relatively easy to apply and remove.
Here you can see that it sometimes
peeled, exposing the camouflage
beneath.The black paint was
retouched every day or so, and
gaps like this did not concern the
film crew. Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek

MiG-28 pilot Lieutenant Commander Bob ‘Rat’ Willard (on the right) and RIO Lieutenant Dave
‘Bio’ Baranek next to one of Topgun’s black F-5s (BuNo 160965) after a flight to film scenes for
the movie in August 1985. Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek
getting started. Other roles went to young
actors or Hollywood veterans as appropriate:
Anthony Edwards, Val Kilmer, Kelly McGillis,
Tom Skerritt, Meg Ryan, and others.
It took roughly two years for the project to
progress through the various preparatory
stages, and then movie people started showing
up at NAS Miramar in San Diego, California, in
the spring of 1985. Home base for the Navy’s
West Coast F-14 community and Topgun itself,
Miramar would be the setting for much of the
movie. Writers and actors attended briefings
(unclassified, of course) and some went for
orientation flights, all part of their usual
preparation for a film. They wanted to get a
sense of the real places and people before
transmuting them for the big screen.
As an instructor at Topgun, I was aware of
these visitors but didn’t think much about
them. After all, my days were filled with
briefing, flying, debriefing, lecturing, the
officers’ club, and the many other elements
in the life of a Navy lieutenant. It’s safe to say
I had no concept where this movie would go,
and if I had been forced to guess its impact I
would’ve been off by a factor of 10.
Key players
The credits for Top Gun reveal just how
many people contributed to the movie. Most
of them were Hollywood professionals, but a
sizeable number were Navy personnel. When
recapping the flying scenes, however, four
Naval aviators stand out as key contributors.
One of them has already been introduced:
Heater. When the Paramount team came to
Miramar, one of the first people they wanted
to meet was the photographer who had
inspired the whole project. At the time he
was operations officer at Miramar’s F-14
training squadron, VF-124.
Director Tony Scott came into Heater’s
office ready to purchase large prints of some
of his photographs – “with wads of cash,”
F-14 manoeuvres behind Clay Lacy’s camera-carrying Learjet during filming of Top Gun.The
author took this photo shortly after the director Tony Scott called “Cut!” Glare on the author’s
canopy is a distraction in this very rare photo. Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek
Heater recently recalled. He told Scott that
wouldn’t be appropriate, but they eventually
arranged to display several of his images in
prominent backgrounds, such as during the
officers club scene in the movie. Typical of
the way Scott operated, during their first
meeting he bonded with Heater and knew
they could work together, so when they
needed a skilled photographer to handle a
movie camera in the air, they often went to
Heater, putting the pilot in the back seat of an
F-14 to capture realistic action.
The original script for Top Gun conveyed
the essential story but had some gaps and
errors due to the unfamiliarity of the
environment. It fell to Topgun’s primary
contact for the project, Lieutenant
Commander Robert F ‘Rat’ Willard, to fill in
the gaps and smooth other wrinkles. More
important to this story, however, Rat was part
of the small team that visualised the aerial
scenes essential to the plot. Guided by the
script, this team planned the flying scenes in
What’s in a name?
Although officially a ‘school’ – the Navy
Fighter Weapons School – Topgun
could also be thought of as a
squadron. It had aircraft assigned to it,
a cadre of officers and enlisted
personnel, and departments typical of
a Navy tactical squadron, such as
operations, maintenance, and
administrative. In 1996, when NFWS
moved from Miramar to NAS Fallon,
Topgun became a department within
the Navy Strike and Air Warfare Center.
The Navy generally wrote the name
as one word,Topgun, although some
Navy sources used two words. When
Paramount Pictures made its movie, it
wrote the title as two words,‘Top Gun’.
Some say this was an oversight, while
others claim it was a hedge against
any claim by the Navy on the title.This
article will consistently use Topgun as a
single word to describe the flying
squadron and two words to describe
the movie.
detail so they could be flown safely and
captured on film. Rat then personally briefed
and led many of the flights. He sometimes
piloted the lead ‘MiG-28’ – a Topgun F-5E or
F-5F painted a sinister black – and other
times flew a camouflaged A-4E Skyhawk as a
Topgun instructor. Rat also led the
detachment to NAS Fallon, as described
below. An F-14 pilot before his tour as a
Topgun instructor, Rat was intimately familiar
with the Tomcat’s abilities and limitations.
Hollywood members of this planning team
included director Scott, aerial co-ordinator
Dick Stevens, and pilot Clay Lacy. Lacy was a
former fighter pilot, air racer, and airline
captain who owned a Learjet sales and
charter business. He equipped several of his
aircraft to carry high-quality cameras for air-
to-air photography, and had filmed virtually
all television commercials that showed
airliners in flight, as well as several movies.
He brought vision, ingenuity, and technical
expertise to the project. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 73
MiG-28 wingman joins up. It was decided to use Topgun squadron Topgun’s black F-5Es escort Clay Lacy’s Lear 25 above the Pacific as
aircraft as the MiGs, and the F-5 Tiger II was chosen because it they proceed to their assigned area on a mission to film scenes for
‘looked more sinister’ than the A-4 Skyhawk. Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek Top Gun. Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek

Returning to Navy personnel, Lieutenant
John H ‘Smegs’ Semcken was a former F-14
pilot who was leaving the Navy. His final
assignment was the NAS Miramar public
affairs office, just in time to support Top Gun.
Smegs spent many long hours assisting with
the production of Top Gun, doing whatever it
took. With his Tomcat background and close
association with the film crew, he helped
translate the story line into executable flying
sequences, even if they weren’t exactly
realistic. For example, Smegs said: “In
planning the flying scenes we stressed the
things that the F-14 did well, such as vertical
pitch, even though you would never do that in
a fight” – referring to the pitch pulse where
Maverick forces an overshoot by Jester in an
A-4. “The F-14 would be betting it all on his
ability to get the subsequent shot, and that
there were no other bandits in the area.”
Finally, the lead F-14 pilot for most of the
flying scenes was Lieutenant Commander
Lloyd ‘Bozo’ Abel. Bozo truly fell into his role.
There had been some manoeuvring among
squadrons to fly in the movie, and ultimately
VF-51 was selected. When the filming
schedule was announced, it allowed time for
VF-51 to participate in a Red Flag exercise
and support the movie when they returned.
Most of the squadron headed off to Nellis
AFB, but Bozo was a few months from
rotating out of the squadron so he was left
behind to supervise the small cadre of
personnel who did not go to Red Flag. On
June 25, 1985, Paramount decided it wanted
to shoot the first F-14 flying scene: Maverick
buzzing the tower at Miramar. Smegs called
VF-51 and was put through to Bozo. This was
a month ahead of the plan, so Bozo called his
commanding officer at Nellis, who said he
could not send anyone back that day. When
Smegs said he would simply ask another
squadron, the skipper told Bozo to fly the
mission. Details of the flight will follow below,
but – as happened with Heater – Bozo clicked
with Tony Scott, who insisted he continue as
F-14 lead.
In addition to being the primary F-14 pilot
for filming at Miramar, Bozo also led the VF-51
detachment to support filming at NAS Fallon.
As F-14 Aerial Coordinator, Bozo gave the lead
to pilot Lieutenant Ben ‘Benwa’ Schneider
when he had to assist from the ground.
Bozo’s involvement proved fortuitous, as
can be clearly seen. Bozo says that: “Rat and I
went after this as a training exercise. You
protect yourself in air combat training by
following the training rules (such as no head-
on pass with less than 500 feet lateral
separation) and flying what you plan. This
paid big dividends: we never scared
ourselves or broke anything, and we got the
job done.” Indeed. Let’s go the video!

In the hold short at NAS Miramar, this F-14 waits for takeoff.The names on the canopy rail are characters from the movie, and aircrew helmets
bear gaudy paint schemes instead of the always-classy designs used by real Navy squadrons. Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek

74 aviationclassics.co.uk
The TomcaT on screen
The following notes describe filming the F-14
scenes in Top Gun. Timing is the
approximate start time of the scene, based on
the Collector’s Edition DVD.

Aircraft carrier flight operations

(opening scenes and 1h 28m)
Filmed during routine training operations
by Carrier Air Wing 11 aboard USS
Enterprise. The Paramount crew
helicoptered out to the ship, operating about
100 miles off the Southern California coast,
August 3-7, 1985. The F-14 squadrons were
VF-114 and VF-213, and several aircraft have
the fictional tail insignia of the squadrons
identified in the movie, VF-1 and VF-213. No
actors actually flew sorties from the carrier.
The dramatic lighting and camera work and
intense music capture the drama and
excitement known to those who work the
flight deck. Bozo flew out to Enterprise on
August 3, and captured fantastic footage of a
trap and cat shot using one of the camera-
pods mounted on the F-14 exterior by a
resourceful Grumman technician. His aircraft
was bureau number 160665, and his RIO was With the F-5 cast as a MiG, the A-4 Skyhawk represented Topgun’s adversary aircraft when the
Lieutenant Chuck ‘Silver’ Lewis. script called for Topgun class flying. George Hall/Check Six

First intercept of the MiG-28

(start time 4m 50s)
These scenes were filmed over the Pacific
Ocean, in the W-291 warning area where
Miramar aircraft regularly trained. The shot
of the F-14 slowly easing past the camera was
taken from the Learjet, and was well-received
when Rat, Tony Scott, and others viewed the
quickly-processed ‘dailies’ in the evening
after filming.
I flew in a two-seat F-5F... excuse me, MiG-
28, to film head-on passes, when the Tomcats
encounter the MiGs. Although the flying
wasn’t as dynamic as realistic air combat
training, it was exciting as the F-14 and MiG-
28 formations had to pass with less than our
normal 500-foot separation to look good on
the screen. Footage came from three sources:
the Learjet, the F-14 camera pods, and a hand-
held camera in Bozo’s rear cockpit. August 1985: Photo taken on RTB from a Topgun class flight over Southern California. One of the
In this part of the movie we see actors F-14s is still wearing fictional tail markings applied for the filming of Top Gun. Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek
apparently sitting in cockpits. These close-ups
were shot in a mock-up that Paramount built in close-ups of actors, you will see one of the few and safely using real aircraft, although
a hangar at the Burbank, California airport. flaws I will mention: Paramount shook the several attempts were made. The crew shot
Paramount originally planned to use footage of cockpit simulator too much! It rumbles like a each aircraft separately and the film was
the actors actually flying in the rear cockpit of car driving along a bumpy road, which is not combined in processing.
an F-14. Most of those who played Tomcat how an F-14 flies. Trust me.
crews were taken for flights from Miramar, Regarding the symbology on the head up Cougar’s return to the aircraft carrier
with an in-cockpit camera filming them, often display (HUD) and tactical information (start time: 11m)
with MiG-28s or A-4s swirling around behind display (TID), the Paramount team did a nice Filmed during the August detachment
their aircraft. Unfortunately they were too job of simulating what aircrews saw. The aboard Enterprise, the scene of an F-14 pilot
‘uncomfortable’ for any of this footage to be HUD has about the right amount of in distress was filmed several times and from
used; all but Anthony Edwards reportedly lost information for an F-14A display, although the different angles: cameras on deck, the
their lunch. I actually saw this footage during a appearance is different. The radar target camera pods, and a hand-held in Bozo’s rear
trip to Paramount to help write dialogue and display was generated on a CRT that a special cockpit. Heater said that after the first few
assemble the flying scenes, and it was hilarious! effects technician purchased at a swap meet. passes, the director asked for “more action,”
Close-up shots of the ‘MiG pilots’ – a Again, it was similar to the type of information so Bozo increased the control inputs as much
Topgun instructor wearing black flight suit on an F-14A TID, although the Tomcat didn’t as he dared. Skillful editing makes it look like
and helmet – were taken by a camera in an F- have range rings as shown in the movie. Cougar lands after his harrowing pass, but in
5. The pilot would’ve been either Rat or Major The segment ends with Maverick and reality the aircraft waved off each pass,
Ray ‘Secks’ Seckinger, USMC, who were the Goose inverted above a MiG-28. This was facilitating multiple takes and doubtless
only Topgun pilots who flew camera-equipped one of the few special effects shots in the reducing the stress-level for the landing
F-5s. If you compare these shots with the movie, as it could not be captured effectively safety officers (LSOs). ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 75

Topgun class flights
(start time: 30m, 50m, 55m, and 1h 15m)
Scenes of F-14s dogfighting in the Topgun
class were filmed during a detachment to
NAS Fallon, Nevada, August 15-26, 1986. The
Topgun class did not train at Fallon at the
time, but our normal overland ranges, near
Yuma and China Lake, were not available for
filming. Led by Rat, Topgun sent A-4s to
represent its own aircraft as well as black F-
5s. (In the film, the MiG encounters took
place over the ocean, but you can see land in
some shots.) VF-51 sent several aircraft and
crews, led by Bozo. Clay Lacy also flew his
Learjet. But many of the scenes came from a
camera station atop a small mountain, which
allowed eye-level shots of the aircraft as they
flew through the adjoining canyons. The
result was some very dramatic footage and
exciting flying for the aircrews.
Director Tony Scott (second from
right) and film crew on the
Miramar flight line working on Top
Gun. The FOD hazard is obvious.
The crew quickly learned to
respect the aviators and aircraft.
Paramount Pictures Corp
While setting up for a filming pass, the
camera crew had difficulty spotting the grey
F-14 against the mountainous background.
Over the radio, Rat asked the pilot to blip the
fuel dump switch and make a mini-cloud. The
resulting effect of the atomised fuel swirling
in the Tomcat’s vortices looked so good that
this technique was used several times in the
finished film.
The close-ups of any actors, whether they
were portraying Topgun students or
instructors, were filmed in the cockpit
mockup in Burbank.
Bozo recalls that co-ordination between
the aircraft and the camera station was
crucial, and effective communication was
essential. “We had to give the ground radio to
Rat or Smegs, pilots who knew how to use it.
We gave it to Tony at first, but he was giving
too much direction and clobbering the radio.”
The Paramount group rented a local
motel, with Scott in a suite that he converted
into a squadron-style briefing room, with a
whiteboard on the wall and the essential
airplane models on sticks. Rat and Bozo led
flight briefs in the suite, and despite the
unofficial atmosphere, the professionalism
remained. Paramount wanted the best shots
it could get, the aircrews wanted to make the
Navy look as good as possible, and no one
wanted to crash a jet or get killed.
The external camera pods on the F-14 also
provided excellent footage. The Navy
recruited Air Force camera technicians to
operate the hand-held camera from Bozo’s
rear cockpit, however, because Heater
couldn’t get away from his duties at VF-124.
Miramar tower fly-by
(start time: 33m)
As mentioned, this was the first F-14
footage shot for Top Gun, and it represents a
fantasy of many aviators: making a low pass
by your home-field control tower. Although
VF-51 was focused on its Red Flag
detachment, the squadron had already
applied the fictional tail insignia to one
aircraft for the movie. Smegs coordinated
with Miramar flight ops personnel for the
unusual flight and received approval from the
FAA, who warned that the aircraft had to stay
in the Miramar airport traffic area, which
stops abruptly just south of the main runways
to avoid conflict with a civilian airport. Bozo
and his RIO, Mark ‘Slick’ Schlichter, planned
accordingly and manned their jet. On the
takeoff roll, however, that aircraft suffered a
FOD on one engine and the aircraft was
down. The crew quickly manned a spare,
bureau number 160665, and this one
performed as required.
Scott envisioned a supersonic pass to
make the point about Maverick’s
recklessness, but Bozo knew this would be
unwise for many reasons. He also knew that a
jet at low altitude would look plenty fast at a
moderate airspeed, so he kept the speed
around 300 knots indicated. Manually
sweeping the wings back to 68 degrees
added to the illusion of speed, although it
meant that Bozo would be in buffet – an
aerodynamic warning of approaching a stall –
as he made the turn to remain within the
airfield boundary to the south.
Balancing their kid-in-a-candy-store
opportunity with the desire not to mess up,
Bozo and Slick made several passes, crossing
the airfield around 100 feet above ground
level (AGL) or less. Remember, this was their
first experience of flying for the cameras and
they had relatively little time to mentally
prepare for this unusual mission. It was going
well; Scott was getting the film he needed, but
wanted more passes so he could choose the
best. Then the phone calls started. Civilians in
communities near Miramar called the base
and local news media asking about a ‘berserk
F-14 pilot’. When the word got to Smegs, who
was with the film crew as usual, he called
knock it off. Scott wanted to film the F-14
performing a roll after the flyby, but that was
only simulated in the cockpit mock-up.
 August 1985: One of the F-
14s is still wearing fictional
tail markings applied for
the filming of Top Gun.
Photo taken on RTB from
an actual Topgun class
flight over Southern
California, when some
instructors in F-5s joined
up. Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek
F-14s on the flight line
(start time: 55m, 1h 04m, and 1h 15m)
In these segments, actors walk in front
of a line-up of VF-1 Tomcats, a group of VF-
213 Tomcats taxis out for takeoff, and Tom
Cruise climbs into a cockpit on the VF-1 line.
Though the scenes were not remarkable they
highlight an interesting point: Rat and Bozo
kept track of Navy personnel, time,
equipment, and supplies used to support the
movie, and included it in the Navy’s bill to
Paramount. A year after filming was
complete, and after the movie was a success,
the Navy Inspector General audited Rat’s
records. He received a thumbs up.
Climactic engagement
(start time: 1h 28m)
The final sequence includes carrier
operations, MiG-intercept, close pass, and a
dogfight, and uses many techniques already
addressed, but includes a few new segments
and one memorable scene that highlights
why Bozo’s participation was fortuitous.
Watching the segment again prompts one
more criticism of the movie: the actors repeat
almost every radio call. “Wood’s been hit!
Wood’s been hit!” As a fighter pilot or RIO, or
WSO today, you become adept at listening to
two radios and an intercom (ICS), and you
understand what is said the first time, almost
every time. Enough about that, let’s get back
to the movie.
When a MiG-28 pops off a missile and
shoots down Hollywood, he not only commits
a hostile act, he destroys an incredibly
detailed six-foot long model of an F-14! See
sidebar for more details on how models were
used in Top Gun.
Speaking of missile shots, the footage of
F-14s launching missiles shows several F-14
squadrons launching missiles on aircrew
training flights. Squadrons filmed were VF-
213, VF-114, and either VF-51 or VF-111.
Here’s where Heater came back into the
picture, as he was an approved missilex
observer and was also Tony Scott’s preferred
aerial camera operator. Veteran of hundreds
of carrier landings and Topgun dogfights,
Heater had a new challenge as he flew in an
F-14 backseat to film these missile launches.
“I don’t know if it was aircraft motion or
the cockpit air conditioning, but something
made the film break,” he recently recalled. “I
filmed a few seconds, the film broke. I
opened the camera, peeled off some tape,
and spliced it back together. Then I shot
again until it broke.”
But his trials were for a good cause, as
director of photography Jeffrey Kimball told
Heater that every frame he shot was usable.
To obtain footage of the cannon firing, an
F-14 was taken to the ‘gun butts’ at Miramar,
the long building where aircraft guns were
fired, and put on jacks to satisfy gun firing
criteria. The cameras rolled as the trigger
was pulled.
One of the most memorable scenes of the
entire movie was Maverick’s roll, immediately
off the cat when he launched into the fray –
and of course it wasn’t Mav, it was Bozo. The
filming operation was scheduled, and Bozo
was given an ‘overhead time’ at the carrier,
when he would have a few minutes to get the
shot during Enterprise’s busy training
schedule. The day before his overhead, Bozo
made a practice flight to San Clemente Island,
a common training site off the California
coast. He found a remote part of the island
and selected a distinctive outcropping to
serve as a mock carrier. With the camera pod
rolling, he flew over the rocks and started a
climb, as if coming off the catapult, then
performed a roll. He made several passes
above the substitute flattop and then returned
to Miramar. ➤
Lieutenant Commander Lloyd ‘Bozo’ Abel
briefing a flight to film scenes for Top Gun.
Bozo was the lead F-14 pilot for most of the
flying scenes and one of the key people in
making those scenes among the best ever
filmed. Jim Farmer collection
RefeRences and
fuRtheR Reading
Material for this article came from the
author’s own experiences and
recollections, as well as interviews with
several key participants quoted in the
article.The primary additional source
was an article by aviation film historian
Jim Farmer,The Making of Top Gun, in
Air Classics magazine,Vol. 22, No. 7,
July 1986. Any errors are, however, the
author’s responsibility. Readers who
would like to learn more about
operating the F-14 Tomcat, going
through the Topgun class as a student,
and becoming a Topgun instructor are
referred to the author’s book,Topgun
Days: Dogfighting, Cheating Death,
and Hollywood Glory as One of
America’s Best Fighter Jocks (Skyhorse
Publishers, New York, 2010).The book
also addresses the author’s
involvement in Top Gun, flying in the
MiG-28 and working on dialogue for
the flying scenes.
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 77
 Bozo was scheduled for a 1pm overhead
at Enterprise, which meant he would launch
from Miramar a little after noon. Heater
would be in his back seat. The previous day’s
test session was on Bozo’s mind as they
briefed the flight, but the film wasn’t ready.
They waited, and then it was time to get into
their flight gear. Still no film. Bozo and
Heater walked out of the squadron and were
pre-flighting their Tomcat when a van drove
out on the flight line. The Paramount crew
had just obtained the film and raced to show
him; luckily flight line security realised how
important it was, so a chief petty officer
climbed in and guided them to the aircraft.
Bozo reviewed the film from the practice
flight and saw something disturbing: his
target was in frame at the start of the
manoeuvre, but when the F-14 rolled it
moved out of frame, and then returned when
he completed the roll. This was
unsatisfactory, and occupied his thoughts as
he exited the van and manned up.
Bozo explains: “The F-14 used spoilers on
the wings as the primary control to make the
aircraft roll. These caused adverse yaw. We
learned this in training but I didn’t think
much about it until I saw that test film. The
whole flight out to the ship I thought about
how to solve this problem and keep the
carrier in frame during the roll.”
They checked in with Enterprise
controllers, waited for their overhead time,
and worked the pattern. To get more takes
on film and increase the safety margin, they
did not make catapult launches before the
rolls, but rather made a low flyby over the
ship, then pulled up and rolled. If you watch
the scene closely, you can see the rudders
moving as the Tomcat rolls – Bozo’s solution
to counter the yaw. It worked.
Said Bozo: “This is a personal
accomplishment I am proud of, a problem
that I solved myself.” The results are obvious.
The carrier remains in the picture for the
entire roll, to provide a dramatic and
memorable few seconds of film.
THE END
The credits that roll at the end of the movie
list many more Navy personnel than have
been mentioned in this article, each of whom
contributed to making Top Gun the success it
became. Additional credit must be given to the
Paramount team, who sought input from Navy
personnel and accepted what was given. I
often remind people: “It’s not a documentary.”
As you would expect, the movie production
people had some colourful ideas about the plot
line and what they wanted to film to entertain
an audience. The Navy personnel who advised
and assisted them, however, insisted that the
flying scenes would not only be safe to film,
but would also reflect real professionalism.
Bozo offered this observation that summed it
up: “Tony Scott quickly learned to respect the
aviators and the aircraft.” The exciting and
successful result proves that a real star like
the mighty Tomcat will shine through. ■
Words: Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek
Tom Cruise, as ‘Maverick’, sits in the cockpit
as actual VF-1 aircrews man-up. Skilful film
editing made it look like the actors were in
the middle of the flying, but the reality was
otherwise. Paramount Pictures Corp
othEr top guN MachiNEs
The F-14 is fully covered elsewhere in this
magazine. What follows are brief
descriptions of the other aircraft and
machines used in Top Gun.

