Talk:Grumman F-14 Tomcat/Archive 2

Adm. Michael Mullen quote about F-14
Although I asked not to removes this quote from the introduction, I thought I'd include it here too:
 * Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, commented on the plane in an interview held at the time of its retirement:
 * ''There's something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself. It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just know, there's a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.'
 * (from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-22-F14-tomcat_x.htm)

66.167.139.50 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Thanks for pointing it out. People tend to say nice things about a subject at retirements and funerals. Though I'm not sure which one this is. As far as notability, it would have been noteworthy if he had come out and disparaged the aircraft at its retirement. --Dual Freq 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken, though in this day and age senior military leaders like Mullen can usually be counted on to take some care in their public remarks. It will be interesting to see if Mullen's statement generates controversy among naval aviators (and if it stands the test of time).  66.167.139.50 20:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Admiral quote
Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, commented on the plane in an interview held at the time of its retirement: There's something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself. It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just know, there's a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.

This is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. Claims made by one man are given undue weight and are clearly used by the anonymous user to advance his or her giddy fanboyism of the aircraft. I will continue to revert this addition mercilessly -- if you think it belongs, call for an arbitration now. - Emt147 Burninate!  23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You (1) misunderstand NPOV, (2) leapt to a conclusion about the motivation for including the quote ("giddy fanboyism of the aircraft"), and (3) violated your use of Template:User 1RR on your home page by your threat to "revert this addition mercilessly"...


 * Since (2) is less important that (1), let me address it first. Let's take a look at one of the bits of objective information about the anon that is easily available to us all: his history of contributions. Click on "contribs" list for ...notice the various changes he made?  No evidence of fighter fanboyism found there.  Our "giddy fanboy" does appear to be a fan of activities such as category organization, editing disambiguation pages, utilizing the WP:PROD process, and updating the talk pages of various users about actions he was undertaking that they may be interested in.
 * But let's get back to NPOV. What you seem to misunderstand is that there's a difference between
 * The Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way the legendary Corsair, Mustang and Spitfire.
 * and
 * ''Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations believes that the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way the legendary Corsair, Mustang and Spitfire.
 * You are of course free to believe that CNO Mullen is guilty of "giddy fanboyism" but unlike Adm. Mullen, your belief is unlikely to warrant inclusion in the F-14 article. But Adm. Mullen's beliefs are legitimate content for the article.  He is, after all, the Chief of Naval Operations, with almost forty years of service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.207.136 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it is giddy fanboyism to seize upon saccharine comments spoken for the sake of a funeral as a representative NPOV view of the aircraft, or, for that matter, of Adm. Mullen's views. Wiki is not required to uncritically accept all statements. Go ahead and take it to arbitration you'd like, I'm not budging. --Mmx1 15:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I get all the "wtf dude" replies, here are some quotes from the aforementioned Wikipedia policy article: Putting a giant quote banner at the top of the article is an obvious violation of this policy, particularly since the quote reflects biased opinions and beliefs of one person that are not substantiated by hard facts. - Emt147 Burninate!  00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth
 * The neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.


 * I only looked at the diff, I didn't realize it was in the intro. I would have deleted it from the lead as well. Sorry about that. My comments above were meant to point out that the CNO was possibly just being polite, as someone would be at a funeral or a retirement. I concur with it's removal from the lead. --Dual Freq 00:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlike the claims of NPOV violation, whether the quote belongs in the introduction is a valid issue. IMHO the quote can be included in the lead section assuming that Mullen's belief about the plane's potential for legendary status is uncontroversial or being given undue weight. So is it controversial? Any one have a counter-argument from someone prominent enough to disagree with the CNO?  72.244.207.136 (f.k.a. 66.167.139.50) 10:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Anyone? The burden of proof on Wikipedia lies with the contributing editor. Therefore, YOU are the one who has to prove Mullen's claims of legendary status (how's that time machine coming along?). Do you honestly believe that offset raving text in HUGE quotation marks does not carry undue weight?

