Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 2 Grp GH - Harrier series (Britain; USA) vs Grumman F-14 Tomcat (USA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rnd 2 Grp GH - Harrier series (Britain; USA) vs Grumman F-14 Tomcat (USA)

    Round 2, Group GH:

    HS/BAe/Boeing/MD Harrier series (Britain; USA)
    vs
    Grumman F-14 Tomcat (USA)




    Candidate #117 - HS/BAe/Boeing/MD Harrier series (Britain; USA)

    Service Intro - 1969
    Roles - Ground attack/strike; fighter/fleet defence; recon
    Quantity Produced - 869
    User Nations - Britain, USA, India, Italy, Spain, Thailand

    For further info & some technical details, you can start with Wiki here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...ce_Sea_Harrier
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonn...-8B_Harrier_II
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...ace_Harrier_II










    Candidate #122 - Grumman F-14 Tomcat (USA)

    Service Intro - 1974
    Roles - interceptor; air superiority; multi-role
    Quantity Produced - 712
    User Nations - USA, Iran

    For further info & some technical details, you can start with Wiki here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat









    Will you vote Harrier or Tomcat?


    Only one of these two candidates will make it to the next round!


    Which of them is the more significant and/or influential?


    Consider the criteria with care! You decide!
    90
    HS/BAe/Boeing/MD Harrier series (Britain; USA)
    76.67%
    69
    Grumman F-14 Tomcat (USA)
    23.33%
    21

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by panther3485; 17 Jan 16, 04:25.
    "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
    Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

  • #2
    Harrier, for the VTOL.

    Comment


    • #3
      *grumble* I love both aircraft, but I can;t vote against the Tomcat

      Susie
      Will no one tell me what she sings?--
      Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
      For old, unhappy, far-off things,
      And battles long ago:
      -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

      Comment


      • #4
        I most certainly CAN vote against the Tomcat.

        Too expensive. Too heavy. What sort of flying qualities would get it out of trouble without all the wonderful missile weapon's systems?

        Easily the Harrie....

        And hopefully goodbye Tom Cruise.
        My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

        Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
        GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
        Lincoln-Douglas Debates

        Comment


        • #5
          I like both of these aircraft, but they used the F-14 for more roles and God help us, was a better dogfighter.

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
            I most certainly CAN vote against the Tomcat.
            ...it seems you and many others are all equalling the F-14 with Tom Cruise. If you're gauging in such fashion, then I should be 'hating' Harrier because I don't like Arnie...

            So, where's the actual problem? You don't know anything about the Tomcat? Or are you just jalous?

            Too expensive.
            Since when was Harrier 'cheaper' than Tomcat?

            Too heavy.
            For what?

            What sort of flying qualities would get it out of trouble without all the wonderful missile weapon's systems?
            ...and what sort of flying qualities would get a Harrier out of trouble?

            Again, the question posted above is: which of them is the more significant and/or influential?

            To this, there's only a counter-question: is everybody nowadays building small, slow V/STOL fighters?

            Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears everybody wants to have fast fighters that can kill opponents from long range.

            So again: which is of them is the more significant and influential...?

            Comment


            • #7
              Harrier wins on signifigance for me. Harriers are the premier naval aircraft outside of the US, France and Russia, and are the only reason many nations even have naval air arms. Sure the Harrier is nowhere near the air superiority platform that the Tomact is but that's not what this contest is about. It's cost and VTOL capability makes it able to perform in a wider variety of roles and situations than the F-14.
              "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Walkyre View Post
                To this, there's only a counter-question: is everybody nowadays building small, slow V/STOL fighters?

                Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears everybody wants to have fast fighters that can kill opponents from long range.

                So again: which is of them is the more significant and influential...?
                How many VTOL fighters were there (in production and being designed) before the Harrier? Afterwards?

                How many fast, long-range fighters (in production and being designed) were there before the F-14? Afterwards?

                The F-14 might be a better aircraft, but that doesn't make it more influential.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                  Harrier wins on signifigance for me. Harriers are the premier naval aircraft outside of the US, France and Russia, and are the only reason many nations even have naval air arms. Sure the Harrier is nowhere near the air superiority platform that the Tomact is but that's not what this contest is about. It's cost and VTOL capability makes it able to perform in a wider variety of roles and situations than the F-14.
                  I'd agree in general but to be specific it's its short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) that's important. True all round VTOL with a decent payload and mission capability still awaits
                  Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                  Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That's true. I was mostly using VTOL as a catch all term for the STOVL/short field/improvised runway capabilities in general even though its technically incorrect.
                    "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This was one of many choices where one plane was much better than the other in its primary role but the other was a better jack-of-all-trades. I went with the Harrier.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Dearest Walky..