McdoNNEll-douglas
a-4E skyhawk
First flown in 1954, the A-4 was a versatile
and long-lived jet that served the US Navy,
US Marine Corps, and half a dozen other
countries. Although designed as a light
bomber, it had excellent manoeuvrability
and became a valuable adversary
aircraft used to train fighter crews. A small
aircraft, its length was just over 40 feet,
and typical takeoff weight was around
18,000 pounds. Maximum speed was 580
knots, and service ceiling was 42,000 feet.
In the movie Top Gun, the A-4 was the
aircraft flown by instructors against
students in the Topgun class.These were Both the US Navy and Marine Corps operated the Northrop F-5E, single-seat, and F-5F Tiger II
Navy Fighter Weapons School (NFWS) two-seater in the adversary role at Topgun. Here a US Marine Corps F-5E is joined by an F-14.
aircraft and pilots. Northrop Grumman

Northrop F-5E aNd F-5FtigEr ii

Evolved from Northrop’s original
lightweight fighter.The F-5E and F-5F
(single-seat and two-seat versions,
respectively) had larger engines, wing
leading edge flaps, and extensions at the
wing roots, all of which improved
manoeuvrability compared to earlier
versions.The Tiger II was used as a fighter
by more than 30 foreign forces, while the
US Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force used
them as adversaries. As flown by Topgun,
the F-5E had a length of 47ft 5in, and
typical takeoff weight of 16,000 pounds.
Maximum speed was 920 knots, service
ceiling 52,000 feet. In reality, NFWS F-5s
wore a variety of camouflage paint
schemes and were used as adversaries –
like the A-4. Early in planning for the movie,
the requirement for an enemy aircraft was
Lear 25 N564CL of Clay Lacy Aviation seen after the film was made. Andrew W Sieber discussed. For practical reasons it was
decided to use an NFWS aircraft, and the
F-5 was assessed as ‘more sinister’ than the
A-4 so it was chosen.Thus, three F-5Es and
one F-5F were painted black, with markings
of a red star in a yellow circle.These were
referred to as ‘MiG-28s’, a fictional type.The
fictional designation and markings were
chosen to prevent comparison with an
actual aircraft or air force.These were
NFWS aircraft, pilots, and RIOs.

One of the periscope lenses of the

An aerial view of the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) pictured under way in San Diego Bay upon returning Astrovision system fitted to Clay Lacy
from a short cruise off California on January 25, 1984. National Museum of Naval Aviation Aviation’s Lear 25. Clay Lacy Aviation

80 aviationclassics.co.uk
 The United States Navy Fighter Weapons School,Topgun, is now known as
the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor programme and is
based at NAS Fallon as part of the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center.
The McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is still part of the equipment, here
two A-4Fs of VFC-13 taxy out at NAS Fallon in 1993. US Navy

lEArjEt 25 photography that met the high USS EntErpriSE (CVn-65)

A popular business jet, the actual
aircraft used to film Top Gun, was
registration number N564CL. It was
equipped with four camera locations:
periscopes on top and bottom of the
fuselage, forward-looking camera in
the nose, and a large glass panel on
the right side of the fuselage.
Specifications on Lacy’s corporate
website include a maximum speed of
510 knots and maximum altitude of
45,000 feet.
AStroViSion
The upper and lower periscope cameras
in Lacy’s Lear were known as the
‘Astrovision’ system.The rig was developed
by Bob Nettman, who had made a career
developing systems for aerial
standards of major motion pictures.
(Google Nettman for a fascinating
mini-history of motion picture aerial
photography.) A monitor and remote
control in the passenger cabin allowed
the camera operator to adjust the
cameras to follow the action, although
there were limits to the field of view.
Another monitor in the cockpit allowed
Lacy to act as ‘pilot-director’, to borrow
his term.
USS rAngEr (CV-61)
Location for aircraft carrier interior
scenes, such as the combat information
center and ready room where fliers
briefed before intercepting the Mig-28s.
Ranger was pierside at NAS North Island
in San Diego.
Location for the aircraft carrier flight deck
scenes. Enterprise was operating off the
California coast.
AirCrAft modElS
There had been consideration of filming
highly detailed radio-controlled models
for some of the flying scenes in Top Gun,
as was done for other movies. Expert
aircraft modeller Larry Wolfe coordinated
model construction.The F-14 was 1/10th
actual size (roughly six feet long), while
the F-5/MiG-28 was 1/13.5th actual size
(three-and-a-half feet in length).The
models were finished to extreme detail by
special effects company USFX, only to be
filled with explosives and blown up for
scenes of missile impacts. Ultimately, the
models were not flown for the movie. ■

The carrier USS Ranger (CV 61) steams past

Point Loma en route into the Pacific Ocean
for training exercises on July 27,1990.
National Museum of Naval Aviation

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 81

 Tomcat tails Three stories from the hot seat
This section of the magazine is in three parts. The first two are the true stories of two aircrews’
experiences of ejecting from the mighty Tomcat. Both Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek and John Ziegler used the
Martin Baker GRU-7(A) ejection seat fitted to the F-14A to save their lives under ver y different and
dangerous circumstances. Both have written ver y accurate and honest accounts of what it was like
to ride the rocket seat. In contrast to these, and with reference to the earlier articles about the
NASA Tomcat research programme and motion picture Top Gun, David G Powers examines the
ejection scene from the movie, and asks how well this stands up to examination in real life.

Rocket RideR: SuRviving the

ejection iS juSt the StaRt
“How old am I?” Six? No, older. Everything is
black and I’m confused. Come on, brain, catch
up. Fractions of a second later I hear a sound like
rushing wind and see an image of an instrument
panel – a sketchy image as in a dream.
Suddenly I’ve got it! The last thing I
remember was flying in an F-14 Tomcat
fighter, then things went bad and I pulled the
ejection handle.
A second later my eyes open. I see the
grey hull of an aircraft carrier about a
hundred feet away, and look down just in
time to splash into the ocean. At least the
water is warm. How the hell did I get here?
At the time of my ejection, I was a few
months past my 23rd birthday. My goal of
flying jet fighters had started when I was
about 10 and never went away. I wanted to be
a fighter pilot, but when my eyesight went
bad in college I had to modify my plans, and
ultimately became a radar intercept officer
(RIO) – the back-seater in the Navy’s F-14
Tomcat. Following graduation from college, I
earned my wings of gold after a year of
training in Pensacola.
Searching for Valhalla? In one of the last photographs of the F-14 Tomcat known as Renegade
205, taken days before it was lost, it cuts through misty clouds above the Indian Ocean.
Dave Baranek
Sleek and fast. An F-14 Tomcat from the Fighting Renegades soars above the Indian Ocean
with a load of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles. Dave Baranek
My first squadron was the Fighting
Renegades, officially known as Fighter
Squadron 24. We had 12 F-14s assigned, and
shortly after I joined them we departed on a
7½ month deployment aboard the
supercarrier USS Constellation. I soon
felt comfortable in this world of power
and speed.
Danger? Yes, we all knew there was danger.
Every aircraft mishap – they were never called
crashes – was analysed and categorised. The
reports included a detailed narration and lessons,
plus a box score of equipment and personnel,
damaged or destroyed. But I was new, a ‘nugget’
in naval aviation terms, young and bulletproof.
The guys who had been here before said that in
those days, one person usually died on each
deployment. And this was peacetime. At
midnight in the wardroom, over pizza and ‘bug
juice’, we sometimes talked of recent mishaps in
our squadron or others. A few of them fatal. Sad,
but that won’t happen to me, I thought.
Two months into that deployment, I sat one
afternoon in our squadron ready room and
briefed for a routine flight with our squadron
commanding officer, Commander Bill Switzer.
After the brief we put on our G-suits and
survival equipment and stopped at
Maintenance Control, where Renegade 205
was assigned to us for this flight. We then
climbed one set of steps and stood on Connie’s
4½-acre flight deck, which was quiet for now.
It was warm and breezy as the ship cruised
near the middle of the Indian Ocean. We
preflighted the jet and strapped in, the
commotion and din swelling as aircraft started
engines. We launched off the catapult at 3pm
and expected to be back in time for dinner.

82 aviationclassics.co.uk

It was yet another perfect tropical day
with a few small clouds. Repetitious and
remarkably beautiful.
Another Tomcat was our wingman for this
flight, which was a series of radar intercepts
against two A-7 Corsairs. For each run our F-
14s started about 30 miles from the A-7s,
completed an intercept to practice using our
radars, and made a few dogfighting turns
before breaking off to return to our stations and
do it again. A-7s were tactical fighter-bombers
and their pilots always enjoyed mixing it up.
Two hours after launch we were in low
holding, orbiting 2000 feet above the carrier
watching the next event launch. As the last
aircraft was set up on the catapult, Skipper
Switzer used the well-defined procedures to
descend from holding and get us into
position to land. In these last few moments of
the flight we went from 225 knots (about
250mph) to more than 500 knots, and finally
slowed to 134 knots as we approached the
carrier deck. I had done this 78 times in the
preceding eight months and I was pretty
comfortable as I got ready for another
routine landing. I noticed the time was
5.15pm and just before we slammed onto the
flight deck, I thought about having a slider
for dinner.
My next conscious thought, a fraction of a
second later, was that something was wrong.
I should have been thrown forward into my
shoulder straps by the sudden deceleration,
but instead I was sitting upright. This was no
longer a routine flight.
Anyone who’s been involved in a fender
bender has experienced time dilation, and
that’s what happened to me. I heard the
rumble of the deck plates beneath our wheels
as we rolled through the landing area, and a
second of silence passed while Skipper
Switzer and I processed the situation. My
hands went instinctively to the lower ejection
handle mounted on the front of my seat, and I
knew that if I pulled that handle our seats
would rocket us out of the plane. So I paused.
Low holding.This F-14 is in low
holding, watching ops on the
carrier flight deck below to
determine when it should descend
for a landing. Dave Baranek
There was some resistance slowing us down,
but nowhere near enough to bring Renegade
205 to a stop. In a normal trap, the arresting
wire plays out like a fishing line under tension,
and the rollout of several hundred feet of cable
takes about two seconds. For those seconds my
brain was registering that this could still be a
minor oddity and there was still a chance we
would come to a stop. But we continued rolling
toward the end of the flight deck, travelling
about 50 knots – too fast to stop, too slow to fly.
Skipper Switzer called, “Eject! Eject!” His
voice had taken on a new urgency. His hand
was on the stick, still trying to fly, so it was
up to me to eject both of us. I reacted on his
first syllable, yanking the yellow-and-black
striped ejection handle.
My Martin-Baker GRU-7A ejection seat
was in charge now, and it started running
through its programming while explosive
cord destroyed the powerful latches securing
the canopy to the aircraft. A fast heartbeat
later the Plexiglas canopy flew free.
Then the rocket in my seat fired. I
instantaneously experienced an acceleration
force of about 20G – outside the
recommended operating range of the human
brain – and blacked out for a few seconds.
My next conscious thought was
profoundly confused, wondering how old I
was. My brain was rebooting, and this
seemed to be a crucial index, the progress
bar of my consciousness being reassembled.
In a few more fractions of a second I was
back in real time, flying through the air.
Observers watching from the flight deck
saw Renegade 205 disappear over the edge of
the deck and then me, an instant later, ride my
seat to roughly the height of the tailfins of
planes parked along the flight deck. This meant
I started descending, unconscious and with an
unopened parachute, from about 16 feet above
the steel surface. I owe my life to the fact that
our jet tilted to the left as it slipped over the
edge, otherwise I would have free-fallen to the
deck rather than splashing into the ocean. ➤
How Could THis Happen?
In the hours and days that followed our
ejection, Commander Switzer and I
learned what caused the mishap.
There are four identical arresting
wires on the flight deck, and a landing
aircraft can catch any one of them to
make a safe landing. Since aircraft
weights vary considerably, the shock-
absorbing machinery at each end of a
wire – the valves and hydraulics that
bleed away the energy of a speeding
jet plane at a dramatic but measured
rate – must be set to the weight of the
incoming aircraft. Personnel in the
control tower and on the flight deck
report aircraft type to the arresting
gear crew, who then set the valves.
In our case, the crewman assigned
to set the valves on the number four wire
was new to the job, not fully qualified.
When the crews for the other three wires
reported they had set their valves, he
made the same report but hadn’t
actually set anything.We happened to
catch the number four wire, and it was
left at its previous setting of 14,000
pounds, far short of what was required
to catch our 52,000-pound Tomcat. By
the time his supervisor noticed the
mistake it was too late, and all of the
sailors in the area were lucky to escape
without serious injury when the
equipment came apart.
There was a backup system using
repeater gauges, but the gauges for
the number four wire had not worked
in some time.The whole system relied
on the voice report from the arresting
gear room.
Fortunately the arresting cable broke
free at both ends at the same moment,
preventing a gigantic whiplash that
would have caused havoc on the flight
deck.The Tomcat dragged the spent
cable down the deck and harmlessly
over the carrier’s side into the ocean. Of
course there was an investigation of
our mishap, with conclusions fed back
into the live-and-learn system of naval
aviation operations.
RIO’s roost.The F-14’s bubble canopy
provided a panoramic view for both pilot
and RIO. Dave Baranek
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 83
 The ejection seat sensed it was at low
altitude and went through its sequence
quickly. It severed the straps that held me in
place, and I felt myself being separated from
the seat cushions. At the same instant, my
parachute deployed and blossomed, and I felt
a jerk as the nylon lines and harness attaching
me to the chute took tension. I opened my
eyes just in time to splash into the water.
To prevent pilot-RIO collisions during
ejection, the rocket in the pilot’s seat fired
four-tenths of a second after the RIO’s. The
Tomcat had tilted more left-wing-down, so
Commander Switzer was rocketed almost
horizontally. Observers said he skipped
several times across the surface of the ocean
as he was flung away from the carrier, giving
a new meaning to the term ‘Skipper’.
An SH-3 Sea King helicopter
hovers above the ocean
surface.These aircraft performed
anti-submarine warfare, anti-
surface warfare, and utility
missions in addition to their
aircrew rescue duties. US Navy
84 aviationclassics.co.uk
I splashed into the water and had been
submerged for only a fraction of a second
when a device activated by salt water fired
and inflated my life vest. I bobbed to the
surface aware and alert. With my head
above water, I unclipped my oxygen mask.
The time dilation effect had passed, and
thoughts and sensations came through in
real time.
I was bobbing in the Indian Ocean. It was
daytime. The water was warm. I had landed
just a few feet from the nose of Renegade
205, which I was amazed to discover was also
floating. This strange view of a Tomcat is
seared into my memory. The things you see
when you don’t have a camera...
A few feet beyond 205, just a hundred
feet from me, Constellation skimmed past at
20 knots. My gaze ran up the huge, curved
slabs of Connie’s grey hull and I saw dozens
of people looking down at me from the
edge of the flight deck, six storeys above.
I could see their helmeted heads and
goggled faces and I gave them a thumbs-up
to make clear I was feeling good under
the circumstances.
Time in the water at this point, less than
20 seconds.
My primary task now was to detach
myself from my parachute. A parachute does
not float on the surface, but instead fills with
water and sinks. An aviator could soon find
himself attached to a bag of water weighing
thousands of pounds that will drag him under
despite the best flotation vest. This wasn’t
theory, it actually happened.
 I flung off my wet gloves and released the
fittings of my parachute harness, only to
discover I was surrounded by my parachute
and its tough nylon lines. Moving in the
water only entangled me more. Not a
problem, the Navy had trained us for this.
Bobbing on the swells and troughs spawned
by the carrier, I paddled backwards away
from the chute. After only a few strokes, I
could tell this procedure wasn’t working like
it had in the training pool in Pensacola. I was
only getting more tangled up.
In a pocket on the right front of my
survival-gear vest I had a razor-sharp folding
knife, standard issue for cutting through
parachute lines. We had been warned to cut
lines only as a last resort, with the
admonition, ‘Cut one line, and it becomes
two’, which seemed remarkably sensible in
training. But the school solution wasn’t
working, and I decided I had to cut my way
out of those lines – to ‘John Wayne it’.
I retrieved the orange-handled knife, only
to find it duck-taped closed. There had been a
problem with the blades opening
inadvertently, so the survival equipment
riggers made them safe. I smiled as I used
my thumbnail to find the end of the tape.
Eventually I peeled it off and opened the
blade, then scooped together a bundle
of parachute lines with my left hand and
sliced through it with my right. The lines cut
away cleanly.
Time in the water, about a minute.
Although I was still entangled in half the
lines, I felt a surge of relief as I was buffeted
by the rotor wash from the SH-3 Sea King
rescue helicopter overhead. The plane guard!
Rules required that a helicopter fly in close
proximity to the carrier during all takeoffs
and landings, and the chop of its rotors was
welcome. Helo pilot Lieutenant Commander
Sam Taylor had been watching as 205 went
over the side and was in the perfect position
to get to me immediately.
I looked up to see a rescue crewman’s face
looking down from the open side door, less
than 50 feet above me. Happy to be alive, I
gave him a big thumbs-up and a grin, but was
startled to see the helicopter bank and fly
away. I had forgotten about Commander
Switzer, my pilot! But after assessing his
situation the helo crew quickly returned to me.
This time they lowered a rescue sling on a
cable and dragged it toward me. I thought
again about those aviators dragged down by
their chutes, and decided I didn’t want to
become another depressing case study. I
wanted to be attached to that helicopter, so I
swam toward the sling and grabbed it. It was
simple to wrap the sling around me and
fasten it, and this time I gave a thumbs-up
with enthusiasm.
As the crewman slowly raised me, I was
still snagged on too many lines. He lowered
me back into the water and I slashed through
the worst of the tangle. This time when he
reeled in the cable, the last few nylon lines
slipped free of my gear and fell into the sea.
Determined to show that I had paid
attention in training, I concentrated on my
job of hugging the sling and allowed the
A heartbeat before the ejection. In this photo taken by a crewman, Renegade 205 is at the end
of the flight deck, about to go over. Note the arrester cable trailing behind the aircraft. US Navy
rescue crewmen to do their jobs. They pulled A thorough physical showed that I suffered
me into the helo. no injuries, and I was cleared to fly a few days
Safely inside the copter’s cabin, I had my later. My first flight after the ejection was
first opportunity to assess the situation. I was with Larry ‘Magic’ Morris, a legend in the
calm, having focused almost all of my Tomcat community. As we were preflighting
attention on solving small problems. I went the jet he looked at me and said: “Now Bio,
down a quick checklist of body parts and we probably won’t have to eject on this
realised how fortunate I was not to have any flight.” He was right. ■ Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek
injuries or even discomfort. My equipment
worked, and through training I was prepared
every step of the way. For more inFormation
I was shaking the rescue crewman’s hand
when he answered an intercom call from the Readers who would like to learn more
helo pilot. The news was they’d lost visual about operating the F-14 Tomcat are
contact on my pilot. It was a jolt and my first referred to the author’s book,Topgun
thought was I waited too long to eject, that Days: Dogfighting, Cheating Death, and
Skipper Switzer had paid for my mistake with Hollywood Glory as One of America’s
his life. The anxious moments before the Best Fighter Jocks (Skyhorse Publishers,
rescue crew spotted the skipper seemed like New York, 2010). On a personal note, I
an hour to me. While the crew had been would like to add that I rank this book
concentrating on getting me out of the water, alongside Robert Prest’s Phantom Pilot
Commander Switzer had drifted in the ocean. and Adolf Galland’s First and the Last
But as we approached him, I looked out from as a memoir of what it is like to fly
the open door and saw him calmly floating, combat aircraft. Editor.
his parachute bundled beside him in a
comically small pile. It hadn’t deployed, just
spilled open on impact. The skipper had
come down the hard way and it was clear he
was feeling under the weather.
This time the helicopter lowered a
swimmer into the water to assist. He checked
the skipper for injuries that might require the
more formidable body rig the Sea King
carried, and I was relieved to see him
proceed with the simple sling. They rode up
together on the cable.
When they pulled Commander Switzer
into the copter, we shook hands. I shouted
over the noise, “Did we do anything wrong?”
He slowly shook his head no as he thought
back over the last few confusing and
harrowing minutes.
He reached up and patted the helicopter Topgun Days by
pilot on the shoulder, telling him: “Great job. Dave Baranek.
Thanks!” I would have shouted the same, but Skyhorse Publishers
it seemed redundant. I think they could read
the gratitude in my face.
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 85
The unTimely end of
STarfighTer 213
Relations between the United States and
Libya were tense in the summer of 1986, as I
neared completion of my second cruise on
the USS America (CV-66). I was a Naval
Flight Officer (NFO) on the F-14, although
more specifically I was the Radar Intercept
Officer (RIO). My squadron was Fighter
Squadron 33 (VF-33), the Tarsiers. Our call
sign was Starfighter.
The morning of August 23, 1986, found
my crew in the VF-33 ready room briefing a
two-ship air intercept/air combat
manoeuvring sortie. In addition to the
AI/ACM mission, our aircraft, Grumman F-
14A Tomcat – Bureau Number 161148,
Modex AB 213 – would require a Post
Maintenance Check Flight (PMCF)
principally for a flap/slat rigging procedure
done to remedy a need for excess trim
following any reconfiguration.
The flight would be led by the Carrier
Air Wing 1 (CVW-1) Commander (the CAG)
and his RIO, the VF-33 maintenance officer.
The plan was to launch, tank and proceed
on station as a section. Once in the working
area we would split and gain separation for
the intercepts. It was on those outbound legs
that my pilot and I would perform the
requisite PMCF functions. Due to our
location in the Southern Mediterranean
Sea and the ship’s proximity to potential
hostiles, it was determined that we would
launch with one AIM-54 Phoenix, two AIM-7
Sparrows and two AIM-9 Sidewinders. That,
‘Starfighter 203’ joined with a Soviet Bear over the Atlantic.This was the culmination of many
an Alert-5 launch.The Bears made regular transits from Angola to Cuba. National security and
Airwing pride dictated that they did not approach the ship unescorted. John Ziegler
along with external tanks, put us on the afterburner. (Fuel flow: 2000lb/minute!)
catapult at some 67,000lb. The On the N1 spool aft of stage seven there
launch/rendezvous/tanking evolution was as was a bypass valve designed to open and
advertised and we proceeded uneventfully relieve pressure in order to keep the low
through the first intercept. pressure blades happy and general airflow
The PMCF that we were to do was the where it should be. The Mid Compression
most basic, involving mainly flight control Bypass (MCB) was triggered to open by
and system functionality checks. One of things like angle of attack (AOA), excess yaw
those systems was the Mid Compression and firing the gun. It was this test of the
Bypass (MCB) of the Pratt & Whitney TF-30 MCB that would prove to be fateful.
Turbofans. The TF-30 was a standard dual On our third separation run it was time for
spool axial fan engine with nine low-pressure the MCB check. This was done by the pilot
(N1) stages and seven hi-pressure (N2) establishing the airplane in negative 1G flight
stages. The intake was a variable geometry as the RIO looked down and aft at the test
affair with ramps and actuators and all the panel for a pair of lights to illuminate
associated problems of anything with a lot of indicating a good check. At 18,000 feet and
moving parts. The exhaust was also a 300 knots with the power set at MIL we
variable nozzle to account for the range of verified that each of us was ready. That meant
thrust from idle through zone five checking that straps were tight and loose
The F-14 would produce
dramatic ‘vapes’ given the right
atmospherics. Todd Williamson