Oh, and brilliant. Let's start a separate article quoting every semi-important person about the F-14. Regardless of who Mullen is (and with all due respect to him), his quote still represents one man's totally subjective opinion not substantiated in any way by hard facts. If Mullen personally showed up and edited the article, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because his quote would violate WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. But since it's in quotation marks, it's magically okay. Besides, the quotation is entirely un-encyclopedic -- it contributes nothing whatsoever to the reader's knowledge of the F-14 other than the fact that it apparently makes grown men giddy. - Emt147 Burninate!  03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible compromise about the CNO quote
One compromise w.r.t. the CNO quote would be to move it to the section on decommissioning (and leave out the in the process). Locating the quote in that section puts it in perspective (i.e. the CNO made the statement at that time). Comments? 66.167.141.36 10:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
 * I agree with this. The quote is from a high level officer and his opinion is relevant.  However, it probably doesn't belong in the introduction.  Since it was a statement made in response to the decommissioning, putting it in the decommissioning section seems appropriate. Lord Bodak 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pray tell, what is the encyclopedic value of this quote? In what ways does it expand the reader's knowledge about the F-14? What facts does it contain? - Emt147 Burninate!  02:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides, wiki is not in the habit of using blockquotes; favoring NPOV statements instead. What is the content of this statement? CNO Mullen believes it will be a legendary aircraft? What value does that statement have? --Mmx1
 * How is it NOT encyclopedic or relevant to include the statement that the current CNO believes the aircraft will be remembered with the likes of the Corsair, Mustang, and Spitfire? We're talking about the CNO here. Quoting his opinion is not NPOV, it is quoting the opinion of a respected, high-level officer in the Navy. Lord Bodak 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Quoting his opinion is not NPOV. Thank you. That's exactly it. Cut and dried. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Please review WP:NPOV--Mmx1 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:NPOV: Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.
 * For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
 * I don't particularly care how many times you repeat it, but providing a referenced quote from a respected individual is NPOV, and WP:NPOV clearly says so right there. Lord Bodak 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a fact an an opinion. "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be a fact. "F-14 will be remembered like the Spitfire" cannot be.

No fanboyism. CNO is not an oracle, he has no way of knowing how the F-14 will be remembered. This is a PR quote of no encyclopedic value and I will revert it. If you disagree, call arbitration. This conversation is over. - Emt147 Burninate!  18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's simply untrue. "John Doe is the best baseball player" cannot be a fact; it is an opinion, as was the CNO's statement.  Obviously we don't agree on this one, but I'm not the original person who put the quote in, and if they want to call arbitration for it, that's their choice.  Regardless of what they do, this conversation is not "over", since Wikipedia is constantly changing and others are welcome to throw their opinions in here at any time. Lord Bodak 19:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that it is valuable to include the CNO's quote in the section on decomissioning. It is self-evident to me that a quote from the Chief of Naval Operations, labeled as such and made upon the occasion of its retirement, is notable and appropriate content for that section.  The original NPOV argument for reversion has been repeatedly demonstrated in this talk page as a misunderstanding.
 * FWIW, there are plenty of examples of quotes scattered throughout Wikipedia (e.g. the Rommel quote in the fighter aircraft article).
 * Perhaps one way to achieve consensus on this issue would be to include a quote attributable to another naval leader or expert that discounts the CNO's opinion as funereal puffery. I don't know if such a quote exists but the strong feelings that the CNO quote provokes among at least a couple of editors makes me think that such a quote should be easy to find.
 * At this point, if User:Emt147 thinks the only alternative left at this point is arbitration, I'm willing to participate.   What form should the arbitration take? Resolving disputes says trying the Mediation Cabal or perhaps getting a Third opinion are good options.  Perhaps a Wikipedia:Straw poll?  There's also the Mediation Committee.  Is the Arbitration Committee the only option at this point? Kayaker 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Examples of quotes elsewhere do not constitute precedent nor override wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is done poorly elsewhere does not mean it should be done here. I, too am unwilling to budge, take this to whatever mediation method you'd like.--Mmx1 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What wikipedia guidelines are violated by the CNO quote? Do you think its an NPOV issue? Kayaker 06:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