                        If the Tomcat was such great value for money, the entire F-16 program would not have been necessary. Simple as that.

                        And voting for hating Tom Cruise is as legitmate as the number of votes cast for the Tomcat because of Tom Cruise associations in the last round. Like I quipped before, Tom would have needed an orange box to sit on in the cockpit just to see over the instrument panel.

                        more bang per buck with the Harrier. And further, if the United States Marine Corps thought the British Harrier was such an uninfluential 'dog', why oh why did it build the A-V8, and why then did the Russians also build their "Forger" for carrier use?

                        Fast interceptors that can kill at long range are dime a dozen. But an aircraft that can operate in a South Atlantic gale, and do every job required with the exception of carrying troops for a difficult and very dangerous amphibious operation, well, the Harrie was just about unique.

                        How many other fighters these days have variable geometry?
                        How many other fighters are as heavy as the Tomcat?

                        Their are a multitude of fighters that can do what a Tomcat does.

                        Not that many that can do what a Harrier can.

                        Say goodbye, Tom baby!
                        My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                        Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                        GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                        Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Is that choice of wanting to build fast BVR fighters related to the F-14? The fast BVR jet fighter was inevitable, whether the F-14 had existed or not.

                          Had the F-35B existed if the Harrier had not happened? I doubt. The Harrier was actual proof-of-concept, the F-14 wasn't.

                          To what extend did the F-14 provoke rethinking or rebudgetting on the Soviet side? Can't directly say how much, but it must have done.
                          The Harrier very clearly did, but the Soviets screwed up in that department, spending a lot of money with no result, and I don't think they ever looked back.

                          Was the F-14 succeeded by something similar yet better? Not really, the F-18 took over its job.
                          Is the Harrier going to be replaced with something similar yet better? That is why the F-35B was created.

                          I'd say the F-14 was more significant (Iran operations, US Navy fleet defense & cold war power projection), but the Harrier with it's design concept transferred into the F-35B is in the long run more influential.

                          Harrier: the niche market work horse appreciated only by its users. Tomcat: the potent race car that everybody wants but nobody really can afford?

                          Haven't voted yet on this one.
                          "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                            Harrier wins on signifigance for me.
                            I can only ask again: what 'significance'?

                            Harriers are the premier naval aircraft outside of the US, France and Russia...
                            ...which means Italy and Spain, period.

                            So, where's that 'significance'...?

                            The Soviet/Russian Su-33 (short of being taken out of service) is a fighter in the F-14's class, armed with at least R-27ERs; the Rafale M is a miniaturised twin-engine naval fighter-interceptor armed with MICAs and PGMs - exactly like F-14 during the last 15 years of its service.

                            So, in what fashion was the Harrier - about which all here appear to think automatically as 'AV-8B' (i.e. not even in its original British design), 'influential' for anything?

                            If it was influential, the 'exercise' would have been repeated, and there would've been another VTOL fighter. Nothing of that kind has happened. Right now it's not even 100% sure the USMC might buy the F-35B...

                            ...and are the only reason many nations even have naval air arms.
                            Is 'many' - two of them?

                            Thailand has stored all of its old AV-8As already a decade ago...

                            Sure the Harrier is nowhere near the air superiority platform that the Tomact is but that's not what this contest is about. It's cost and VTOL capability makes it able to perform in a wider variety of roles and situations than the F-14.
                            In what wider variety of roles?

                            While the AV-8B lacks the speed, range and long-range armament of the F-14, the F-14s was flying all of this plus CAS over Afghanistan and Iraq too, and did that much better than any AV-8Bs, because they were longer ranged, i.e. could loiter over the combat zone for longer time (indeed, something like five times longer than AV-8Bs, and three times longer than F/A-18E/F), while carrying at least the same warload.

                            So, please, explain me that with 'influence' and 'wider variety of roles'...?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                              Dearest Walky..

                              If the Tomcat was such great value for money, the entire F-16 program would not have been necessary. Simple as that.
                              It's not that 'simple'. There was never any kind of doubts about F-14's value, i.e. its 'bang for buck'.