Power projection means putting a carrier and
her airwing anywhere at any time. Here the USS
America transits the Suez Canal as part of an
Indian Ocean deployment in 1984. US Navy
gear stowed for the pushover to negative G.
As I looked at the test panel I felt the airplane
climb slightly followed by a push. As I got
light in the seat the test panel illuminated and
I called “good check.” Then the fun started.
I anticipated a relaxation of negative G
followed by a return to normal upright flight.
Instead, after a momentary upward nose
movement there was a violent nose-low pitch.
No buffet, no other cues – just an increasing
negative pitch over, like the start of an
outside loop. I instinctively asked: “Have you
got it?” The response was a less than
comforting: “I’m locking my harness.” In the
time it took to have this two-sentence
conversation the right engine stalled. I could
see the reflection of the warning light and
hear the aural stall tone.
A section of Tomcats
initiating their ‘Break’
to a recovery.
Todd Williamson
A pair of ‘Starfighters’. A VF-33 ‘Starfighter’ escorts a Turkish F-104 ‘Starfighter’ after a dissimilar
air combat manoeuvring sortie. Both classic fighters demanded a healthy respect from their
crews in the high angle of attack environment. John Ziegler
A career milestone. Commander Rodger Burnett – Commanding Officer of VF-33 – and his RIO
Lieutenant junior grade John Ziegler recover aboard CV-66 for the pilot’s 1000th arrested
landing. A major accomplishment for any tailhook aviator. John Ziegler
As a quick systems aside, the Tomcat rear
cockpit had a complement of basic flight
I antIcIpated a relaxatIon of
instruments but no engine instruments. The negatIve g followed by a
aircraft had no battery backup. The return to normal uprIght
emergency electrical system required
hydraulic power. There was no cable reversion flIght. Instead,after a
to the flight controls and the emergency flight momentary upward nose
control hydraulics required electrical power. A
failure of both generators and both hydraulic movement there was a
systems made for a bad day! vIolent nose-low pItch
The loss of the right generator caused a
cycling of the electrical system and momentary
loss of cockpit (ISC) communications. By now
we were fully inverted in a random series of
pitch/yaw/roll oscillations. It was beyond
disorientating but clearly indicative of an
inverted departure from controlled flight. The
airspeed dropped to a 0-100 knot cycle. The
altimeter had failed to its pure static mode and
was unwinding like a broken clock. I looked in
to see 17,000 feet, looked out long enough to
confirm no structural damage and looked
back in to see 14,000 feet. We were going
downhill fast, but with no airspeed.
At about this time the left generator came
off-line and all communication was lost for
good. Next, I noticed the lack of cockpit airflow
and realised we were now a glider. That was
the first time I suspected that this might not
end well. Passing 12,000 feet I placed my hand
on the lower ejection handle and watched the
altimeter continue its rapid race to sea level. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 87
 ‘FOX ONE’ – An AIM-7 Sparrow being fired
from a VF-33 Tomcat during a 1984 Missile
Exercise off the coast of Virginia. John Ziegler
I found out in the post-mishap analysis
that my pilot was doing everything he could
to regain any semblance of control, but with
no meaningful flight controls there was not
much hope.
At 11,000 feet the nose dropped abruptly
and the airspeed increased to 150 knots. The
pilot and I both thought ‘Recovery?’ and
made the simultaneous yet silent decision to
stay with the airplane through our briefed
out-of-control ejection altitude of 10,000 feet.
The glimmer of hope was short-lived.
Through 7000 feet there was another abrupt
negative pitch and we had both seen enough.
We each initiated ejection and AB 213 was on
its way to an untimely end.
A much younger Lieutenant junior
grade John Ziegler shortly after
reporting aboard Fighter Squadron
33 (VF-33) in 1984. John Ziegler
88 aviationclassics.co.uk
I recall seeing a ring of smoke as the
expander tubing did its job and released the
canopy. The seat fired shortly thereafter. The
next thing I remember is the jolt of the
opening shock as my parachute deployed. The
actual ejection caused no injury but a bit of
soreness for a couple of days. I remember
seeing the aircraft canopy tumble through the
air and watching AB 213 hit the water. I
remarked to myself “I’m alive” and “boy are we
in trouble”. My biggest concern now was to
not misjudge my height above the water and
release my parachute’s riser fittings too early.
By now our flight lead had come to look
for us, and with the aid of the E-2C Hawkeye
from Carrier Airborne Early Warning
Squadron 123 (VAW-123), they located the
debris field immediately. Both the pilot and I
were on our survival radios attempting to
facilitate the Search And Rescue (SAR) effort.
The pick up by the SH-3H Sea King squadron
(Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron 11 (HS-
11)) was textbook. We were fortunate that it
was daylight and the sea state was benign.
Given the benefit of 25 years of hindsight,
what are the lessons to be learned? Every
aircraft including the F-14 comes from the
manufacturer with a set of limitations and
procedures to placate the certifying or
operating authority. Those limits are at best a
starting point that continues to evolve as the
airframe matures. In the case of the F-14 even
by the mid-1980s the significance of weight
and loadout in a negative G or negative AOA
environment were neither obvious nor well
understood within the community. The
NATOPS manual and PMCF checklist
provided no guidance as to maximum weight
or minimum airspeed to perform the
manoeuvre. The onus for determining those
data points was put squarely on the shoulders
of the guys who flew the Tomcat. As is often
the case, the confluence of operational
realities with routine procedures can put
those crews into a grey area of the envelope.
AB 213 found itself in a region of the
manoeuvrability chart that was vague at best.
Simply put, our ordnance and fuel state made
us too heavy to be doing what we were doing,
and have any margin for safety.
It is a testament to the Grumman design
team and the aircrews alike that the F-14
served her 30-year tenure with the impressive
record that she compiled. ■ John Ziegler
EjEct,EjEct,EjEct –thE scEnE
fromthE moviEtop Gun
We are all familiar with the scene from the
movie Top Gun, the one where Maverick and
Goose enter an unrecoverable flat spin and
have to eject. So, how much of that scene is
factually based and how much of it is simply
artistic licence? Well, as it turns out, some of
both, actually.
Let’s set the scene: Mav and Goose are in
one Grumman F-14 Tomcat, while Iceman
and Slider are in another. Both Tomcat crews
are in hot pursuit of Jester, who is flying a
nimble little Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. Ice is in
the lead, but just can’t quite get into position
for a shot on Jester’s Scooter, whereupon he
pulls out of the fight so that Mav can get the
shot. The trouble is that when Ice pulls out,
Mav flies through Ice’s jet wash, which
causes Mav’s Tomcat to suffer a dual engine
flameout. Mav loses control of his bird and
enters a flat spin. After much difficulty,
Goose finally manages to initiate a command
ejection, and both he and Mav depart their
Tomcat. As we all know, Goose impacts the
canopy with fatal results.
So, what portions of this scenario are at
least somewhat true? As related in the main
text of this article, the Grumman F-14 Tomcat
has long been known to have tricky handling
characteristics at high angle of attack (AOA).
When operating at high AOA, such as in a
turning dogfight, several factors can result in
an aviator losing control of the aircraft. It has
also been long understood that at least the
earlier model Tomcats had rather finicky
engines, prone to flameout under certain
conditions. As a matter of fact, the F-14A
NATOPS manual specifically mentions jet
wash as a contributory factor in engine
compressor stalls and flameout. Now, let’s
assume that while chasing Jester both Tomcats
were close to their maximum AOA. When Mav
flew through Ice’s jet wash one of Mav’s
engines flamed out, which is plausible, and
A superb shot of NASA 991, showing the forward canards in the retracted position, as well as
the modified single seat cockpit and canopy for the spinning trials.The canopy was fixed to
prevent exactly the kind of incident as portrayed in the film Top Gun. Note also that unusually
the forward wing glove vanes are extended. National Museum of Naval Aviation
A VF-124 F-14 Tomcat moving fast and pulling hard. At high angles of attack under certain
circumstances it was possible for the F-14 to get away from its crew. Frank B Mormillo
could produce enough of an adverse yaw to
possibly send the jet out of controlled flight,
even into a flat spin. When the other engine
flamed out, the aircraft’s hydraulic systems
would drop off line and render the flight
controls inoperative. Try as he might, Mav
could not bring his Tomcat back under control.
Once the Tomcat was in the flat spin, Mav
and Goose were having trouble reaching the
ejection handles on their seat backs. This is
fairly accurate as in a flat spin the G forces
would be trying to sling the crew out of the
front of the fuselage. These ‘eyeballs out’
forces are rarely felt in flight, and the effect
on an aviator’s limbs would make it difficult
to reach the ejection handles. Being closer to
the centre of rotation, the back-seater would
feel slightly less force, which would explain
why Goose could reach the handles and Mav
couldn’t. No mention is made of the lower
handles fitted to each seat.
Finally, there is the question of Goose
hitting the canopy. During forward flight a
jettisoned canopy would move up and aft in
relation to the fuselage, clearing the way for an
unobstructed ejection. During a flat spin there
is no forward airflow over the fuselage so the
canopy would remain in the vicinity of the
airframe. Indeed, the later Tomcat’s NATOPS
manual recommends that in the case of a spin,
the aircrew manually jettison the canopy, and
then wait a few turns to ensure the canopy is
out of the way. It is conceivable that Goose
could hit the canopy. NASA thought about this
when preparing for the ARI tests, and had
Grumman modify NASA 991 with a canopy
that would stay put during an ejection.
The list of artistic licence points appearing
in the scene is quite large, but then again it’s a
movie and not a documentary. The entire
dogfight scene, while exciting to watch was a
bit contrived, and shows all three opponents
within only feet of each other, which is not
really probable. It was more of a darn good
demonstration of some nice, tight formation
flying. The number of rotations Mav
completes during the entire sequence is
sizable and not a very accurate depiction of
out of control flight. When Mav is in the flat
spin Ice radios: “Mayday, mayday... Mav’s in
trouble... he’s in a flat spin... he’s heading out
to sea.” The only trouble here is that a
spinning aircraft tends to go straight down,
so how could Mav be ‘heading out to sea?’
The list goes on.
Hard core, totally objective and
unimaginative reviewers have knocked Top
Gun for being an inaccurate portrayal of the
subject. Yes, they are correct. Accurate or
not, Top Gun does portray one thing to a tee,
namely the supreme confidence and nerve of
the young naval aviator and naval flight
officer. Fly Navy! ■ David G Powers
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 89
 An XAIM-54A Phoenix air-to-air missile
is launched from the Douglas NA-3A
Skywarrior (BuNo 135427), which was
used as a testbed, on September 8,
1966.The extended nose of the NA-
3A houses the AWG-9 radar. US Navy
The
AIM-54 Phoenix
Now that’s what I call a missile
The development of the AIM-54 Phoenix and its associated AN/AWG-9 radar and fire control system
began several years before the F-14 was even conceived. The combination of the long range radar and
massive punch of the just as long ranged missile were one of the factors that made the Tomcat mighty.
W
hy a long ranged air-to-air
missile? It is difficult to
believe, but the development
of the AIM-54, the longest
range air-to-air missile ever
produced, can indirectly thank its development
to the MiG-15. The highly successful Russian
fighter, which ranks as the most produced jet
aircraft of all time with over 18,000 built, lent a
scaled down version of its aerodynamics and
design to one of the first stand-off anti-shipping
missiles produced in the Soviet Union, the
Raduga KS-1 Komet. This missile was
developed in 1947 into two major versions, the
SSC-2B ‘Samlet’ (S-2 Sopka) was a ground
launched version intended for battlefield use.
The other version was the air launched KS-1,
also known as the KC-1 Kometa or AS-1, and
given the NATO reporting name Kennel.
Essentially a scaled down MiG-15 with no
cockpit or undercarriage, the KS-1 was to be
launched from under the wings of Tupolev Tu-
4 ‘Bulls’, the reverse-engineered version of the
Boeing B-29 Superfortress, and later the
Tupolev Tu-16 ‘Badger’ long range jet bomber.
Like the MiG-15, the missile was powered by a
90 aviationclassics.co.uk
Soviet made version of a Rolls Royce jet
engine, a reverse engineered Rolls Royce
Derwent in this case, known as the RD-500K.
The missile was guided by an inertial
navigation system initially, before switching
on its own radar for terminal guidance as it
neared the target vessel. With its speed of 0.9
Mach, range of 56 miles (90km) and 1300lb
(600kg) warhead, the KS-1 was a long
ranged, fast and small target to defend
against. The warhead could do significant
damage to even such a large ship as an
aircraft carrier. Suddenly, when the KS-1
entered regiment service in 1956, the Soviet
Union’s Naval Air Forces had the ability to
threaten the US Navy’s ships at sea from long
range. By 1966, a faster, longer ranged
missile, the KS-5 ‘Kelt’, had begun to replace
the KS-1 in service. Developments continued,
and by 1969 Regiment sized raids by Tu-16,
the new supersonic Tu-22 ‘Blinder’ and its
successor, the advanced Tu-22M ‘Backfire’
with long range, small, high-supersonic
cruise missiles against the US Fleet had
become a genuine concern. Something had
to be done to counter the threat.
The Missileer
In 1957, the US Navy began studies for what it
termed a fleet defence fighter to counter the
threat of a long range air launched missile
attack on its ships. The requirement called for
a large aircraft, as it had to have a long loiter
time of over six hours on patrol, and therefore
would require a large internal fuel capacity.
The new fighter would receive target data
from an Airborne Early Warning (AEW)
aircraft, then use its own powerful radar to
launch its long range missiles before the
enemy could launch its own. To meet these
needs, the US Navy selected four solutions.
The AEW aircraft would be the Grumman
W2F (later E-2) Hawkeye, covering a range of
200nm (370km) with its AN/APS-125 radar, a
system still in service today. The fighter’s
radar would be a new pulse-doppler design
from Westinghouse, the AN/APQ-81 with a
maximum range of 120 miles (193km) and the
ability to track multiple targets while
scanning. The missile selected was the
Bendix AAM-N-10 Eagle. This had a range of
160 miles and flew a lofted course after
launch, receiving mid-course correctional