WP:NPOV by virtue of undue weight and WP:Verify by virtue of being a source of dubious reliability. Per Wikipedia policy, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight (furthermore, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves). - Emt147 Burninate!  23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You honestly think USA Today is a "source of dubious reliability"? And putting the quote in the retirement section is not giving it undue weight.  I do agree the original giant block quote in the introduction was undue weight. Lord Bodak 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the CNO is a source of dubious reliability since the words coming out of his mouth do not undergo fact-checking (not that there are any facts in his quote to begin with). The quote is useless in an encyclopedia because it a) states the F-14 looks awesome (I think readers can look at pictures are draw their own conclusions) and b) claims the F-14 will be as famous as the Spitfire (no one can make that claim). If people put half the effort into writing contents that they do into fanboy quotes and anime references, this would've been an FA by now. - Emt147 Burninate!  00:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Come now, there's a world of difference between anime crap and quotes from the senior serving officer of the primary user of the aircraft in question. One would not remove a quote about the B-52 made by Curtiss LeMay. Or would you? Yes, it's saccharine, but no it's not worth all this vitriol. The Admiral has earned the right to make such statements. I suggest the quote by moved someplace like the popular culture section, since it refers directly to the position the Tomcat holds in popular culture and memory.


 * The CNO's comments are unreliable because of the context they were delivered in. The CNO's statements to Conress are reliable; his comments at a social function or funeral can be expected to carry bias. In any case it is of little encyclopedic value as the content of the comments are of no use, as Emt explained. --Mmx1 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh hell, three quarters of wikipedia is of little encyclopedic value. Tis best to tuck it away somewhere and move on. Anyone who reads that quote and doesn't see it as the man's opinion is too stupid to worry with anyhow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs).

Content questions
It would be more useful to discuss the 6+ paragraphs of Iranian air force material that is currently over weighting this article. A user of 11% of the aircraft built, look at that section size compared to the entirety of the article. The US had 30 years of usage, 30+ squadrons, 600+ aircraft, but we use 6 paragraphs to document the entire Iranian purchase agreement, how many planes missiles and wrenches, who trained whom, who overthrew who, who sabotaged what missiles or maybe didn't, speculative kill numbers etc. There is less material in this article about the actual US R&D, testing, construction, etc. All the origins section says is the F-111B sucks, F-14 is better with most powerful radar in the universe and it was controversially replaced by the Hornet even though the F-14 was the first/best air superiority aircraft or maybe not. It's more worthwhile to trim that section than to put a 64 word quote from the CNO for the aircraft's retirement. And what about the reference section, with its 10 refs, 4 of which are Tom Cooper. Someone must be trying to sell some of his books. I guess what I'm trying to say is the article needs work and we should be discussing that instead of one single quote from one man. --Dual Freq 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kind of engaged, but i will support your edits. Under the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV, it is necessary to give his views the appropriate weight that they deserve. --Mmx1 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article barely passes "B-class" criteria and needs a substantial rewrite and expansion. - Emt147 Burninate!  18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


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

Somewhat related comment. Currently there's a subsection under Operational history labeled About. I believe it was labeled Hi lo before. Something more descriptive would be good. I'm just not sure what it should be called since contains the Superhornet and Decommissioning subsections. -Fnlayson 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've prosified the pop culture section. Hopefully that will reduce the urge to add bullet point after bullet point of various types of cruft. I also removed some of the more obvious trivia from the Iranian AF section and requested citations for some of the material presented as fact. It still seems long. I've also trimmed the ref section. If I've removed too much, just add the reference to the appropriate location in the text. We don't need a long list of books that may or may not actually be references. I've merged the sections Hi Lo / about, but it still seems wrong. Still much work to be done, I'm no Shakespeare. --Dual Freq 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