                              Problem with the F-14 was always the USN's mismanagement of its aircraft-related projects. The F-111B was a failure, and then the USN was in a rush to find a replacement for the F-4. That's how the VFX and thus the F-14 came into being - and then within only two years, and at such low costs that Grumman was near-bankrupt by the time the prototype made the first flight.

                              Then the end of the Vietnam War came, together with a big slashing of Pentagon's budgets - and thus all the projects for new engines and avionics (i.e. the 'original' F-14B) were cancelled, and the Congress withdrew funds for Tomcats: in essence, that project was dead, and Grumman - which was meanwhile actually rather into space-flight business (it built the Moon-landing capsules etc.) about to go bankrupt.

                              Wasn't it for Iranian order for 30 (later increased to 80), the F-14 would've never been manufactured (at least not in larger number than about 40, including prototypes).

                              But, when Iranians placed that order and then also financed Grumman to manufacture 80 F-14s for them, neither the Congress nor the USN could say 'no': back then it would've been considered an absurd situation for 'a country like Iran' to operate most advanced US-interceptors, just no US service... So, they were forced to continue financing the project, but decided to do so only at a bare minimum. This meant that there would be no new engines, no new avionics etc. for another 15 years (until the F-14A+, subsequent F-14B, which entered service in 1988).

                              ...and to make things better I guess, through all of this time the USN kept on squandering billions for 'repairing' PW's TF-30 engines, until this proved four times more expensive than what their replacement by GEs F-400s could have ever costed.

                              As if this was not enough, the USN meanwhiel decided to start financing the F/A-18 as a 'cheaper solution', although it was quite clear right from the start that it wouldn't be cheaper - then a new project is always much more expensive than an already existing one, etc. (and, this idiocy was then repeated in the 1990s again).

                              Overall, a mass of wrong decisions on the part of USN's representatives in the Pentagon. But, no fault of the aircraft itself.

                              And absolutely nothing speaking 'for' the AV-8B in comparison to the F-14.

                              And voting for hating Tom Cruise is as legitmate as the number of votes cast for the Tomcat because of Tom Cruise associations in the last round.
                              I find this silly. TC has absolutely nothing to do with the Tomcat.

                              ...And further, if the United States Marine Corps thought the British Harrier was such an uninfluential 'dog', why oh why did it build the A-V8, and why then did the Russians also build their "Forger" for carrier use?
                              For very simple reasons: neither the Royal Navy, USMC nor the Soviet Navy had big carriers to operate their aircraft from. Therefore, they needed a compromise: something that could take off and land on such designs like HMS Independence, USS Okinawa and Kiev-class, be small enough to fit to their hangars, but still carry some weapons.

                              Means not that the types in question were 'more influential' than the F-14: the F-14 lead the way. It was the first big 'superfighter' with high manoeuvreability (for its times), but still capable of flying offensive counter-air ops within enemy airspace, and the first ever to enter service while armed with long-range air-to-air missiles.

                              As such, it was de-facto a prototype for all superfighters that emerged ever since.

                              Fast interceptors that can kill at long range are dime a dozen. But an aircraft that can operate in a South Atlantic gale, and do every job required with the exception of carrying troops for a difficult and very dangerous amphibious operation, well, the Harrie was just about unique.
                              Yup, unique. Not, 'influential'.

                              That aside; any USN carrier equipped with a standard contemporary wing (as of 1982 this was 24x F-14A, 24x A-7E, 12x A-6E/KA-6D, 4x E-2C, 4x EA-6B + 6x SH-6Ds) would've not only provided far superior control of the airspace around Falklands, but outright smashed the entire Argentinean air force - and that for breakfast.

                              How many other fighters these days have variable geometry?
                              None. The solution found instead was to go for instabile aircraft, controlled by computers (i.e. FBW).

                              How many other fighters are as heavy as the Tomcat?
                              F-15, EF-2000, Su-30, Su-33, J-11, J-15, J-16...

                              Their are a multitude of fighters that can do what a Tomcat does.
                              Exactly - and this precisely because the F-14 has proven that it's possible to do it.

                              Not that many that can do what a Harrier can.
                              The only thing a Harrier can do that nobody else can is vertical take off and landings - one of which, BTW, was NEVER used in operations, because it's spending too much fuel.

                              Say goodbye, Tom baby!
                              ...and that from 200km range.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X