The Raduga KS-1 Komet stand off missile, essentially a scaled down MiG-15 fighter with no
cockpit or undercarriage, seen here under the wing of a Tu-16 ‘Badger’. David Bradbury
A YAIM-54A Phoenix missile pictured before loading on to an F-14 Tomcat for test firing at the
Pacific Missile Test Center (PMTC) Point Mugu, California. National Museum of Naval Aviation
guidance from the fighter’s Westinghouse
radar before turning on its own AN/DPN-53
radar for the final approach to the target. The
aircraft selected to carry these was a two seat,
twin engine straight winged design from
Douglas, the F6D Missileer.
The F6D was similar to, but much larger
than, the earlier F3D Skyknight. The cockpit
was a side by side arrangement, like the earlier
aircraft, arranged so both crewmen could see
the radar screen. Its large size allowed fuel to
be carried for a six hour patrol at 150 miles
distance from its aircraft carrier, and it was
powered by two of the new, fuel-efficient
turbofans, the Pratt and Whitney TF-30-P-2 of
10,200lb (4627kg) thrust each. The engine was
non-afterburning and the straight winged
design was subsonic, being built for long
endurance patrols, not high speed or
dogfighting. This performance was to be the
downfall of the entire project. It was argued
that the new systems were all very risky, as all
of the new technologies had to work together
for the aircraft to be a success. However, once
the missiles were fired, the slow and ungainly
F6D would have to return to the carrier to re-
arm, during which time it would be
defenceless and vulnerable to counter-attack
from the enemy’s escorts. The drawbacks of
this vulnerability were recognised and the
entire programme was cancelled in early 1961.
oTher projecTs
This did not remove the need for a long
range fleet defence fighter. The aircraft
available at the time were all too short
ranged, so other programmes were looked
into. The US Air Force had been working on
a replacement for the Convair F-106 Delta
Dart, the North American F-108 Rapier, a
massive cranked delta Mach 3 design for an
interceptor and bomber escort for the B-70
Valkyrie. The F-108 was to be fitted with a
Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar and fire control
system and carry the Hughes GAR-9 (later
known as the AIM-47) Falcon. The Falcon
was a huge missile, with a range of 100 miles
(180km), three of which could be carried
internally in the F-108’s weapons bay. Like
the F6D, the project was cancelled, but the
US Air Force continued with the
development of both the missile and the
The AIM-54 specIfIcATIon
Contractor: Hughes Aircraft Company
and Raytheon Corporation
Engine: Rocketdyne MK 47 or Aerojet MK
60 single-stage solid-fuelled rocket motor
Length: 13ft (3.96m)
Weight: 1000–1020lb (453 to 462kg)
Diameter: 15in (381mm)
Wing span: 3ft (914mm)
Range: In excess of 100 nautical miles
(115 miles; 185km)
Speed: Mach 5
Guidance system: Semi-active and
active radar homing
Warhead weight: 135lb (61kg)
A General Dynamics F-111B (BuNo 151974)
approaching the aircraft carrier USS Coral
Sea (CVA-43) in July 1968. It was the only F-
111B to perform carrier operations after
completing arrestor proving tests at the
Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River,
Maryland, in February 1968. US Navy
radar, test launches being carried out from an
extensively modified Convair B-58 Hustler
bomber in 1962. The F-108 project was
followed in 1960 by an adaptation of the
secret Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird
reconnaissance aircraft, known as the F-12A
Interceptor. This was intended as a low cost
replacement for the F-108, using the Hughes
radar and missile systems in an existing
Mach 3 airframe. Four bays in the
Blackbird’s forward fuselage would contain
the electronics in the first and AIM-47
missiles in the other three. The AIM-47 had
to be modified with folding fins to fit the
bays, but during tests, seven successful
launches of the missile hit the target six
times, the one miss being due to an apparent
power failure. The last launch was made
against a low flying QB-47E target drone
from a YF-12 prototype flying at 74,000ft
(22,677m) at a speed of Mach 3.2, proving
without doubt that the system had full look-
down shoot-down capability. Despite these
successes, the F-12 programme was also
cancelled in 1966, but the three prototype YF-
12As continued flying as test aircraft. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 91
 This cancellation meant that there were
now a fuel efficient engine, a highly effective
long range radar and a long range missile
programme all in a late stage of development,
just needing an aircraft to equip. The US Air
Force were seeking a fighter bomber for long
range strike attack roles and the US Navy still
needed a long range fleet defence fighter. In
1961, these needs were unwisely combined
into a single design, the ill-fated Tactical
Fighter Experimental, or TFX programme. As
described earlier in this magazine, the
programme resulted in the General Dynamics
F-111 swing wing bomber for the US Air
Force. The US Navy version, the F-111B, was
simply too heavy and not manoeuvrable
enough to be an effective fighter and the
programme was stopped in 1968. However,
because of this programme, the TF-30 engine
had been developed to take afterburners and
the Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar had been
further developed to become the AN/AWG-9,
incorporating multiple targeting and track
while scan capabilities. The AIM-47 had also
been modified for the F-111B programme,
growing slightly in size to become the AIM-54.
enTer The Phoenix
Throughout these stop-start fighter
programmes, Hughes had continued the
development of the radar and missile
combination intended for the F-108, then the F-
12, and finally the TFX/F-111B. The radar and
fire control system for the latter programme
was now designated AN/AWG-9 and the
missile, a developed version of the AIM-47 was
known as the AAM-N-11. In June 1963, the
missile programme was redesignated as the
AIM-54A, followed by the first test flights and
firings in 1965 of the XAIM-54A prototypes.
The new missile, now named Phoenix,
maintained a number of features from the
earlier programmes. The missile could be
‘lofted’ up to between 80 and 100,000ft (24 to
30,000m) by the AN/AWG-9 fire control
system, which updated the target information
to the missile’s AN/DSQ-26 guidance system
mid-flight. This had two advantages.
An interesting comparison in size, the AIM-47A Falcon next to the XAIM-54A Phoenix. Hughes
92 aviationclassics.co.uk
A company drawing of the Douglas F6D Missileer, a large, subsonic fleet defence fighter. Douglas
Firstly, the effective range of the missile
was extended by it flying through the thinner
air of high altitude and secondly, the missile’s
final approach was from above the target
travelling in excess of Mach 5. Such a small
object moving at such speed would be very
difficult to see, and therefore to evade. The
final 60,000ft (18,300m) of the missile’s flight
was controlled by its own active radar, which
was automatically switched on for terminal
guidance to the interception. The details of
the AN/AWG-9 radar’s other capabilities will
be covered later in this magazine, but suffice
to say for now, its multiple targeting and
track-while-scan facilities enabled a single
Tomcat to launch and control six Phoenix
missiles simultaneously. Datalink-4 enabled
the fighters to share their target and other
data with the E-2C Hawkeye AEW aircraft,
and later, with other fighters, constantly
updating the potential threats to the fleet and
controlling the battlefield. In September
1966, the first test firing of an XAIM-54A was
made resulting in the successful interception
of a drone target aircraft.
The AIM-54 was built in five sections. A
sleek, aerodynamic radome covering the
active radar in the nose was attached to the
guidance section. Behind this was the
warhead, then the propulsion section
containing the rocket motor to which the four
triangular wings were attached. The
propulsion came from either a Rocketdyne
Mk 47 or Aerojet Mk 60 solid-fuelled rocket
motor, both of which boosted the missile to
speeds in excess of Mach 4 after launch.
Lastly was the control section with the four
fins arranged behind each of the four wings,
each with a control surface attached. After
extensive tests, using a modified Douglas
NA-3A Skywarrior fitted with an AN/AWG-9
radar among other types, the AIM-54 entered
production as the AIM-54A in 1973, then
entered service with the first F-14A Tomcat
Squadrons in September 1974.
As has been explained earlier, the US
Navy had issued a Request For Proposals
(RFP) in July 1968 for a new two seat fighter,
resulting in the Naval Fighter Experimental
(VFX) programme. This was awarded to the
Grumman 303 design in January 1969, with
the first F-14 flying on December 21, 1970.
Grumman had been General Dynamic’s
partner in the development of the naval
version of the TFX, the F-111B, because of
their vast experience in developing naval
aircraft. Grumman therefore already had
experience with the engines, radar and
intended missile system of the new fighter,
hence the relatively short development
period for such a complex and advanced
aircraft, only 22 months.
TesTing on The TomcaT
The testing and development of the AIM-54
continued alongside that of the fighter
intended to carry it from this point onwards.
The first AIM-54 to be fired from an F-14
occurred on April 28, 1972, after which a
variety of target types, from cruise missiles to
high altitude bombers, were successfully
engaged. One particular test was at extreme
range, beyond even the stated maximum of
100 miles (160km). In November 1972 a
Tomcat engaged a target drone at 120 miles
(193km), lofting the missile for a
demonstration of maximum performance.
Later that month, on November 22, six AIM-
54s, the maximum load, were fired from an
F-14 flying at 25,000ft (7620m) over a period
 An F-14A of VF-32 unusually loaded with six
AIM-54 Phoenix. Usually, a pair of AIM-9
Sidewinders were carried on the wing
glove vane pylons, along with a pair of AIM-
7 Sparrows. A single or pair of AIM-54s were
carried on the centre fuselage launchers to
complete a common weapons load.
National Museum of Naval Aviation

of 38 seconds. The missiles were in flight

together under guidance from the fire
control system in the Tomcat, and four
successfully hit their targets. As well as the
extreme long range of the Phoenix, it was
also tested under direct active guidance of its
own radar down to ranges of only two miles
(3.2km). The missile’s warhead was a 135lb
(61kg) Mk 82 blast fragmentation type, the
effects of which could be devastating to
targets of any size. This was detonated by a
combination of radar and infra-red proximity
fuses and an impact fuse. The missiles were
carried on LAU-93A launchers, which were
specifically developed for the F-14
programme and tested along with the aircraft
and the missiles. With the tests complete, the
Phoenix was ready for service.

Developments in service
Developments of such a complex and
powerful weapons system lead to a similar
complexity of nomenclature and designation.
Typical of such improvements, to list them
all fully ensures that any article begins to
look like an algebraic equation, for which The large AIM-47 Falcon missile under the weapons bay of a Lockheed YF-12 fighter prototype.
I apologise. ➤ National Museum of the USAF

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 93

During trials of the new version of the
Phoenix, an F-14 Tomcat fires an AIM-54C
Phoenix missile at Pacific Missile Test Center
(PMTC), Point Mugu, California. National
Museum of Naval Aviation
The initial AIM-54A was produced with a
number of important variants, mostly for
training. The ATM-54A was fitted with an
inert warhead to allow the conduct of firing
exercises and the CATM-54A had neither
rocket motor nor warhead. This missile did
have a standard radar and guidance package
however, and was used for target acquisition
training. The DATM-54A had no systems
fitted at all, and was used to train deck crew
in the loading, handling and preparation of
the missile. Lastly, the AEM-54A was a test
and evaluation missile fitted with specialist
telemetry equipment.
The AIM-54B was the next development,
with sheet metal wings and fins replacing the
honeycomb construction of the earlier model
to speed production from 1977 onwards.
Interestingly, the US Navy did not list the
new version as the B model, which means
either few were produced, or as is more
likely, the variant was officially referred to as
a sub-designation of the AIM-54A, as it was
otherwise identical to the A in all respects. I
say more likely, because both the ATM-54B
inert warhead training version and the AEM-
54B evaluation and telemetry equipped
version designations were both officially
used by the US Navy, which seems to
suggest that series production of the B did
take place.
The next development in the Phoenix
story, and the last, was the AIM-54C,
development of which began in 1977. Of over
5000 AIM-54s produced, over half of them
were the much improved C model. The
guidance, control and autopilot system was
A US Navy AIM-54 Phoenix missile destroys a McDonnell Douglas QF-4B Phantom II target drone
over the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California. National Museum of Naval Aviation
94 aviationclassics.co.uk
A firing trial with six YAIM-54As loaded at the Pacific Missile Test Center (PMTC) Point Mugu,
California. F-14As rarely carried a full load of Phoenix, the nearly 8000lb (3629kg) weight of the
six missiles and their associated launchers severely limited the F-14’s manoeuvring capability
and was too heavy to recover back aboard a carrier. National Museum of Naval Aviation
completely replaced with the fully digital
WGU-11B guidance and WCU-7B control
sections. These featured a programmable
signal processor and inertial navigation
system, as well as much improved Electronic
Counter Counter Measures (ECCM)
capability. To assist in tracking small targets
at low altitude, like cruise missiles, a new
target detection and fusing system, the DSU-
28B, was fitted. Like the earlier A, an
ATM-54C, CATM-54C and AEM-54C versions
were also built for training and development
purposes, each fulfilling the same roles as the
earlier models. The ground training version
was not replaced as the DATM-54A was
sufficient for the task. Tests began with the
YAIM-54C in 1978, before the XAIM-54C
prototypes were delivered to the US Navy for
trials in August 1979. Successful testing of
these missiles meant that full scale production
began in 1982, with the AIM-54C being
accepted into service in 1986. This was not
the end of the development story completely
however, as the missile underwent a series of
in-service improvements.
The first major change was the
replacement of the Mk 82 warhead with the
WDU-29B, offering an increase in the
destructive power of the missile. The external
temperature control system, which previously
had required fluid on board the F-14 to be
pumped around the missile’s systems to keep
the electronics at a constant temperature
while the missile was on the aircraft, was
replaced by an internal system where the
fluid was stored in the missile, causing the
later AIM-54C to be referred to as Sealed or
as the AIM-54C+. An improved ECCM system
was fitted during production, leading to the
updated missiles being referred to as the
AIM-54C Sealed/ECCM or AIM-54C++, the
first of which began service trials in 1988.
Lastly, a reprogrammable memory and
new software for the signals processor were
added, features that like many of the other
improvements were able to be fitted to the
earlier production AIM-54Cs. The last AIM-
54s were built during 1992, and by the turn of
the century the AIM-54Cs had completely
replaced the AIM-54A in service, the A
models being placed into storage.
Combat use
Like the F-14 itself, the AIM-54A was also
supplied to Iran, where combat reports
regarding both the aircraft and the missile
are confused. Difficulties with spares and
replacement parts such as batteries kept a
great deal of the fleet and weapons out of the
Iran/Iraq war for long periods. However,
some sources suggest that the F-14 was used
both as a fighter and an AEW aircraft by
virtue of its powerful AN/AWG-9 radar, and
in combination with the AIM-54 may have
downed as many as between 60 and 70 Iraqi
aircraft. The full story of the Iranian use of
the aircraft and missile are covered later.
Only three AIM-54s were ever used in
combat by the US Navy. Two of these were
fired on January 5, 1999 at a pair of Iraqi
MiG-25 ‘Foxbats’ to the southeast of
Baghdad. Reports indicate that incorrect
procedures by a member of the aircraft
carrier arming crew meant the missiles had
not been armed properly. On firing, the
missiles came off the launchers but the
rocket motors never fired. Both the F-14s had
their respective targets locked, so if the
missiles had been properly armed they stood
Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Cory Bennett of VF-32 places a bomb Aviation Ordnanceman 3rd Class Jared Owens of VF-32 prepares to
skid into position to download an AIM-54 off an F-14B Tomcat aboard arm an AIM-54 on an F-14B Tomcat aboard the USS Harry S Truman
the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75).The heavy missile (CVN 75). Arming the Phoenix was a complex business and required
needed specialist equipment to get it on and off the F-14. US Navy skill and experience. US Navy

An F-14 Tomcat of VF-24 fires an AIM-54 Phoenix

missile during the carrier USS Constellation’s
(CV 64) operational readiness inspection.
National Museum of Naval Aviation

Only three AIM-54s were

ever used In cOMbAt by the
us nAvy.twO Of these were
fIred On JAnuAry 5, 1999 At
A pAIr Of IrAqI MIG-25
‘fOxbAts’tO the sOutheAst Aviation Ordnanceman load an AIM-54C Phoenix onto an F-14D Tomcat assigned to VF-2,
Of bAGhdAd on the flight deck aboard USS Constellation (CV-64).The cradle and winches were all part
of the specialist equipment the Phoenix required... US Navy
a good chance of success. In the light of this
frustrating experience, the complex missile
arming procedures and training programme
were amended for deck arming crews.
Later that year, on September 9, a US
Navy F-14 fired the third and last AIM-54 at
another Iraqi aircraft, this time a MiG-23
which had taken off from Al Taqaddum air
base west of Baghdad and was headed into
the southern no-fly zone. The MiG-23 turned
away north at high speed, extending the
range rapidly, causing the missile to miss and
eventually hit the ground.
With the development of other weapons
systems better able to cope with the cruise
missile threat, and the disappearance of the
large formations of bombers it was intended
to guard against from the world stage, the
AIM-54 was officially retired from the US
Navy’s arsenal on September 30, 2004. The
only fighter to carry the missile, the F-14,
was only to last two more years in service. ■ … as it weighed over 1000lb.The winch has lowered the cradle here, but the wings have yet to
Words: Tim Callaway be attached to the AIM-54C, which could not be fitted while in the weapons trailer. US Navy
Refining
the breed
The B, C and D developments
With the successful introduction of the F-14A into service in 1972, production at Calverton went into
high gear. Of the 712 F-14s of all variants built, 12 were production prototypes often called YF-14s,
and 557 were F-14As, of which 478 were built for the US Navy and 79 for the Imperial Iranian Air
Force. Improvements to this breed of cat began even while the F-14As were on the production line.

T
he first major change happened
to the last 102 F-14As built. The
original TF-30-PW-412 turbofans
were replaced by the later TF-30-
PW-414A model.
This change had three effects on the
aircraft, increasing the reliability due to
the new engine’s improved engineering
and providing better acceleration as the
thrust had increased to 41,800lb (18,960kg).
Some of the compressor stall problems
that had dogged the TF-30 were if not
solved, then at least reduced in the new
version of the engine, again improving
reliability. The new TF-30s also had a
reinforced centre casing from this time
on, because of a number of turbine blade
failures. This reinforcement prevented
damage to the rest of the aircraft by such a
serious engine malfunction.
The Tomcat was still considered by some
to be underpowered for its size and weight,
and the TF-30 was a much criticised
powerplant, but at least this was a step in the
right direction. That said, it must also be
noted that some of the earliest Tomcats built
were still flying when the aircraft was
withdrawn from service in 2006, and the F-
14A was still in front line service involved in
Operation Iraqi Freedom as late as 2004,
bringing into question some of the claims of
unreliability and a lack of performance that
have been levelled, sometimes unfairly, at the
Tomcat. Yes, there were problems with the
TF-30 as a fighter engine, but as has been
stated, that had been recognised from the
start. The next step in the Tomcat story was
to deal with that.
It had always been intended to replace the
TF-30 in the F-14, an intention made clear
VF-1 F-14A Tomcats on the ramp
at NAS Miramar. Frank B Mormillo
even as the contract award for production
was made in 1969. This intent became reality

An F-14A of VF-154.
Keith Draycott
as the Tomcat entered service with the US
Navy in 1973. A single example, BuNo
157986, was taken off the production line and
fitted with a brand new engine, the recently
developed Pratt and Whitney F401-PW-400
turbofan. This engine was a naval variant of
the F100 turbofan intended for the US Air
Force’s F-15 and F-16 fighters.
The F-14, thus modified, now referred to
as the F-14B prototype, flew for the first time
on September 12, 1973. A full test programme
followed, which produced disappointing
results. Insufficient power and afterburner
problems led the US Navy to cancel the
engine upgrade programme and the F-14B in
April 1974. BuNo 157986 was placed in
storage at Grumman’s Bethpage facility. The
F-100 turbofan overcame its early problems
and is still in service in the US Air Force
fighter fleets today.
The General Electric F110-GE-400 turbofan. General Electric
An interesting sideshoot to the F-14B story
occurred at this point. The Aerospace Defence
Command (ADCOM) of the US Air Force was
considering a replacement for the Convair F-
106 Delta Dart interceptor in the early 1970s.
Grumman developed an F-14B Tomcat
Interceptor variant to meet this need, with a
single example in mock-up form produced in
1972. The modifications included changes to
the missile launchers and increased internal
fuel capacity, but little interest was shown and
the project quickly died.
This was not the end of the F-14B, however.
In 1979 after numerous studies, a new
afterburning version of the General Electric F-
101 turbofan, initially called the F-101-X, was
selected as the new engine for the F-14. The F-
101 had been part of the alternative engine
programme to power the F-15 and F-16. The F-
14B prototype was taken out of storage and
VF-302 F-14A Tomcats, note
the small single sensor pod
under the nose of the early
models. Frank B Mormillo
fitted with the new engines, now called the
F-101DFE, or Derivative Fighter Engine.
An initial series of tests in early 1981 led to
Grumman and the US Navy flying a series of
evaluations beginning on July 14, of that year.
The Grumman test results showed the new
engine enabled the F-14B to accelerate “like a
scalded cat” as one observer put it, going
from 0.8 Mach to 1.8 Mach in just 90
seconds. The US Navy trials showed that the
modified F-14B did not need to use
afterburners to make a catapult launch from
an aircraft carrier, saving both fuel and
engine life. The tremendous thrust of the
F-101DFE also gave the F-14B a thrust to
weight ratio of better than 1, or in layman’s
terms, the engines produced more thrust
than the aircraft weighed. This meant the
F-14B could accelerate in a vertical climb,
something no F-14A could ever do. ➤
The Pratt annd Whitney TF-30 turbofan.
National Museum of Naval Aviation
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 97
 All of these positive results led to the aircraft
becoming unofficially known as the ‘Super
Tomcat’. However, the trials also revealed some
serious problems in the engine installation, so
once again the project was shelved in
September 1981. A second F-14B prototype was
under construction at this time, BuNo 158630,
and with the cancellation was converted on the
production line to be a standard F-14A.
While all these developments were taking
place, a serious study began to provide a fully
upgraded Tomcat for the Navy. This new
aircraft, referred to as the F-14C, would
feature the General Electric F-101DFE
engines as well as a new suite of upgraded
advanced multi-mission avionics and a new
radar with its associated fire control system.
The new avionics would be fully compatible
with the A-6 Intruder, E-2C Hawkeye and
F/A-18 Hornet to improve tactical data
sharing across the fleet. Although the F-14C
project came to nothing, the improvements it
suggested were all eventually incorporated
into the entire range of F-14 versions.
The F-14B rose again from storage in July
1984, and was fitted with another new engine.
Designated the F110-GE-400, the new engine
was the quantum leap in power over the TF-30
that the Tomcat needed. Developed from the
F110-GE-100 for the F-15 and F-16, the -400
version had a 50 inch (1.3m) longer tailpipe
than the Air Force engine to fit into the F-14’s
airframe. Flight tests began immediately and
this time were completely successful. Each of
the new engines produced 27,600lb
(12,519kg) of thrust, 6700lb 3039kg) more
than the TF-30s. The success of these tests
led to the development of the F-14A+, and
BuNo 157986 again returned to storage.
The incredibly versatile BuNo 157986 in the “Super Tomcat” colour scheme.This aircraft operated
as an engine test bed and was the prototype for the F-14B and F-14A+ among other trials.
National Museum of Naval Aviation
The ADCOM mock up of the F-14 Interceptor proposal for the US Air Force. Note the conformal
fuel tanks to increas range. National Museum of Naval Aviation
98 aviationclassics.co.uk
Advances in digital avionics led Grumman
to propose a completely new version of the
Tomcat to the US Navy during the early
1980s. The digital Tomcat was intended to
form the core of the future carrier based
fighter force, offering improvements in every
area of the F-14s performance. The new
aircraft was called the F-14D.
In August 1984 the US Navy issued
Grumman a contract worth $863.8 million for
two new versions of the Tomcat. The digital
suite of avionics and the F-14D project were
approved and development work began.
While this advanced aircraft was developed,
Grumman was also to upgrade the F-14A to
the F-14A+ as an interim measure.
Aside from the F110-GE-400 engines, the F-
14A+ also featured a range of other
improvements. An Engine Fatigue Monitoring
System was fitted along with a modification to
the Direct Lift Control and the Approach
Power Control systems. These allowed the
pilot to adjust both the spoilers and power to
alter his speed and angle of approach to the
carrier via a small thumbwheel on the stick,
without changing the aircraft’s attitude.
A gas purge system was fitted to the M61
Vulcan cannon in the nose and a new radio,
the AN/ARC-182, and new Threat Warning
and Recognition System, the AN/ALR-67,
were both included in the greatly enhanced
aircraft. The small wing glove vanes, which
had been disabled and sealed shut on the F-
14A when it was realised that they had little
effect on the aerodynamics of the aircraft,
were now deleted completely. This change
not only saved weight, but also reduced the
complexity of the wing sweep mechanisms.
The nose mounted Television Camera
System that had been introduced on to the F-
14A was now standard across the fleet. Lastly,
the fire control system for the radar was
changed to the upgraded AN/AWG-15F.
The first F-14+ produced was BuNo
162910 which flew for the first time on
November 14, 1986. The second aircraft flew
in 1987, undertaking service trials, so it was
not until 1989 that series production began
with 17 F-14A+s being delivered in that year.
Altogether 86 F-14A+ fighters were
produced, 48 of that number being modified
from existing F-14A airframes, the rest being
new build aircraft. The new engines in the F-
14A+ were much more fuel efficient than the
earlier TF-30, as well as being much more
powerful. This gave the new Tomcat an increase
in range of over 60% on internal fuel or a 33%
increase in loiter time at its defensive station.
The first F-14A+ reached VF-101 at NAS Oceana
in April 1988 and the first carrier landing by the
type was made aboard the USS Independence
 This F-14A on the ramp at NAS The TomcaTs compared
Miramar is in the “Keith Ferris”
experimental colour scheme.The artist Type F-14A F-14B (F-14A+) F-14D
designed a camouflage to break up
First Flight Dec 21, 1970 Sept 1986 Mar 1990
the F-14’s lines. Frank B Mormillo
Wingspan (unswept) 64ft 1.5in 64ft 1.5in 64ft 1.5in
Wingspan (swept) 38ft 2.5in 38ft 2.5in 38ft 2.5in
Length 62ft 8in 62ft 8in 62ft 8in
Height 16ft 16ft 16ft
Wing Area 565sq ft 565sq ft 565sq ft
Empty Weight 40,104 pounds 41,780 pounds 43,735 pounds
Max. Weight 72,000 pounds 74,349 pounds 74,349 pounds
Powerplants 2 P&W TF-30-P-414A 2 GE F-110-GE-400 2 GE F-110-GE-400
Max.Thrust 41,800lb (18,960kg) 56,200lb (25,583kg) 56,200lb (25,583kg)
Wing Loading 92psf 94psf 96psf
Max. Speed 1544mph 1544mph 1544mph
Mach 2.38 Mach 2.38 Mach 2.38
Ceiling 50,000+ ft 53,000+ ft 53,000+ ft
Range 1730nm 2050nm 2050nm