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

F-14 in fiction and popular culture
Dual Freq has already wittled down the Pop Culture section to almost nothing, as per the guideline's recommentations in lieu of immediate deletion of trivia sections. The two movie references both feature significant use of the F-14, and are worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Currently, there are many more avitation articles containing much longer lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCJ (talk • contribs) Oops. Thought I had signed it. Thanks --BillCJ 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That section is far from being a trivia section. The F-14 is a notable aircraft because its presence extends far beyond the realm of military knowledge into the public arena. Whether that is due to particular mass media productions or merely symptomatic of something else is debatable; however, the section is still warranted because it's one of the most recognizable aircraft from the 80s/90s (hence its inclusion in so many pop culture sources).
 * That being said, "prosifying" it is counter-productive, IMO; since each source listed is only a sentence or two, instead of having a coherent paragraph it ends up being a series of unrelated sentences (other than their chronological organization). Unless the section is rewritten to analyze the emergence of the F-14 in pop culture and use the sources as milestones in that description (which would most likely be OR, since I can't think of any sources that might have done so), a list is far more concise and intelligible. Of course, IMO it would have been better to split off a List of F-14 appearances in fiction and popular culture months ago and saved everyone a lot of grief. Virogtheconq 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I never claimed to be a writer. Please, reword it into something that makes sense and analyzes the pop culture role of the F-14. Having a list of bullet points only encourages the addition of more and more useless video games, GI Joe toys, comic books. Making it paragraph form will hopefully deter future expansion. IMO, a separate article would be pointless and likely deleted like the M-16 list was. Would anyone like to improve the rest of the article and get this thing pointed toward FA or GA status? Fix origins section? Expand US Navy operational history section? --Dual Freq 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can try to write something out for that, but my time is rather limited, so it may take a while. Virogtheconq 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot make any anime/cartoon assertions without violating WP:NOR. - Emt147 Burninate!  02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can, but only if the creator has explicitly stated it to be so (such as the case with Macross/Robotech). There's no violation if the plane expressly appears in the work (such as the case with the removed Area 88), though that of course is subject to consensus of notability. Virogtheconq 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the minor details of the Macross info, what we really need here is for someone to sort through the History of the F-14 Tomcat article for information, remove the NPOV stuff and re-add it here to replace the origins section with something more useful. I've been adding images to commons:Category:F-14 Tomcat for VF articles, maybe some of them are useful here as well. --Dual Freq 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a crack, have here a primary source from Connolly which should be fairly even-handed. As for the prose pop culture, an adaptation of the Wikiproject Aircraft guideline on it was adopteed by Wikiproject Military History:WikiProject_Military_history. --Mmx1 02:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Gunston, the first prototype, B/N 147980, crashed in its second test flight. I wonder if a current aircraft program would survive a similar blow so early in development. Might be an interesting note in the history / development or maybe not. It was also one of the most expensive interceptor aircraft of its time and there was serious pressure on the affordability front as well. Had it not been for the paranoia about the MiG-25, it may have not been purchased in the first place. --Dual Freq 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, thanks for reworking the origins section, still small compared to the Iranian F-14 historical section. That section seems too big, but I don't know what to get rid of. Some of it seems to be decent historical trivia, though uncited, but it seems way too long for a generic F-14 article. Also, I was adding images to the VF articles and I noticed that two squadrons were disbanded September 11, 1994, has someone told those loose change guys? --Dual Freq 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now the two look about the same length; I'd devote more time on cleaning up the operational history part on the US side; it's a bit short and if lengthened, would give the article the appropriate balance. LANTIRN and ROVER acquisition have interesting stories that deserve more than a sentence, and the issue of the missing stores software needs to be addressed. I think a bit much may be being made of the decommissioning, but ah well, so long as it's adquately source, the status quo should be fine. The issue of its replacement needs heavy cleanup as well. --Mmx1 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also see that this article is missing a "characteristics" section that actually describes the aircraft in detail. --Mmx1 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On further thought, the History section should be S(electively)merged into this article; there's a lot that can be moved into a "characteristics", some that belongs under History, and some that should outright be moved to the F-111B. There's also a lot of POV stuff that just doesn't belong anywhere. --Mmx1 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Iranian section
I have a question about the following lines in the article: ''Most Iranian F-14 pilots and technicians trained in the U.S. fled Iran, fearing their association with the Shah's regime, and their time in the U.S. would endanger them. Only two pilots out of the original flight class chose to remain in Iran. Their fears proved correct, and many of the original Iranian F-14 crews and technicians who remained were jailed or murdered by the new regime. Eventually, several F-14 pilots who were jailed were released when war broke out with Iraq.'' My main question is if only two pilots stayed, how can "many of the original" crews have been murdered or jailed? How many could there have been? This probably came from the Cooper source, can someone clarify this? --Dual Freq 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer: if you are interested about Iranian F-14s (and air combat in general) vist ACIG.org. There aren't many reliable sources about Iran's F-14s due to a lack of credible sources, you would be amazed at the wealth of knowledge, photographs out there and the etiquette of the contributors at ACIG. I'm not sure but I get the slight feeling that some here do not respect Tom Cooper's insight on Iran's F-14 fleet. I would suggest you ask him yourself. I found early on that popular sources lack any clear insight on Iran's Air Force. I also found that most western sources don't want to believe that Iran could even fly the plane let alone use the AIM-54 to score a kill, even if their pilots were trained by the US Navy. Even less want to believe that Iran scored more air victories with the F-14 than their US Navy counterparts. The USN had far fewer oppurtunities, obviously.