An F-14A of VF-1.
Keith Draycott

on April 15. By mid-1990, six Fleet Squadrons

had converted to the new fighter.
In 1988, part of the cancelled F-14C study
was implemented across the F-14 fleet. The
Multi Mission Capability Avionics Program
made a number of significant changes to the An F-14B of VF-103.
equipment aboard both the F-14A and F-14A+. Keith Draycott
Initially called the F-14A++ or F-14A+ Upgrade,
the changes featured a new mission computer
and a Programmable Tactical Information
Display for the RIO. The defensive aids on the
Tomcat were improved with the addition of
new chaff and flare dispensers and most
significantly the installation of the new
AN/ALR-67 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR).
In 1991, to prevent confusion, all of the F-14A+ An F-14D of VF-2.
aircraft were redesignated F-14B. Keith Draycott
While the F-14B upgrade programme was
under way, development of the new F-14D
continued alongside it. The D model was also
powered by the F110-GE-400, the most
significant changes being internal, as all the
older analogue electronic systems in the
aircraft were replaced by digital technology.
The development of the F-14D was intended to
replace the entire F-14 fleet, either by
upgrading existing airframes or by
manufacturing new build aircraft, but the
political climate had changed and the D model
found itself under threat from budget cutbacks
and the increasingly powerful lobby supporting
the F/A-18 development programme.
The greatest change to the F-14D was the
radar. The AN/AWG-9 was replaced by the
AN/APG-71, a fully digital version of the
powerful system that allowed multiple target
tracking of up to 24 targets at up to 400 miles,
twice the range of the earlier system. With its
advanced signal processing, the new radar
was also less vulnerable to jamming. The
inertial navigation system (INS) was replaced
with the ASN-139 laser INS and two new
AYK-14 Standard Airborne Computers were
fitted. Four Mil-STD-1553G multiprocessor
data busses linked all the new systems
together and speeded the data processing
capability of the aircraft. ➤ The LANTIRN pod was most often mounted on the wing glove pylons. US Navy

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 99

The most obvious difference between the F-14A and the later models was
on take off. Here an F-14A is catapulted under full afterburner... US Navy
An Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST)
system was mounted under the nose, next to
the TCS. The combination of these sensors
could provide an image of a target at up to 100
miles range, displaying it as a combined image
on the RIO’s new multi-function display. The
integration of the IRST into the sensor suite
gave the Tomcat full passive or active multi-
sensor target acquisition capability.
The defensive suite was also further
upgraded with the addition of the ALR-67
RWR and the ALQ-165 Airborne Self-
Protection Jamming system. The data from
all of the new sensors could be shared with
other aircraft via the Joint Tactical
Information Distribution System (JTIDS).
This was a tremendous increase in capability
on its own, enabling an F-14 to act as a
Forward Air Controller for other strike
aircraft or fighters, or to share data with
AEW or other Command and Control assets,
effectively acting as a force multiplier.
Unlike the earlier Tomcats, where only a
few aircraft per squadron had the capability,
all of the F-14Ds were wired to enable them
to use the TARPS reconnaissance pod. A
complete digital fatigue and engine
monitoring system was fitted throughout the
airframe which gave the maintenance teams
AN F-14A showing the range of
weapons the aircraft could carry
right from the beginning. National
Museum of Naval Aviation
... and here an F-14D shows that the F110-GE-400 engines had
sufficient thrust in just military power. Luigino Caliaro
vital data to keep track of the condition and
‘life’ of each aircraft. Lastly, new
programmable interactive displays and
controls were fitted in the cockpit replacing
most of the older analogue instruments, an
on board oxygen generating system was
supplied and the new Martin Baker Mk14
Navy Aircrew Common Ejection Seats
(NACES) completed the upgrade, replacing
the earlier model.
Four F-14As were converted to assist in
the development of the F-14D, the first of
these, BuNo 161865, was to become the
avionics testbed airframe and flew for the
first time on November 23, 1987. Only one of
the four aircraft had the new F110-GE-400
engines, the rest retained their TF-30s. The
success of these development aircraft meant
the future looked rosy for the Tomcat and
Grumman; 127 new build and 104
conversions of existing aircraft were planned,
but in 1989 Secretary of Defence Dick
Cheney cancelled the majority of the F-14D
programme due to budget cutbacks. In the
end, only 27 new aircraft were built and 18
converted from F-14A airframes.
The first full production F-14D was rolled
out at Calverton on March 23, 1990, and in
May that year the prototype was delivered to
NAS Point Mugu for full service trials and
testing. The early F-14D prototypes were
designated NF-14D, as they did not have full
operational capability, but could not be
readily converted back into a service aircraft.
These went on to fly test and development
sorties for many years with VX-4.
The 55 full production standard F-14Ds
would equip three squadrons, VF-2, VF-11
and VF-31, the first of them entering service
in July 1992 with VF-11, just too late for
Operation Desert Storm. A few aircraft also
operated as trainers with VF-124, but by 1996
the shortage of F-14Ds forced VF-11 to be
converted back to the F-14B, leaving just two
squadrons of the mightiest version of the
Tomcat in front line service.
This was not the end of the development
story however, as in the early 1990s the US
Navy decided to phase out the A-6 Intruder
attack aircraft by the middle of 1996. The
secondary strike capability that had been
built into the Tomcat enabled the F-14 to fill
the gap as the F/A-18E/F was still in
development as the new strike attack fighter.
Initially, F-14s carried a wide variety
of ground attack munitions, but if the
weapon required laser guidance, then
another aircraft type or ground team would
have to designate the target as the F-14 did
not have that capability.
In order to address this limitation, a
modified version of the US Air Force’s
LANTIRN pod was acquired, trials being
undertaken in the fleet rather than through a
development squadron as the technology was
sufficiently mature. The LANTIRN pod
became operational with VF-103 in June 1996,
which shortly thereafter was involved in
combat sorties over Bosnia and Iraq.
Altogether 210 Tomcats were modified to
use the LANTIRN pod, 76 F-14As, 81 F-14Bs
and 53 F-14Ds. Aside from the ability to
designate for laser guided bombs and other
precision munitions, the LANTIRN pod was
also useful in identifying both ground and air
targets as its image could be zoomed in and
pointed anything up to 150 degrees off the
aircraft’s heading. Crews found this facility an
improvement over the TCS system.
In 1999, a software upgrade allowed the
pod to record more accurate target co-
ordinates as well as allow the transmission of

digital images captured by the pod to other
aircraft or command assets bv way of the Fast
Tactical Imagery (FTI) system, enabling
targets to be attacked by other assets or to
assist in bomb damage assessments. The
LANTRIN pod had become not just a
targeting device, but also a target
identification and reconnaissance system
through these upgrades.
At the same time as the LANTIRN pod
was being introduced into service, a number
of minor upgrades were applied to the F-14Bs
and Ds in service, including a Global
Positioning System (GPS) and the new
AN/ARC-210 radios. Most significant of these
upgrades was a brand new fully Digital Flight
Control System that, when combined with
the F110-GE-400 engines, gave the F-14
tremendous improvements and ease of
handling, the pilots at last being able to fly
the aircraft rather than the engines, as has
been widely quoted.
An F-14D of VF-213.
Keith Draycott
The prominent twin
sensor housing under the
nose is obvious in this
view of an F-14D. US Navy
By the turn of the century, the F-14 had
evolved into a fully mature and extremely
capable fighter, strike attack aircraft and
reconnaissance platform. Possessed of longer
range and higher performance than any
other naval aircraft of the time, the Tomcat
ruled the roost so to speak. If military aircraft
decisions were made on performance alone,
there is little doubt that the F-14 would still
be in service today.
However, budget cutbacks and other
political pressures, especially from the F/A-
18 lobby, had placed the writing on the wall. The new RIO’s instrument panel on the now
No further upgrades were made, and by all glass cockpit F-14D. Grumman
2006, the mighty Tomcat was retired from
service. Thirty-four years of continuous
service is a remarkable achievement for any
combat aircraft; that it was achieved by so
complex and advanced an aircraft conceived
and delivered in so short a time, on budget
and on schedule, is nothing short of
miraculous. ■ Words: Tim Callaway
An F-14B of VF-32 showing the improved
turning performance the F110-GE-400 gave
the big fighter. US Navy
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 101
 Over the
Gulf of Sidra
In 1973, the area of the Mediterranean known as the Gulf of Sidra off the coast of Libya had been
declared as part of Libyan territorial waters by the countr y’s leader, the unlamented Colonel
Muammar Gaddafi. The 12-mile limit was called, in typical theatrical style, the ‘Line of Death’,
apparently in reference to the fate awaiting anyone who had the temerity to cross it. International
Maritime Law states that any nation has rights to claim a three mile territorial limit, so the US Navy
began ‘Freedom of Navigation’ exercises in the area.

A diagram showing the

main manoeuvres made
by the opponents in the
first Gulf of Sidra incident.
The text of the article will
explain each move in full.

Fast Eagle 102 Sun

Fast Eagle 107

102 aviationclassics.co.uk
B
y 1981, relations between the US
and Libya were extremely tense
due to this extension of the
territorial waters. US complaints
through the UN brought a storm
of rhetoric from the Libyan leader in response,
largely regarding the likelihood of military
action against anyone who crossed the 12-mile
limit in the Gulf of Sidra or interfered in any
way with Libyan affairs.
These threats did not go down well in
America, where Ronald Reagan was now
president. In August, President Reagan
ordered that the ‘Freedom of Navigation’
exercises in the Gulf of Sidra be stepped up,
despatching the aircraft carriers USS
Forrestal (CV-59) and USS Nimitz
(CVN-68), along with their associated battle
groups, into the area. Supporting the two
carriers were the cruisers USS Texas (CGN-
39) and USS Mississippi (CGN-40) and 11
other ships, all under the command of Vice-
Admiral James E Service.
The carrier groups were to conduct
surface and air operations within the 12-mile
limit, but outside the legal three-mile line, in
order to establish the internationally
recognised freedom of the seas. Having such
large assets as aircraft carriers operating
with impunity close to their coast was bound
to provoke a strong response from the Libyan
Air Force.
At that time, Libya possessed a modern
and powerful air force, equipped with a
combination of Soviet-built and Western
types. Su-22 ‘Fitter-C’ and Su-22M ‘Fitter-J’
variable geometry fighter bombers, MiG-23
‘Flogger’ variable geometry fighters, MiG-25
‘Foxbat’ Mach 3 capable interceptors and
Mirage F.1 and 5D fighter bombers were all
part of the forces that Libya could field
against the US Navy.
In the early morning of August 18, 1981,
the US exercises began. Almost immediately
three MiG-25s were detected approaching
the carrier groups, but were intercepted by F-
4J Phantoms of VF-74 from the USS Forrestal
and F-14s from VF-41 and VF-84 based
aboard the USS Nimitz. This was just the
beginning of the Libyan response.
A Mig-23 of the Libyan
Air Force. Kirill Shlyaev
Fast Eagle 102, one of the two VF-41 F-14A Tomcats on the USS Nimitz immediately after
shooting down a Libyan Su-22. US Navy
The Libyan Air Force was trying to locate
the aircraft carrier groups, and to this end
sent no fewer than 35 pairs of combat aircraft
into the Gulf area. These search pairs were
made up of every type in its fighter inventory.
Seven pairs of F-4s and F-14s were flying
Combat Air Patrols and these intercepted the
searchers, escorting them away from the
carriers. The MiG-25s attempted to avoid
interception by making a number of high-
speed, high-altitude approaches, but to no
avail. Every aircraft was intercepted, and
although some close manoeuvring occurred,
no weapons were fired.
THE FIRST INCIDENT
Dawn of August 19, was one of tense
expectation. It was likely that more of the same
level of activity would occur, and the US Forces
had a number of specific exercises planned for
the day. At 06.00 hrs, three pairs of F-14s were
launced from the USS Nimitz, and two pairs of
F-4s from the USS Forrestal, to set up the
Combat Air Patrol (CAP). Two of the Tomcats
were Fast Eagle 102, BuNo 160403, being
flown by Commander Henry ‘Hank’ Kleeman
and Lieutenant David ‘DJ’ Venlet, and Fast
Eagle 107, BuNo 160390, with Lieutenant
Lawrence ‘Music’ Muczynski and Lieutenant
(JG) James ‘Amos’ Anderson at the controls.
Their allotted task was to fly top cover to other
US aircraft engaged in a missile exercise.
As expected, it was a busy morning. Two
of the other VF-41 F-14s intercepted a pair of
MiG-25s, two of VF-74s F-4s intercepted a
pair of MiG-23 and a pair of A-7 Corsairs at
low level had intercepted a Libyan Osa class
fast missile boat.
The Combat Information Centre on a
modern carrier is an astounding place to
witness during operations of any kind. On this
day, all the sensors at their disposal were
feeding information into the CIC, keeping track
of any potentially hostile aircraft and surface
movements, as well as the conduct of the
exercises they were responsible for running.
One of these pieces of information was an
intercept by passive Electronic Support
Measures aboard a US Air Force RC-135 of
military aircraft radio signals at the Okba Ben
Nafi Air Base near Tripoli. Shortly thereafter,
an E-2C Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning
radar aircraft from VAW-124 confirmed it was
in radar contact with two aircraft that had taken
off from the air base. At 07.15 hrs with the sun
rising, David Venlet, the RIO in Fast Eagle 102,
confirmed he had a fast moving radar contact,
doing about 550 knots (1020kph) some 80
nautical miles (150km) south of the Tomcats,
heading due north. The CIC ordered Fast
Eagle 102 and 107 to leave their patrol station
and intercept the two aircraft. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 103
 The four aircraft were heading towards
each other at a slight angle, the Su-22s being in
front of and to the right of the Tomcats. The F-
14s were flying in a loose spread pair, called
‘Loose Deuce’. Fast Eagle 107 was about 5000
feet (1500m) above, 10,000 feet (3500m) to the
right and slightly ahead of his leader. It was a
classic Visual Identification (VID) interception,
sometimes called ‘Eyeball/Shooter’, with Fast
Eagle 107 as the Eyeball to ID the contact, and
Fast Eagle 102 in support as the Shooter if the
contact proved hostile.
As they got closer to the contact, still in
the darker sky below them, the Libyan
aircraft were passing in front of Fast Eagle
107. James Anderson was using the
Television Camera System to identify the
contact, and found himself looking at a pair of
Su-22s in a close echelon formation, with the
wingman to the right, about eight nautical
miles (15km) ahead and slightly below him.
From that point on things happened very
quickly. The Su-22s were approaching directly
in front of Fast Eagle 102 when a radio
intercept officer on the RC-135 heard the
radio calls “In firing position” then “Firing”
from the Su-22 pair leader. Lawrence
Muczynski saw a flash from the direction of
the contact, then a smoke trail. At about 500
yards from Fast Eagle 102, the lead Su-22 had
fired an AA-2 ‘Atoll’ (R-13M) heat seeking air-
to-air missile at Kleeman and Venlet’s Tomcat.
The shot was taken from in front of the F-
14, and the AA-2 was not what is known as an
‘all-aspect’ heat seeking missile at that time.
Modern heat seekers can be fired from
anywhere in the vicinity of a target, from any
aspect, hence the name. The AA-2 at that time
could not, and consequently did not track or
hit Fast Eagle 102. However, the Libyan
aircraft had opened fire, and that changed the
no-shooting rules of engagement the US
aircraft had been operating under.
With the Su-22s passing down their left-
hand side, both Tomcats broke hard left. As
they did so, the Su-22s separated, the leader
continuing north and turning slighty left, the
wingman pulling up and breaking hard right
across the face of the sun rising in an attempt
to evade the pursuing Tomcats.
Kleeman in Fast Eagle 102 called that he
was taking the wingman, reversed his left
break into a hard right turn, then again after
the SU-22 broke right, which dropped the
Tomcat neatly into the Su-22s six o’clock at
about 1000 yards range. Kleeman selected and
fired an AIM-9L Sidewinder which tracked
straight up the Su-22s tailpipe. The pilot was
An Su-22 of the Libyan Air Force. NATO
104 aviationclassics.co.uk
From left to right, Lieutenant David “DJ”Venlet, Commander Henry “Hank”
Kleeman, Lieutenant Lawrence “Music” Muczynski and Lieutenant (JG)
James “Amos” Anderson, the crews of Fast Eagle 102 and 107. US Navy
seen to eject from the burning aircraft.
Meanwhile, Muczynski in Fast Eagle 107 was
on the leader, who after his initial left turn had
now come hard right in an attempt to position
behind Kleeman. Muczynski reversed his fast
7G hard left break into an even harder right
turn. This dropped him straight into the 6
o’clock of the Su-22 about 800 yards behind it,
from where he fired his AIM-9L about 10
seconds after Kleeman had fired his.
after the battle
Initially Muczynski thought his Sidewinder had
failed to guide and would miss to the left of the
Su-22, but it suddenly turned right and impacted
on the left side of the rear fuselage. The pilot
stayed with the burning Su-22 for about five
seconds before he too ejected. The parachute of
the Libyan pilot was not seen to open.
The two Tomcats returned safely to the
USS Nimitz. The Libyans ceased hostile
manoeuvres and began conducting search
and rescue operations to retrieve their pilots.
As this was going on, about an hour after the
incident, a pair of MiG-25s flying at about 1.5
Mach made a mock attack towards the
carriers. The F-14 CAP was despatched to
intercept them, but the MiGs turned away. As
the F-14s returned to their CAP station, the
MiGs turned back towards the carriers. This
forced the F-14s to react once more. They lit
up the MiG-25s with their AN/AWG-9 radars,
which promptly turned away and this time
did not return. Only one more group of
Libyan aircraft was seen that day. It seems
the point had been made.
In late 1988, tensions between the US and
Libya flared again. The US had accused Libya
of building a chemical weapons plant close to
the town of Rabta, and again the response was
to warn the US against interfering in Libyan
affairs and reiterate the threat of military
action. This time the USS John F Kennedy and
its battle group was despatched to the Gulf of
Sidra, with the USS Theodore Roosevelt battle
group being prepared to follow them.
On the morning of January 3, 1989, four
pairs of F-14s, two each from VF-14 and VF-32,
were flying the CAP supported by an E-2C
Hawkeye from VAW-126. On the southernmost
CAP station were VF-32s Gypsy 207, BuNo
159610 and Gypsy 202, BuNo 159437. These
were being flown by Commander Joseph B
Connelly and Commander Leo F Enwright in
the lead in Gypsy 207, and Lieutenant
Hermon C Cook III and Lieutenant
Commander Steven P Collins in Gypsy 202.
At 11.50 hrs, the E-2C confirmed to the CAP
that four MiG -23 fighters had taken off from Al
Bumbaw Air Base near Tobruk. The MiGs
were flying in two pairs separated by about 30
miles (50km) and heading towards the carrier.
The VF-32 pair were ordered to intercept the
Libyan aircraft and shepherd them away from
the ships. The E-2C cleared the F-14 crews to
arm and fire if threatened under their rules of
engagement. The F-14s were initially head-on
to the MiGs, so turned away to indicate that
engagement was not their intent. The MiGs
turned straight towards the Tomcats, so the F-
14s turned again, and again the MiGs
followed. Three more times this happened, all
the time the aircraft getting closer.
By 12.01, Leo Enwright called that the
MiGs had “jinked back at me again for the
fifth time. They’re on my nose now, inside of
20 miles”. Enough was enough, so a few
seconds later the first AIM-7 Sparrow of the
engagement was fired by Gypsy 207 at a
range of 14 nautical miles (26km). Both this
missile and the next Sparrow fired by Gypsy
207 failed to track their targets.
At six miles range, the Tomcats split
up, the MiGs following the wingman,
Gypsy 202. As they did so, Gypsy 207
manoeuvred behind the Libyan aircraft.
Gypsy 202 fired its first missile, an AIM-7
Sparrow, which destroyed one of the MiG-
23s, and shortly afterwards Gypsy 207 fired
an AIM-9 Sidewinder at the second MiG,
which was also shot down. Both Libyan pilots
were seen to eject, but the Libyan Air Force
did not conduct a search and rescue
operation to retrieve them. The second, and
last, battle of the Gulf of Sidra was over. ■
Words: Tim Callaway
 Unc overing a ll
the versions of
the Grum m a n
F-1 4 Tom c a t
A lm o st 750 (all co lo ur)
pho to s are given o fthe
T o m cats.T his bo o k has
the size o f21 x 24cm
(5.33 x 9.5 inch),co ntains
o f1 68 pages and has
additio nal
2 large fo ldo uts
C en tury W in gs (1 m eter / 40” lo ng) w ith
1 /72nd & 1 /48th scale,the
F -14A T O M C A T V F -41 B L A C K A C E S vario us co ckpit lay-o ut
A J107 1981 draw ings and a list o fthe
Bureau N um bers.
• M odelN o.C W 782983
• S cale 1:72 Price: £32.9 9
• D iecast M etal plu s£4.0 0 p& p
• In cludes D isp lay stan d
CH R ISTM AS O PEN D AY AN D B O O K SIG N IN G EV EN T
£64.95 at T h e A viatio n B o o ksh o p
SATU R D AY 1 7th D ECEM B ER & SU N D AY 1 8th D ECEM B ER 9a m - 5pm
20 % D I S C O U N T o f all n ew an d seco n d h an d b o o ks
T elepho ne 0 1 89 2 539 284
A llprice exclude Po sta ge (internatio nal:+44 1 8 92 53 92 84).E m ail: in fo @ aviatio n -b o o ksho p.co m
A llprice subject to cha nge w w w .aviation-bookshop.com
Fo r o ur fullra nge visit o ur w ebsite A lternatively visit o ur sho p
T he A viatio n Bo o ksho p,31 -33V ale Ro ad ,Ro yalTu n b rid geW ells,K en tT N 1 1 BS U K
O pening ho urs are M o nday thro ugh Saturday 9am to 5pm (lo cal tim e)

PREPARE FOR THE FLIGHT

OF YOUR LIFE...
Pilot a Boeing 737 or
an F4 Phantom Flight
Simulator without
leaving the ground!

GIFT VOUCHERS
AVAILABLE ONLINE
...or why not treat
yourself!
V Telephone
REAL V
S I M U L AT I O N
08456 800550
for information
www.realsimulation.co.uk
aviationclassics.co.uk 105
The pilot’s cockpit of the F-14A. Grumman

The RIO’sw cockpit of the F-14A. Grumman

106 aviationclassics.co.uk
In the cockpit
The target detection fire control and weapons systems fitted to the F-14 are some of the
most advanced and long ranged ever devised. In order to effectively use the information
these systems could generate, a crew needed a well designed cockpit to operate from.
Here we take a look inside the ‘office’ of the Tomcat.

T
he first thing you notice about an
F-14 cockpit, front or rear, is just
how low the side walls are
compared to many other types.
The canopy is massive and bulges
out to the sides on either side of your head,
allowing a tremendous degree of downward
view, because you can lean out, as well as 360
degrees around the aircraft. The view is
magnificent, worthy of a great fighter aircraft.
One of the things that immediately endears
the Tomcat to you as a crew member is the
attention to detail in the cockpit. The RIO is
going to have to check behind the aircraft
during combat, so he is given a large and
sturdy handle on top his instrument panel to
hang on to while the F-14 is manoeuvring hard,
a handle he can use to twist almost fully The pilot’s cockpit right side panel in an F-14A. Grumman
around in the cockpit to check the 6 o’clock of
his aircraft is clear. In the front cockpit, there is
a handle mounted ahead of the throttles. The
shock forces of a catapult launch, particularly
at high weights, could cause the pilot’s hand to
be snatched backwards, retarding the throttles
and reducing power just when the aircraft
needs it most. When you are ready to launch,
you push the throttles fully forward and wrap
your fingers around this handle, preventing
the throttles from being jerked shut.
Although the Tomcat is a complex aircraft,
at no time does either cockpit feel cluttered.
The front cockpit on the F-14A is dominated
by the head up display (hud), vertical display
and horizontal display indicators which run
in a strip down the centre of the instrument
panel. The hud sits on top of the panel, with
the vertical display indicator below. On either
side of this are the main flight instruments, The pilot’s cockpit left side panel in an F-14A. Grumman
altimeter, radar altimeter, vertical velocity
indicator and airspeed/mach meter to the On the left-hand side of the cockpit are the Above it is the detail data display panel and
left, the artificial horizon, accelerometer, throttles, like the stick, covered in its attendant controls. On either side of these
clock, standby compass and bearing distance multifunction buttons. As well as these, the are a set of standby flight instruments similar
heading indicator, a kind of radio compass, left panel contains UHF radio, Automated to the front cockpit, as well as a set of threat
are arranged to the right. Of course, these Flight Control System, intercom, oxygen warning lights. The left lower panel contains
gauges are only standby instruments, for use system and other control panels. The right the weapons control and systems test panel,
if the hud fails. All your primary flight data is panel is taken up with the caution and the right has the caution and advisory lights
displayed on that. warning lights panel, electrical, air panel and the large multifunction display.
Below these the engine instruments and conditioning, hydraulic and other control The left side cockpit panel has the
hydraulic and electrical services indicators to panels, including the master test panel. All of command ejection lever, control panel for the
the left, the horizontal situation indicator in the these are well laid out, logical and easy to radar, infra red and TV sensors, liquid-cooling
centre, and the fuel, oxygen and cabin pressure reach from the ejector seat. Not just a good, controls for the Phoenix missiles, TACAN,
instruments to the right. The control stick is but a great example of the early application of intercom and UHF radio panels, as well as the
mounted centrally, with a set of multifunction ergonomics to an aircraft cockpit. computer address panel and antenna select
buttons set comfortably into the top and front. The rear cockpit is dominated by the huge and control panel. The right-hand side contains
The undercarriage lever, fuel management radar screen or tactical information display as the defensive and electronic countermeasures
panel, emergency stores jettison and launch bar it is known, sitting in the centre of the lower control panels, jamming system control panel,
abort panel form the lower left forward panel, panel. Below this is the control panel and electrical and radar control panels, IFF
the displays control and arresting hook panels hand controller that enables the RIO to steer transponder and antenna control panels,
form the lower right one. and operate the radar and other sensors. data link control and reply panels and the ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 107

The AN/AWG-9 radar display in the RIO’s
cockpit. A phenomenal amount of data
could be diplayed here in various modes.
Hughes

digital data indicator panel. All of this may

seem a lot at first pass, but like all good
designs, it is something you quickly become The RIO’s cockpit left side panel in an F-14A. Grumman
used too. Even with the introduction of digital
avionics in the F-14D, the basic layout of both
cockpits didn’t change much, the most obvious
change being that of the additional
multifunction display in the front cockpit main
instrument panel to the right of the combined
horizontal and vertical display indicator. In the
rear cockpit, the upper detail data display
screen got a lot bigger, but that was about it
except for some detail control changes for the
new systems. What this meant was that any
crew could transition from the F-14A to the B
or D relatively quickly, as all the basics were in
the same place.
The seats are comfortable, the office is
roomy, well laid out and air conditioned, but
more than anything else, the view from the
window is unparalleled!
■ Words: Tim Callaway

The RIO’s cockpit left side panel in an F-14A. Grumman

The modified instrument panel in the pilot’s

cockpit of the F-14D. Note the two new
multifunction displays. Grumman

One of the keys to the Tomcat’s success was the unparalleled view from the cockpit. One
The modified instrument panel in the RIO’s of the keys to that was the dedication of the groundcrews. Here, a plane captain cleans
cockpit of the F-14D. Note the much larger the canopy of an F-14D Tomcat prior to flight operations aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft
upper detail data display. Grumman carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). US Navy

108 aviationclassics.co.uk
For the deck crews carrier fight
operations are noisy and dangerous.
Here a F-14 of VF-102 positions onto the
catapult of the USS John F Kennedy
prior to launch. Luigino Caliaro
SUBSCRIBE
& SAVE
Get 6 issues of Aviation Classics when
you subscribe for just £30 a year (UK)

Now in its third successful year, Aviation Classics’ innovative and fresh approach has focused on the world’s greatest
aircraft, the events in which they played vital roles along with those who flew, maintained and supported them, and is
earning it an enviable reputation in the marketplace. By subscribing to Aviation Classics you’ll receive each copy as soon
as it’s published as well as getting amazing value for money at just £5 per issue! But don’t take our word for it, here’s just a
few of our reader comments about some of our earlier issues:
● “Allow me to congratulate you on your absolutely
best in class aviation journal, Aviation Classics!”
● “I personally feel it is a perfectly balanced publication.”
● “Was amazed at the fantastic job you have done! Just a collector’s dream!”
● “Stupendous! The articles are varied, well researched and splendidly written
– and the visuals, especially the colour photography, is brilliant.”
● “Having read many aviation magazines, may I say it is one of the best, if not the best.”


ONLINE
www.classicmagazines.co.uk
 PHONE
uk 01507 529529
oVeRseas +44 (0)1507 529529
Lines open weekdays 8.30am – 5pm (GmT)

POST
simpLy FiLL in The
FoRm pRoVided and ReTuRn
To ouR freepost addRess
FRom noV 1 – deC 21 8.30am – 7pm (GmT)

3 easy ways to subscribe

110 aviationclassics.co.uk
 AVIATION CLASSICS

subscription forM
> only *£30 (uK) on direct debit
(last year’s price)
PRICE
FREEZE

BIG SAVINGS BY
ISSUE 13

WHEN YOU PAY

direct debit
To subscribe to AC simply complete the form below and return to:
> DelivereD to your Door Days AC SUBSCrIPTIONS, MOrTONS MEDIA GrOUP LTD,
before it goes on sale  FrEEPOST DC113, HOrNCASTLE, LINCOLNSHIrE LN9 6Br


one year one year
> save paper, save time: fill in your DiReCt Debit PRICE CReDit CARD/Cheque
FREEZE
email on the subscription form uK ■ £30 ■ £30
eu ■ £38
> misseD an issue? Rest of WoRlD ■ £48

as a subscriber you can purchase > PAYEr’S DETAILS (MUST BE COMPLETED)

single issues for only £5 Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms (please circle)
call 01507 529529 anD quote your First name Surname
subscriber number or visit Email
www.aviationclassics.co.uk for
Telephone
more Details
Mobile Year of Birth

Address

Postcode

> DELIVErY DETAILS (IF DIFFErENT TO ABOVE)

Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms (please circle)
First name Surname

Address

Postcode
On occasion Mortons Media Group Ltd may decide to contact you by post/ phone regarding information relating to
current offers of products or services (including discounted subscription offers) which we believe may be of interest to
our readers. If you do not wish to receive such offers please tick this box ■
On occasion Mortons Media Group Ltd may decide to email/fax you regarding information relating to current offers of
products or services (including discounted subscription offers) which we believe may be of interest to our readers. If
you wish to receive such offers, please tick this box ■
On occasion Mortons Media Group Ltd may permit third parties, that we deem to be reputable, to contact you by
post/ phone/fax/email regarding information relating to current offers of products or services which we believe may be
of interest to our readers. If you wish to receive such offers please tick this box ■

> PAYMENT METHOD

1. ■ Direct Debit
instruction to bank/building society to pay by Direct Debit:
I would like to change/take out a subscription for £30 per annum (UK only)

Account in the name of

subscriber

Account number Sort code

benefits:
Name of Bank/Building Society

Address

when you subscribe to Aviation Postcode

Classics you’ll also benefit from
these great online services:
> View and amend your
subscription details in a personal
login area just for you
Please pay Mortons Media Group Ltd direct debits from the account detailed in the instructions,
subject to the safeguards of the Direct Debit Guarantee. I understand that this instruction may
remain with Mortons Media Group and, if so, details will be passed electronically to my
Bank/Building Society. Originator’s ID number: 8 3 0 3 9 0
Signature Date

Reference number (office use only)

> Check the status of your
subscription, so you’ll know 2. ■ Debit/creDit carD

when it’s time to renew Please debit my: ■ Visa ■ Mastercard ■ Switch/Maestro
Card number:
> Renew your subscription
securely online with our simple Start date / Expiry date /
step-by-step order system 3 digit verification code Switch issue number

> Access great online offers:

 www.classicmagazines.co.uk/ac Signature Date

3. ■ cheque I enclose a cheque made payable to Mortons Media Group Ltd

 Aviation artist Adam Tooby has produced some beautiful limited edition A2 fine art prints from his work especially for
Aviation Classics. These stunning images are perfect for framing or the perfect gift for the aerophile in your life. To order
your limited edition Aviation Classics prints, complete the form on the opposite page, or a photocopy of it, and send it along
with your cheque to Finest Hour Art. Alternatively, you can order your prints online at
www.finesthourart.com/aviationclassics

F4U CORSAIRS

DEATH RATTLERS

THE CHECKERBOARDERS THE POLKA-DOTS

HARRIERS

IRAQI FREEDOM FLEEING HAWKS

 F86 SABRE

60 FIS AEROBATIC TEAM TO THE RESCUE

DE HAVILLAND MOSQUITO

JAIL BREAKERS HIDE & SEEK

Please send me: Price Qty Total

Title ................................................Forename ............................................................................................................... 60th FIS AEROBATIC TEAM £39.95 £

TO THE RESCUE £39.95 £
Surname........................................................................................................................................................................... JAIL BREAKERS £39.95 £
HIDE & SEEK £39.95 £
Address .............................................................................................................................................................................
IRAQI FREEDOM £39.95 £
..........................................................................................................................................Postcode................................ FLEEING HAWKS £39.95 £
THE CHECKERBOARDERS £39.95 £
Email .................................................................................................................................................................................. DEATH RATTLERS £39.95 £
Telephone ........................................................................................................................................................................ THE POLKA-DOTS £39.95 £
P&P £5.95 1 £5.95
Are you a subscriber? ❏ yes ❏ no Grand Total £

Mortons Media Group may wish to send you details of other special offers and promotions in the future that ❏ I wIsh to pay by cheque
we think may be of interest to you. We will NOT pass your details on to any other third party. If, however, you
do NOT wish to be contacted, please tick here ❏ I enclose my cheque for £............................... (payable to Finest Hour Art)

Send to: Finest Hour Art, PO Box 265, Winsford, Cheshire, CW7 3FL www.finesthourart.com/aviationclassics
The Quickstrike
to ASF-14 – The last
Tomcat proposals
By 1987, Grumman realised that the potential for growth had not yet been reached by the F-14
airframe, and made a number of final proposals for advanced versions of the airframe to take the
Tomcat into the 21st Centur y.

A
ltogether four advanced
versions of the F-14 were
proposed to the US Navy,
one as an alternative to the
hugely expensive Advanced
Tactical Fighter programme. Sadly, none
of the proposals were ever to become more
than paper exercises and models, but they
do make interesting reading, and bring
the still untapped potential of the F-14
airframe to light.
The first poroposal was the F-14D
Quickstrike. Fitted with an improved APG-71
radar featuring advanced air-to-air and air-to-
ground modes, the Quickstrike would have
been able to carry more stand-off weapons
like the Harpoon, HARM and SLAM
(Standoff Land Attack Missile) missiles. This
would have made the F-14 a far more
effective ground attack aircraft, and a very
cost effective one as the development costs
would have been minimal. The aircraft and its
equipment required only new software and
minor modifications to fulfil the role. The
proposal did not quite meet the US Navy’s
Advanced Tactical Fighter specification, so
the contract went to developing the far more
expensive and shorter ranged F/A-18E/F.
The next proposal was for the ST21, the
Super Tomcat for the 21st Century. This was
more of a structural upgrade to the F-14D,
featuring a new wing glove design which
would have enlarged the glove, solving both

A model of the ST21, Super Tomcat for the

21st century as proposed by Grumman.
National Museum of Naval Aviation.

114 aviationclassics.co.uk
A model of the ST21, note the repositioned
sensors to the front of the underfuselage
weapons rails supplementing the nose mounted
pod. National Museum of Naval Aviation.
aerodynamic and structural problems in a
single modification. A single piece
windscreen to improve the view was fitted.
The wing was modified with a new leading
edge and new Fowler flaps, both of which
would have increased the wing performance
markedly, throughout the speed range.
Lastly, the obvious podded sensors under the
nose were moved aft to the front of the
underfuselage weapons rails.
The new aircraft would also have a new
engine, the F110-GE-129 of 29,000lb
(13,154kg) of thrust. These engines were to
provide a supercruise speed of Mach 1.3 and
feature thrust vectoring nozzles for greater
manoeuvrability. Possessed of even greater
fuel efficiency, the new engine would have
not only given the ST21 tremendous
acceleration from the extra power, it would
also have greatly increased the range of the
aircraft without the addition of a single fuel
tank. New tanks were intended to be placed
in the redesigned wing gloves, however, as
the structural weight saving from the
redesign outweighed the additional fuel. The
new tanks were to carry an additional 2200lb
(998kg) in each glove, increasing the internal
fuel stowage to 18,500lb (8392kg).
Although the empty weight of the ST21
would have increased by 1000lb (454kg) over
the F-14D, the advanced aerodynamics and
increased power meant that the approach
speed was reduced by 15 knots (28kph), and
the aircraft could be launched with a 7 knot
(12kph) tailwind over the deck. All of this
would have been achieved at minimal cost,
because, like the Quickstrike concept, the
ST21 was a modification of the existing F-14D.
Beyond the ST21 came the AST21, or Attack
Super Tomcat for the 21st Century. The major
changes to this aircraft from the ST21 concept
was the addition of extra bomb pylons under
the engine nacelles, where the drop tanks
traditionally were mounted, as well as a nuclear
weapons capability. The TSC and IRST would
be removable for attack missions to save
weight, being remountable for any air-to-air
missions to give the AST21 the full sensor suite
on demand. The radar would also be modified
with a Forward Air Controller mode to better
facilitate that role. The cockpit would have been
better armoured and an Integrated Defensive
Avionics Package (IDAP) would have been
fitted to improve survivability in the air-to-
ground environment. Again, this would have
been a very cost effective aircraft as the F-14D
could have been modified to this standard,
providing the US Navy with an ultra-long
ranged strike aircraft with all the performance
of a world class fighter at minimum expense.
The last F-14 concept put forward was the
ASF-14 Advanced Strike Fighter. The first
three concepts discussed here were all
upgrades to the existing Tomcat, but the
ASF-14 was a brand new aircraft, only F-14
shaped! The new design would have taken
advantages of the new materials and
technologies developed during the Advanced
Tactical Fighter and Advanced Tactical
Attack Aircraft programmes. The cost of this
aircraft would have been high, as they would
all have to have been new build aircraft.
Although none of these proposals were
accepted, they do show that there was a lot of
life left in Grumman’s venerable old cat. ■
Words: Tim Callaway
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 115
Goodbye
to the big bird
The last F-14 Tomcat combat sortie took place on Februar y 8, 2006, when two F-14Ds, one from
VF-31 and one from VF-213, flew a bombing mission over Iraq from the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
That was not quite the end of the stor y however.

T
he last F-14 combat sortie was
flown by Lieutenant Justin
Halligan and Lieutenant Bill
Frank from VF-31, who had
actually dropped their bombs on
Iraq. With them was the Commander of Air
Wing Eight, Captain William G Sizemore, in
an F-14D of VF-213, who made the last carrier
landing after a combat sortie by the F-14.
On March 10, 2006, all 22 Tomcats from
these squadrons flew in a single formation to
NAS Oceana, marking the end of the last
carrier deployment of the F-14. VF-31
remained operational until September,
conducting the last carrier qualifications by
the F-14 in July. The last F-14 to be catapulted
from an aircraft carrier was a VF-31 F-14D,
shot from the USS Theodore Roosevelt on
July 28, 2006. The crew was Lieutenant Blake
Coleman and Lieutenant Commander Dave
Lauderbaugh. The last trap recovery was
Sailors from Fighter Squadron Three One (VF-31) salute the departing aircrew, marking the made the same day, by Lieutenant Chris
final flight of the F-14 Tomcat at Naval Air Station Oceana.US Navy Rattigan and Lieutenant Paul Dort. ➤

Aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN

71), an F-14D Tomcat assigned to the
‘Tomcatters’ of Fighter Squadron Three
One (VF-31), aircraft number 112,
completes the final catapult launch of
an F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. US Navy
Aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), an F-14D Tomcat assigned to the ‘Tomcatters’ of Fighter Squadron Three One (VF-31), aircraft number
112, accelerates down the ship’s number three catapult during the final launch of an F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. US Navy

The crowd gives a hats off and three cheers

led by Commander, US Fleet Forces
Command Admiral John B Nathman, as part
of the ‘Sunset Ceremony’ held at Naval Air
Station Oceana.The ceremony commemorated
those who designed, flew and maintained
the F-14 Tomcat for 36 years. US Navy

A pilot assigned to the ‘Tomcatters’ of Fighter Squadron Three One (VF-31) waves the ensign
after completing the final deployment flying the F-14 Tomcats. US Navy Aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71),
an F-14D Tomcat, aircraft number 101, piloted
by Lieutenant Chris Rattigan and Lieutenant
Its fame wIth the publIc was InspIred by the movIes, Its Paul Dort, assigned to the ‘Tomcatters’ of
Fighter Squadron Three One (VF-31),
fame wIth aIr and ground crews was InspIred by Its completes the last scheduled arrested
sheer power and performance landing of an F-14 fighter aircraft.US Navy

An F-14D of VF-31, the

last unit to fly the F-14
in US Navy service.
Keith Draycott

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 117

Right: A crowd gathers to bid farewell to
the F-14D Tomcat during the final flight
ceremony at Naval Air Station Oceana.
US Navy

Below right: Twenty-two F-14D Tomcats

from Fighter Squadron Two One Three (VF-
213) and VF-31 conduct a flypast at
Naval Air Station Oceana airfield at the
end of their final deployment flying the F-
14 Tomcat. US Navy

The final flight ceremony was held at NAS

Oceana in front of over 1300 former Tomcat
air and ground crew on September 22, 2006.
The ceremonial last flight was made that day
by Commander Chris Richard and Lieutenant
Mike Petronis. There was one more flight
after this, on October 4, 2006, when a VF-31
F-14D was ferried from Oceana to Republic
Airport on Long Island, New York.
After 36 years of service, the mighty
Tomcat prowled the skies no more. The
aircraft that replaced it still do not have its
performance in terms of range and the sheer
power of its sensors, nor do they have the
reach of the AIM-54 Phoenix. Its fame with
the public was inspired by the movies, its
fame with air and ground crews was inspired
by its sheer power and performance.
The images here capture some of the
events that ushered the F-14 from potent
front line combat aircraft to museum piece, in
my opinion somewhat before her time. ■
Words: Tim Callaway

Sunset on a legend. An F-14D

Tomcat of VF-31 sits on the
flight deck aboard USS
Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71).
“And at the going down of the
sun, we will remember them.”
Respectfully dedicated to the
69 Tomcat crewmembers killed
while flying the jet. US Navy
An F-14D of VF-31 just
before touch down on the
deck of the USS Abraham
Lincoln. Luigino Caliaro
The Iranian F-14
– the last Tomcat
I
The last operator of the F-14 in front line ser vice is also the only n 1941, Iran’s pro-Axis stance led to an
export customer for the aircraft. David Oliver tells the stor y of Anglo-Russian occupation of the
neutral nation to protect the oilfields
Iran’s acquisition and combat use of the Tomcat. belonging to the British-controlled
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, forcing
the ruling Shah to abdicate in favour of his
son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
A decade later Shah Pahlavi’s position was
threatened when the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company was nationalised by his Prime
Minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh, who was
removed from power in a coup codenamed
Operation Ajax in August 1953, organised
and carried out by the United States’ CIA at
the request of the British MI6.
After the 1953 coup, British influence in
Iran began to wane and the country became
one of the client states of the United States.
During the following two decades, the grateful
Shah began to spend his ever- increasing oil
revenues on expanding his armed forces with
the latest American equipment, and state-of-
the-art combat aircraft for the Imperial Iranian
Air Force (IIAF) in particular.
Since the early 1970s, Soviet MiG-25R
IIAF F-14 Tomcat serial 3-6056 armed with underwing Sidewinder and underbelly Phoenix air- Foxbat supersonic interceptors had regularly
to-air missiles. via David Oliver overflown Iran with immunity from attack by

Iran placed an order for 30 Tomcats in

January 1974 and the order was quickly
increased to 80 aircraft.This was during
the Shah of Iran’s tenure when their
government was very pro-Western.This
shows the production line for the F-14s that
were destined for Iran at the Calverton,
New York Plant. Grumman History Center
 An Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) F-
14A on a test flight off the east coast
of the US in 1976. Luigino Caliaro
the IIAF. The search for a new
fighter/interceptor began with senior Iranian
pilots test flying virtually every Western fighter
aircraft available at the time, plus covertly
flying MiGs in other ‘friendly’ countries.
In the end, the Grumman F-14A Tomcat
armed with Hughes AIM-54A Phoenix AAM,
unquestionably one of the most potent
warplanes in the world at that time, was
selected in August 1973 as the IIAF’s principal
interceptor. The importance to US foreign
policy of the Shah was indicated by the fact
that Iran was the only export customer for
this sophisticated and expensive package.
An initial order signed in January of
1974 covered the purchase of 30 F-14s, but in
June an additional 50 Tomcats were added to
the contract. The Iranian Tomcats were
virtually identical to the US Navy F-14A
An Imperial Iranian Air Force F-14 Tomcat
aerial refuelling from a Boeing 707 tanker.
via David Oliver
variant, with only a few classified avionics
items being omitted.
The base site for Iranian Tomcat operations
was Khatami Air Force Base at Isfahan and
1 Squadron at Shiraz Tactical Fighter Base.
Imperial Iranian Air Force aircrew, mainly
experienced F-4 pilots, began to arrive in the
US for training in May of 1974, the first pilots
going to Naval Air Station Miramar in
California and the second group to Naval Air
Station Oceana in Virginia. After completion of
F-14 training in USA, they returned home to
become IIAF F-14 instructor pilots with one of
them remaining in the US to test fire the
Phoenix missile. After returning
to Isfahan, the qualified instructors started
training the rest of the pilots with the
co-operation of four American F-14 instructors
who were part of the original contract.
The Iranian Tomcats were fairly late on the
production line and were therefore delivered
with the Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-414A after-
burning turbofans, which were much more
reliable than the compressor-stall-prone
P-412A engine. The first two of 79 Tomcats
arrived in Iran in January of 1976, one of which
was flown by an IIAF pilot. By May of 1977,
when Iran celebrated the 50th anniversary of
the Royal House, 12 had been delivered.
During this period Soviet MiG-25 Foxbats
were still overflying Iran and the Shah
ordered live firing tests of the Phoenix to
be carried out as a warning. In August of
1977, an IIAF Tomcat crew shot down a
BQM-34E drone flying at 50,000 feet and the
Soviets took the hint and promptly ended the
Foxbat overflights.
The IIAF Tomcats bore the US Navy serial
numbers of 160299/160378 and were
assigned the IIAF serial numbers 3-863 to
3-942, later 3-6001 to 3-6080. The 79th F-14
was delivered to Iran in 1978 with the last
Tomcat, BuNo 160378, being retained in the
US for use as a test bed. Iran had also
ordered a total of 714 AIM-54A Phoenix
missiles, but only 284 were ever delivered.
However, the Shah’s westernisation of his
country and authoritarian rule alienated the
powerful mullahs and following massive
demonstrations and the imposition of martial
law, he was forced to flee from the country in
January 1979. A Revolutionary Council
presided over by the exiled cleric Ayatollah
Khomeini took over the reins of power and
established the Islamic Republic of Iran and set
about eradicating the relationship with the
West, and the United States in particular. The
defence budget was severely curtailed and all
outstanding orders placed by the Shah’s
government, including an additional order for
400 AIM-54A Phoenix missiles, were cancelled.
This was followed by the imposition of a
strict arms embargo against Iran by the West
which caused a severe shortage of spare
parts and skilled personnel, in addition to
which many experienced pilots and
maintenance personnel had followed the
Shah into exile. As a result, by 1980, the air
force was only a shadow of its former self.
This embargo was to have an especially
severe long-term effect on the Tomcat fleet,
since the embargo prevented the delivery of
any airframe or engine spares, and air-
launched weapons. ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 121
 The shortcomings of the new Islamic
Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) were
highlighted when the sporadic war with
neighbouring Iraq gained momentum in 1982
when Iran launched an offensive to regain
much of the border area occupied by Iraq in
late 1980. Air power did not play a dominant
role in the Iran-Iraq war but during the early
phase of the war, Iranian aircraft had the fuel,
armament and the endurance to win most of
the aerial encounters, either by downing Iraqi
aircraft with their first shot of an AIM-9
sidewinder or else by forcing Iraqi fighters to
break off the engagement.
Iranian pilots initially had the edge in
training and experience, but as the war
dragged on, this advantage was gradually lost
because of the repeated purges within the
ranks of the IRIAF that removed experienced
A formation of three IRIAF F-14
Tomcats flying over Tehran during
Iran’s annual National Army Day
parade in April 2011. Afshin Hazrate
officers who were suspected of disloyalty to
the Islamic regime. As the stalemated war
continued, the IRIAF could not generate
more than 60 sorties per day, whereas the
number of sorties that Iraq could mount
steadily increased year after year, reaching a
peak as high as 600 in 1986-88.
It is extremely difficult to get any reliable
estimates of just how many Iranian F-14As
were in service at any one time during the
war, with some having to be cannibalised to
keep others flying. In the summer of 1984, it
was estimated that only 15 to 20 IIRAF
Tomcats were operational. However,
although few of them were available for air
combat, several were used to good effect
serving in a mini-AWACS role by virtue of
their powerful AN/AWG-9 radars and two-
man crew.
Those that were able to engage the enemy
during the war, scored most of their kills with
AIM-54A Phoenix missiles, losing only one
Tomcat in combat when it was caught off-
guard while operating as a singleton by an
Iraqi MiG-21, apparently a Fishbed modified
to fire Magic Mk.1 AAMs, after which all the
Tomcats operated in pairs. Another was lost
when its crew ejected after losing control
when the aircraft entered in spin and a
surface-to-air missile (SAM) hit another F-14
over the disputed Kharg Island in the Persian
Gulf. Iraq’s late model Mirage F.1EQ-6
fighters with Super R-530 AAMs were the
closest it had to match the Tomcat, finally
downing a pair just before the end of
hostilities in the summer 1988.
The IRIAF’s top-scoring pilot was
Brigadier General Jalil Zandi who served for
the full duration of the Iran-Iraq war. His
record qualifies him as an ace and the most
successful pilot of that conflict. Described as
‘brazen’, he began his career in the Shah’s
IIAF and stayed on to serve in the IRIAF
when it was somewhat dangerous for pilots to
continue their military service. While a
major, he often clashed with his superior Col
Baba’ie, the officer responsible for keeping
Iran’s Air Force in the skies. He spent at least
two periods in prison, one under a threatened
death sentence that was decreed by
revolutionary Mullahs.
Nevertheless, he was reliably credited with
shooting down nine Iraqi aircraft and three
probable kills. These included two MiG-23s,
two Su-22s, one MiG-21 and three Mirage F1s.
His record made him the most successful F-14
Tomcat combat pilot ever. He was shot down
once, in February 1988, when his Tomcat was
hit by missiles fired from Iraqi Mirage F-1EQ.
He tried to return to base but his remaining
engine failed and he was forced to eject. He
rose to the rank of Brigadier General and his
last official post was Deputy for Planning and
Organisation of the IRIAF. He died in a car
accident near Tehran in 2001.
In spite of the Western arms embargo, Iran
has been able to maintain a more-or-less
steady supply of spare parts for its fleet of
Tomcats from several sources including the
Iranian Aircraft Industries based at 1st Tactical
Air Base in Tehran. Some may also have been
smuggled into Iran by Israel and it has been
rumoured that the Russians provided
assistance to upgrade Tomcat’s ageing
airframe, and it has been experimentally fitted
with a Russian-built engine and ejection seat.
The US government also supplied a limited
amount of arms to Iran in exchange for its
assistance in getting hostages held in Lebanon
released although these were unlikely to be F-
14 spares. However, as a result of the
notorious Iran-Contra scandal, Iran was
reported to have received Tomcat landing
gear equipment and avionics.
Iran’s indigenous aircraft industries have
kept the AN/AWG-9 radar operational, and
the IRIAF Tomcats are capable of firing AIM-
9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles
and anti-ship missiles. Most Iranian Tomcats
fly with a missile load of four Sparrows and
two Sidewinders for air-to-air operations. Iran
 A pristine Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force
(IRIAF) F-14 Tomcat, one of six that were
flown in a military parade over Tehran in
April 2011. Mohammad Razzazan
This US Navy F-14A Tomcat in the markings of the Islamic Republic of
Iran Air Force was used by an Aggressor unit in the 1990s. US Navy
is reportedly developing a domestic version
of the Sparrow to replace its stock of
expended missiles.
The IRIAF has also experimented with a
number of Raytheon MIM-23 Hawk surface-
to-air missiles for carriage on its F-14 Tomcat
fighters in the air-to-air role under a
programme known as Sky Hawk and has
recently revealed its own version of the
Hawk, the Shahin, which it claims to be
under production.
A number of foreign nationals have in fact
been implicated in efforts to illegally
smuggle aircraft components from the
United States to Iran. Two men were charged
in December 2000 for attempting to illegally
purchase F-4, F-5, and F-14 parts and ship
them to Iran by way of Singapore. A fugitive
An IRIAF Grumman F-14A
Tomcat in current
markings. Keith Draycott
An Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) F-14A at altitude with the wings
fully swept. National Museum of Naval Aviation
named Houshang Amir Bagheri is also listed
on the US Customs ‘Most Wanted’ list for his
attempts to acquire classified F-14
components on behalf of Iran.
“Given the current situation in Iran” the
US Department of Defense announced in
January 2007 that sales of surplus spare parts
for the US Navy’s recently retired F-14s were
to be suspended due to concerns that they
could end up in Iran. In July 2007, the
remaining US Navy F-14 Tomcats were being
scrapped to ensure that F-14 spare parts
would not be acquired by governments
“considered hostile to the US”. In the summer
of 2010, Iran requested that the United States
deliver the 80th F-14 it had purchased in
1974 but delivery was withheld after the
Islamic Revolution. The request was rejected
but it is not clear if this aircraft still exists.
Iran now claims to have more than 20
operational F-14As and as many again in
storage for spare parts. The Iranian
aerospace industry has been producing up to
70% of spare parts for several US types
including the Tomcat, and IRIAF’s Tomcat
Overhaul Centre at Isfahan has been
modifying the extant fleet’s wiring and fire
control system for compatibility with iron
bombs, to become ‘Bombcats’.
Three Tomcat units, the 81st, 82nd and
83rd Tactical Fighter Squadrons, are all based
at the 8th Tactical Fighter Base at Isfahan, the
last home of the outstanding F-14 Tomcat,
one of the world’s greatest long-range
interceptors, the last of Grumman’s fighting
felines. ■ Words: David Oliver
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 123

Unknown locations
F-14A (BuNo 157984)
– On outdoor static display
F-14D (BuNo 161159)
– On outdoor static display
F-14A (BuNo 162710)
– On outdoor static display
known locations
F-14A (BuNo 157982) – On loan to
Cradle of Aviation Museum, 1 Davis
Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530 –
Prototype Number 3 (Nonstructural
Demonstration Testbed)
F-14A (BuNo 157986) – On loan to
Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum,
166 W 46th Street, New York, New
York 10036 – YF-14A/B “Super Tomcat”
Prototype
F-14A (BuNo 157988) – On loan to
Naval Air Station Oceana,Virginia
YF-14A (BuNo 157990) – On loan to
March Field Museum Foundation,
22550 Van Buren Blvd, Riverside,
California 92518 – YF-14A Prototype
Number 11 Avionics Testbed
F-14A (BuNo 158617) – On loan
to Egypt Veterans of Foreign Wars
Post No. 7293, 5209 Springmill Rd,
Whitehall, Pennsylvania 18052 – VF-103
“Jolly Rogers”
F-14A (BuNo 158623) – On loan to
Point Mugu Missile Park, Naval Air
Station Point Mugu,Ventura County,
California – VX-30 “Vampires”
F-14A (BuNo 158978) – On loan to San
Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum, San
Diego, California
F-14A (BuNo 158985) – On loan to
Yanks Air Museum, Chino Airport,
Ontario, California 91762
F-14A (BuNo 158998) – On loan to Air
Victory Museum, 68 Stacy Haines Rd,
Medford, New Jersey 08048
F-14 160898 on display at the Palm
Springs Air Museum in California in
the markings of VF-41, the “Black
Aces”. Constance Redgrave
Survivors
– Museum Tomcats
A list of all the sur viving Tomcats in the United States, with one
in Japan and three in Iran.
T
he following pages contain a list
of all the Tomcats we know about
that survive today. These are split
up into three sections, all of
which are arranged by their US
Navy serial number, known as the BuNo.
Firstly there are three aircraft where their
location is unknown, then those at known
locations, with additional details such as the
colour schemes the aircraft are displayed in.
Lastly, there are two aircraft where the BuNo
is unknown.
If you know of any aircraft we have
missed from this list, or if any of the details in
the list have changed, please let us know and
we will publish amendments on the Aviation
Classics website.
That so many airframes survive is
testimony to the popularity of the aircraft and
its fame. A great deal of work, at no small
cost, was required in order to save these
aircraft from destruction. The reason so
many were completely destroyed – and by
that we really do mean shredded into small
pieces at great cost – was to prevent the
Iranian Government from obtaining spare
parts or upgrades for its fleet of Tomcats.
Many attempts to purchase and export
part or whole airframes and engines were
made through a variety of third parties, fake
companies and other secretive means. All of
the F-14s on display today have had major
components such as the engines removed, as
well as their radars and other sensitive
electronics and systems. Most are literally
shells of aircraft, but serve to represent the
mighty Tomcat in museums and other
institutions, reminding any visitor of what a
large, yet elegant, aircraft the F-14 was for a
carrier-based fighter. Even sitting in a
museum, the Tomcat still looks like it is
doing Mach 2.
I was lucky enough to be at Nellis Air
Force base in 2003 for its annual Aviation
Nation air show. Unusually it had rained on
the Saturday morning, I say unusually
because Nellis lies on the outskirts of Las
Vegas, in the middle of the Nevada Desert.
Close to the beginning of the show was a
display by an F-14 of VF-101 which remains
in my mind one of the most spectacular and
awe inspiring aircraft displays it has ever
been my privilege to witness.
The humid air meant that on his arrival
into the display area, at about 300 feet and
close to 0.9 Mach with the wings fully swept,
only the nose of the aircraft was visible, the
rest of the airframe was occluded in a self
generated cloud. With a great whispering
whoosh, followed by an ear splitting roar as it
went past, it seemed like the F-14 was literally
tearing the sky apart.

F-14 157986 on display at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, was the seventh Tomcat built by
Grumman and was retained as their primary research and development airframe. In 1973, it
served as the prototype for the F-14B and later D. Ad Meskens
What followed was the sight of a
massive and powerful aircraft performing
aerobatics within the airfield boundary
and generally impressing the crowd into
silence at its majestic and potent
performance. I am very sorry there are no
more Tomcats flying, as I wish everybody
could witness an F-14 display.
However, all is not completely lost, there
are many films and movie clips on the
internet that feature the Tomcat in all its
YF-14 157982 on display at the Cradle of Aviation Museum.This aircraft is the third pre-production
aircraft which first flew on December 28, 1971 at the Grumman Flight Test Facility at Calverton,
New York. It was primarily used as a Nonstructural Demonstration Testbed. Ad Meskens
F-14A 160684 in the Pima Air and Space Museum in the markings of VF-111 the “Sundowners”.
Constance Redgrave
impressive might, which will do until Iran
decides to put one of its remaining aircraft on
the international display circuit!
Lastly, it is understood that three retired
F-14 airframes are on display in Iran, at
Tehran, Esfahan and Bushehr. No other
details or photographs of these aircraft are
available, but again, if you know of any
sources, please let us know and we will
update the information via the Aviation
Classics website. ■ Words: Tim Callaway
F-14A (BuNo 158999) – On loan to
Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base
(NAS/JRB) Ft. Worth Texas 76127
F-14A (BuNo 159025) – On loan to
Patriots Point Naval and Maritime
Museum, 40 Patriots Point Road, Mt
Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 – VF-
143 “Black Lions”
F-14A (BuNo 159445) – On loan to
Naval Air Station Norfolk, Norfolk,
Virginia
F-14A (BuNo 159448) – On loan to
NAVICP, 700 Robbins St, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19111 – VF-154 “Black
Knights”
F-14A (BuNo 159455) – On loan to
Naval Test Wing Atlantic, Naval Air
Station Patuxent River, Lexington Park,
Maryland 20670 – VX-23 “Flight Test
Squadron Aircraft”
F-14A (BuNo 159591) – On loan to
NALF, Fentress,Virginia – VF-101 “Grim
Reapers”
F-14A (BuNo 159600) – On loan to OV-
10 Bronco Museum, 3300 Ross Avenue
Fort Worth,Texas 76106 – VF-31
“Tomcatters”“Christine”, the longest-
serving Tomcat in US Navy,
remanufactured F-14 originally built in
1976, made final 2006 cruise.
F-14D (BuNo 159610) – On loan to
National Air and Space Museum,
Steven F Udvar-Hazy Center, Sully,
Virginia 20151 – VF-31 “Tomcatters”
F-14D (BuNo 159619) – On loan to
Sun N’ Fun Museum, 4175 Medulla
Road, Lakeland, Florida 33811 – VF-31
“Tomcatters”
F-14A (BuNo 159620) – On loan to
Pioneer’s Museum, 373 E Aten Rd,
Imperial, CA 92251
F-14A (BuNo 159626) – On loan to
Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada
89406 – VF-103 “Jolly Rogers”
F-14D (BuNo 159629) – On loan to
Wedell-Williams Aviation Museum, 118
Cotton Road, Patterson, Louisiana
70392
F-14A (BuNo 159631) – On loan to San
Diego Aerospace Museum, San Diego,
California 92101
F-14A (BuNo 159829) – On loan to
Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space
Museum, Denver, Colorado 80230 – VF-
211 “Checkmates”
F-14A (BuNo 159830) – On loan to
Western Museum of Flight,Torrance,
California 90505
F-14A (BuNo 159848) – On loan to
Tillamook Air Museum,Tillamook,
Oregon – VF-213 “Black Lions”
F-14A (BuNo 159853) – On loan to
Defense Supply Center Richmond,
Richmond,Virginia – VF-142
“Ghostriders”
F-14A (BuNo 159856) – On loan to
Naval Air Facility (NAF) El Centro,
California
F-14A (BuNo 160382) – On loan to
Museum of Flight, 9404 East Marginal
Way S, Seattle, Washington 98108 – VF-
103 “Jolly Rogers” ➤
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 125
F-14A (BuNo 160386) – On loan to
Delaware Valley Historical A/C
Association, Naval Air Station Willow
Grove, Pennsylvania 19090 – VF-84
“Jolly Rogers”
F-14A (BuNo 160391) – On loan to
Texas Air Museum, Caprock Chapter,
Slaton,Texas – VF-84 “Jolly Rogers”
F-14A (BuNo 160395) – On loan to Air
Zoo, Millwood, Michigan 49002 – VF-84
“Jolly Rogers”
F-14A (BuNo 160401) – On loan to
Fleet Area Control and Surveillance,
Naval Air Station Oceana,Virginia
F-14A (BuNo 160403) – On loan to
American Airpower Heritage Museum,
Midland International Airport, Midland,
Texas 79706
F-14A (BuNo 160411) – On loan to
Empire State Aeroscience Museum,
Glenville, New York – VF-14 “Tophatters”
F-14A (BuNo 160658) – On loan to Close up of the VF-111 sharkmouth marking on F-14A 160684 in the Pima Air and Space
Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) Museum. Constance Redgrave
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733 – VX-9
“Black Beauty”
F-14A (BuNo 160661) – On loan to US
Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville,
Alabama 35808 – VF-84 “Jolly Rogers”
F-14A (BuNo 160666) – On loan to
Western Aerospace Museum, Oakland,
California
F-14A (BuNo 160684) – On loan
to Pima Air and Space Museum,
Pima, Arizona 85756 – VF-111
“Sundowners”
F-14A (BuNo 160694) – On loan to USS
Lexington Museum on the Bay, Corpus
Christi,Texas – VF-84 “Jolly Rogers”
F-14A (BuNo 160889) – On loan to
Pacific Coast Air Museum, 2230 Becker YF-14A 157990 on display at the March Field Museum, Riverside, California, in the markings of
Blvd, Windsor, California 95492 – VF-1 VF-1 the “Wolfpack”.This aircraft was prototype number 11 and served as an avionics testbed.
“Wolfpack” Constance Redgrave
F-14A (BuNo 160898) – On loan to
Palm Springs Air Museum, 745 N Gene
Autry Trail, Palm Springs, California
92262 – VF-41 “Black Aces”
F-14A (BuNo 160902) – On loan to
Calverton, New York – VF-101 “Grim
Reapers”
F-14A (BuNo 160903) – On loan
to Mid-America Air Museum, Sioux
City, Iowa
F-14A (BuNo 160909) – On loan to
Naval Air Station Atlanta, Marietta,
Georgia – VF-201 “Hunters”
F-14D (BuNo 160914) – On loan to F-14D 164343 on display at the Evergreen Aviation Museum, McMinnville, Oregon in the
Wilmar Municipal Airport, Wilmar, markings of VF-31, the “Tomcatters”. Keith Draycott
Minnesota 56201
F-14A (BuNo 161134) – On loan
to TICO Warbird Museum, 6600 Tico
Rd,Titusville, Florida 32780 – VF-41
“Black Aces”
F-14A (BuNo 161141) – On loan to
Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan – VF-102
“Diamondbacks”
F-14A (BuNo 161151) – On loan to
Tobyhanna Army Depot,Tobyhanna,
Pennsylvania 18466 – VF-103 “Jolly
Rogers”
F-14D (BuNo 161163) – On loan to
Prairie Aviation Museum, Bloomington, F-14A 161623, part of the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum appears in VX-23 Flight Test
Illinois Squadron markings. Keith Draycott

126 aviationclassics.co.uk
 F-14D (BuNo 161166) – On loan to
Carolinas Air Museum, 4108
Minuteman Way, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28208 – VF-213 “Black Lions”
F-14B (BuNo 161422) – On loan
to Naval Air Station Wildwood
Museum, Cape May County Airport, Rio
Grande, New Jersey 08242 – VF-103
“Jolly Rogers”
F-14B (BuNo 161426) – On loan to
Naval Air Station De Land Museum, 910
Biscayne Blvd, De Land, Florida 32724 –
VF-101 “Grim Reapers”
F-14A (BuNo 161598) – On loan to
Tulsa Air and Space Museum,Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74115
What started my fascination F-14A (BuNo 161605) – On loan
with the Tomcat. A VF-101 F-14 to Wings of Eagles Museum, 17
arrives in its own cloud at Nellis Aviation Drive, Horseheads, New
AFB in 2003. An astounding York 14845
display followed. Keith Draycott F-14A (BuNo 161611) – On loan to
Naval Air Technical Training Center,
Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida
32508
F-14A (BuNo 161615) – On loan to
Combat Air Museum, Forbes Field,
Berryton, Kansas 66409 – Painted as a
“Top Gun” aircraft
F-14A (BuNo 161620) – On loan
to Selfridge Military Air Museum,
Mount Clemens, Missouri – VF-41
“Black Aces”
F-14A (BuNo 161623) – On loan to
Patuxent River Naval Air Museum,
Lexington Park, Maryland 20670 – VX-23
Flight Test Squadron Aircraft
F-14B (BuNo 161860) – On loan to
Aviation Museum of Kentucky, Blue
Grass Airport, Lexington, Kentucky – VF-
32 “Swordsmen”
F-14A (BuNo 161863) – On loan to
Naval Air Station Jacksonville,
Jacksonville, Florida 32212 – VF-83
“Jolly Rogers”
F-14A (BuNo 162591) – On loan
F-14A 160382 at the superb Museum of Flight, Seattle, Washington, in the markings of VF-103, to Quonset Point Air Museum, 6854
the “Jolly Rogers”. Keith Draycott Post Road, North Kingstown, Rhode
Island 02852 – Painted as a “Top
Gun” aircraft
F-14A (BuNo 162595) – On loan to
Naval Test Wing Atlantic, Patuxent River,
Lexington Park, Maryland – Naval Test
Wing Atlantic
F-14A (BuNo 162608) – On loan to
Southern Museum of Flight,
Birmingham, Alabama
F-14A (BuNo 162689) – On loan to
Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation,
Alameda, California
F-14B (BuNo 162694) – On loan to
MAPS Air Museum, Canton, Akron, Ohio
44312 – VF-32 “Swordsmen”
F-14D (BuNo 162910) – On loan to
Naval Air Station Key West, Florida
33040 – VF-101 “Grim Reapers”
F-14B (BuNo 162911) – On loan to
Estrella Warbird Museum, 4251 Dry
Creek Road, Paso Robles, California
93446 – VF-11 “Red Rippers”
F-14B (BuNo 162912) – On loan to
An F-14A of VF-213, the “Black Lions” On display at the USS Midway Museum in San Diego, Grissom Air Museum, Grissom, Indiana
California. Keith Draycott 46970 - VF-11 “Red Rippers” ➤

Grumman F-14 Tomcat 127

F-14B (BuNo 162916) – On loan to
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post No. 8896,
East Berlin, Pennsylvania – VF-32
“Swordsmen” Gypsy 100
F-14B (BuNo 162926) – On loan to New
England Air Museum, Suffield,
Connecticut 06078 – VF-143 “Pukin
Dogs”
F-14D (BuNo 163893) – On loan to
Arnold Air Force Base, Manchester,
Tennessee 37355 – VF-213 “Black Aces”
F-14D (BuNo 163897) – On loan to
Aerospace Museum of California,
McClellan, California 95652 – VF-31
“Tomcatters”
F-14D (BuNo 163902) – On loan to
Hickory Aviation Museum, Hickory
Regional Airport, North Carolina
28601 – VF-31 “Tomcatters” aircraft 107,
flew the retirement ceremony with Lt An F-14D on display at Palmdale which made the last flight by a Tomcat in 2006.The aircraft
Cmdr Chris Richard and Lt Mike belonged to VF-31 and carries Grumman and Tomcat markings on the fin. Keith Draycott
Petronis at the controls.
F-14D (BuNo 163904) – On loan to
Naval Air Station Ford Island, Ford
Island, Hawaii - VF-31 “Grumman
Markings”
F-14D (BuNo 164342) – On loan to
Wings Over Miami Museum, 14710 SW
128th St, Miami, Florida 33186 – CAG of
VF-31
F-14D (BuNo 164343) – On loan to
Evergreen Aviation Museum, 500 NE
Captain Michael King Smith Way,
McMinnville, Oregon 97114 – VF-31 The F-14D currently on display at the National
“Tomcatters” Museum of Naval Aviation at Pensacola,
F-14D (BuNo 164346) – On loan to This pedestal mounted F-14A makes an Florida, following deployment aboard the
Virginia Aviation Museum, 5701 impressive introduction to the National carrier Carl Vinson (CVN 70) while serving with
Huntsman Road, Richmond,Virginia Museum of Naval Aviation at Pensacola, VF-213 during Operation Enduring Freedom in
23250-2416 – VF-31 “Tomcatters”.The Florida. National Museum of Naval Aviation 2001. National Museum of Naval Aviation
last Tomcat to operationally trap
aboard a US Navy carrier.
F-14D (BuNo 164350) – On loan to Joe
Davies Heritage Airpark, 001 E Avenue P,
Palmdale, California
F-14D (BuNo 164601) – On loan to
Castle Air Museum, Santa Fe Dr,
Atwater, California 95301 – VF-101
“Grim Reapers”
F-14D (BuNo 164603) – On loan
to Northrop Grumman, Bethpage,
New York – VF-31 “Tomcatters”. Felix
101 from VF-31 is the last Tomcat to
fly in US Navy service. Final flight was
from NAS Oceana,Virginia to the
American Airpower Museum at
Republic Airport Long Island, New
York on October 4, 2006 where it
was displayed for a year and a
half before being moved to Grumman
Plant 25.
F-14D (BuNo 164604) – On loan to
Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana,
Virginia

Unknown BUnos
F-14A – On loan to The USS Midway
Museum, 910 N Harbor Drive, San
Diego, California 92101 – VF-213
“Black Lions” A close up view of the front of YF-14A 157990 at the March Field Museum, showing the
F-14A+ – On loan to USS Battleship right wing fully swept and the left, even further back, in the ‘superswept’ parked position, to
Alabama Memorial, Mobile, Alabama. save space on carriers. Constance Redgrave

128 aviationclassics.co.uk
 Dale ‘Snort’
Snodgrass
The real Top Gun
No magazine about the Tomcat can be complete without mention of
arguably its finest proponent, a man who amassed in excess of 4800
flying hours on the F-14 and flew displays in the aircraft that people
still talk about today. Here, Dale Snodgrass talks to Norm deWitt.
T
here have been many pilots who
flew the F-14 over the years, but
only one is synonymous with the
Tomcat, Dale ‘Snort’ Snodgrass.
He is the most experienced
Tomcat pilot in the world, serving for almost
the entire flight history of the airplane.
“My father was a Marine Aviator during
the Second World War flying C-46s initially,
and then Corsairs at the end of the war. Then
he was an engineering test pilot in San Diego,
in the civilian world doing a number of flights
with Consolidated, Lockheed, Convair, and
then eventually moved over to the flight
research department for Sperry Gyroscope
in Long Island, NY, where I was born, and
then eventually migrated over to Grumman.”
The apple didn’t fall far from the tree, and
Dale started his Naval Flight Training in
1972. “There were about 90 guys who got
orders between all the bases, and I was
fortunate enough to be at the top of that
chain. I was one of the first guys in flight
school to get one; I got first choice along with
another guy… Rich Stark… we were the first
two guinea pigs to come right out of the
Training Command to get those Tomcats.”
Of course the F-14 was coveted as it was
the latest and greatest. “That’s right. The
Training Squadron at that time was VF-124,
the Gunfighters at Miramar; from there I got
assigned to my first Operational Squadron
VF-142 the Ghostriders, which was a West
Coast F-4 squadron that was being moved to
Oceana. The squadrons were all transitioning
from F-4s at that point.”
What were the initial experiences of the
Tomcat? “Well, it was a wonderful experience
Dale with squadron ops officer Dirk Hebert at
right, in 1990 when the Officer Commanding
VF-33. Dale Snodgrass
The view from the other
side. Dale gets airborne
in a MiG-17 for another
display. Dale Snodgrass
in that the airplane was brand new but it did
have some growing pains. I remember the first
flight I took; at that point things were breaking
all the time. It took about 45 minutes to get out
of the line; the jet was very complicated for a
young guy coming out of Training Command.
Somehow, we all managed to muddle through
it. Miramar at the time was very robust in
fighter pilots and fighter pilot lore, the Vietnam
War had just ended and F-4s were all over the
place. The F-14 was the brand new beast on
the block and it was pretty cool being a young
Ensign, flying the Tomcat at Miramar… in
those days it was quite an experience.”
It didn’t take ‘Snort’ long to rise to the top
of the talent pool, named the Navy’s Fighter
Pilot of the Year in 1985, and then the
Grumman Aerospace “Topcat of the Year” for
1986. Dale – “There was a lot of posturing
about how good the MiG-21 was, but in reality
it was very capable in a dog fight but not
spectacular. A Tomcat in the hands of a good
pilot, especially against those guys, would
have cleaned up. As far as visual combat goes,
my only experience was four engagements
with Libyan Mirage IIIs/Vs and MiG-25s. In
those engagements we were able to get very
offensive (gun solutions), only problem was
the ROE wouldn’t allow us to pull the trigger
unless the Libyans shot first. Worse yet it
didn’t matter if they shot at your squadron
mates 35 miles away, the bogies you were
engaged with had to let something fly. Insane.”
On the 1988 Dependents’ Day Cruise of the
USS America, Dale was captured by a
crewmember doing what he did best, a
close, low and extremely tight flying display.
This has since become one of the most
famous F-14 images. Dale Snodgrass
In the Gulf War of 1990-91 Dale was the
Commander of Fighter Squadron 33, leading 34
missions without a single loss. “There was a
massively good tanker plan that got us in-
country across the Iraq border, every single
plane in the Strike package was topped off.
When you looked on paper at the time, before
Desert Storm, they had a very formidable Air
Force. We thought this could be a pretty
exciting couple of weeks here if it developed,
but it didn’t develop. I was a Strike Leader and
Squadron C.O., and one time I chased a MiG-29
for 200 miles, in afterburner going the opposite
direction (from home). He was running for Iran
and I ran out of gas chasing him. It was pretty
much slim pickings, as the MiGs were few and
far between. Pretty much every one that came
up to try and do anything got blasted.”
Dale now keeps occupied as one of the top
air show pilots in the US. As a result, Dale is
one of the few persons who can give an
honest informed assessment of the planes
that flew against each other in the 1970s, 80s,
and 90s, as well as some from his Father’s
era. “I’m flying the Corsair now… it’s gone
full circle as I’m flying something on the air
show circuit that my father flew in combat.
Even more ‘full circle’ is that now I’m flying
airplanes that were on the other side of the
fence, as I’m flying a MiG-17 in the air shows
and am about to get the keys to a MiG-21. It’s
kind of funny how all this stuff comes around,
you know?” ■ Words: Norm deWitt
Grumman F-14 Tomcat 129
NeXT
Issue www.aviationclassics.co.uk

Lockheed
P-38 Lightning
A Lockheed P-38L of the
Comanche Fighters,
named Thoughts of
Midnite. Frank B Mormillo

On January 27, 1939, Lockheed test pilot Ben Kelsey took the prototype XP-38
Lightning into the air for the first time.
time.The
The big, twin-engined, twin-boomed Issue 14
fighter was to become one of the most easily identifiable fighters of the will be onsa
from January le
second World War, and was to be the only us fighter aircraft to remain in 2012, priced ju27
st
production throughout the conflict. Its unusual design had a number of £6.99
advantages.The guns, being grouped close together in the nose, gave the P-38
a tremendous concentration of firepower.The tricycle undercarriage made
ground handling simple when compared with the tailwheel designs common to For pre-ordering and
subscription details call 01507
the period.The P-38 was used across the world, undertaking long range fighter 529529 or go online at
escort, fighter-bomber and reconnaissance missions in europe as well as www.aviationclassics.co.uk
across the Pacific and Far east.
On the Aviation Classics
website you’ll find historic
This issue of Aviation Classics tells the whole story of this ground breaking aircraft and aviation heritage
aircraft, as well as the people behind the development and operational success news highlights.There are also
of this beautiful machine. online articles and videos.
 The Model Royal Navy!

A50113 1:72
Westland Sea King HAR.5

A04202 1:600
HMS Ark Royal Gift Set
Sea Harrier
4 BAe FR
:2 S1
1
10

Gi
00

ft S
A5

et

A04202 1:600
HMS Hood
et
fi t S
G
us
Harrier F
Sea
io

A2
str

:72
llu
1

Gi

SI
17

ft S

HM
A500

et

A03260 1:350
:350

Trafalgar Class Submarine

A50059 1

www.airfix.com and all good retail stockists

Join the AIRFIX Club

www.youtube.com/ www.twitter.com/airfix www.facebook.com/ FOR SCHOOLS AND ALL

www.humbrol.com
officialairfix officialairfix YOUTH ORGANISATIONS