I think there is a reason Iran continues to maintain, fly and update their F-14 fleet at great expense and it is not because of the "4 or 5" kills that this wiki article cites. Just try to balance both points of view; Iran's F-14s were largely ineffective in air-to-air engagements and simply used as mini-AWACs or Iran's F-14s were integral to the defense of vital locations and population centers from Iraqi incursions and are still operated with great care and expense. Do not simply go by the quantity of sources that say one thing, as they will often just cite eachother. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.61.73 on 01:26, November 20, 2006 (UTC)


 * Cooper says 100+ kills and 4 to 6 kills with one missile. That is not credible. See talk archives. --Dual Freq 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Credible according to who, the "western sources" who attribute "4 or 5" kills to IRIAF's F-14? Saddam's IrAF had 700 planes by war's end, none of these had BVR capabilities or a radar equivalent to the AWG-9. I will choose a published account over the "4 or 5" theory. just my 2 cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.61.73 (talk • contribs)


 * If Iran only claimed some 35-45 kills why would anyone credit them with many more than 45? Why would Iranian pilots or Iran state less kills than they acually had? Also, the idea of four fighters being shot down by a single AIM54A is nonsense when you consider the distance between each aircraft in flight. Not even a formation change would result in all four aircraft being close enough to be destroyed by the blast of a single AIM54A. -Interested Reader (68.118.180.187)


 * It was three IrAF MiG-23BN that were indirectly 'shotdown' with this hit. The reason for its distructive power was not the AIM-54 but the fact that when the lead aircraft in the formation was hit the bomb load it was carrying (on strike to Ahwaz) was detonated. This caused debris to hit the rest of the strike package (either directly or being forced to flying through it). The last MiG-23BN (#4) was spotted leaving the area trailing smoke. The Iranian pilots only 'officially' claimed 3 as the fate of the #4 was not known. The strike package was said to be in tight formation (possibly to hide their number) and engaged at 23nm out. Tom Cooper i believe interviewed the pilots of this mission which took place 7th Jan '81. It was one of two multiple shoot down incidents scored by IRIAF F-14 pilots/RIOs during the Iran-Iraq war. Remember the pilots were the same Shah's Eagles that were held in so high regard by the USAF (having conducted mixed crew missions) and the PAF (who around this time were hopping around the middle east training/flying with many AFs) before the war. Constant combat operations and foolish levels of bravardo made them very proficient by the end of the war. Just to be clear - there has never been a 4 kill by 1 AIM-54 claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.198.20 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I have tried to contact the author of the website with his "official" IRIAF claim of 35-45 (which in itself seems very unspecific for an offical claim). I can find no reference for this else where (has anyone else spotted it?). I am currently trying to find out via the Iranian embassy if an official figure was ever released (i do not believe it ever has been). The question then is, what is the origin of this number? Did someone just make it up? The originating website in its references does not list one that you can relate this number back to.

I report by ACIG sites stuff like this: ''At around 10:40hrs, at 12.200m (40,000ft) and only eight kilometres from the Iranian border, two IRIAF F-4Es underway to attack targets in Iraq, were approaching a Boeing 707-3J9C-tanker escorted by two F-14As, led by Capt. M. Khosrodad. The Tomcats were flying a race-track pattern around the tanker, with one of them continuously scanning the airspace over the front by its AWG-9 radar. Around 10:45hrs, just as the first Phantom started receiving fuel from the tanker, the radar onboard Capt. Khosrodad’s F-14A acquired several Iraqi fighters apparently closing from the west and well within the range of the AIM-54 missiles of his Tomcat.

Despite the standing order not to fly into the Iraqi airspace or leave the tanker unprotected, Capt. Khosrodad decided to attack: he ordered his wingman, whose aircraft was only armed with Sparrows and Sidewinders, to remain with the Boeing and the two Phantoms; then Capt. Khosrodad headed off west.

Working swiftly, he and his RIO fired two AIM-54As and two AIM-7E-4s in rapid succession, and both were most pleased when they noticed that at least two of their radar contacts disappeared within seconds of each other: apparently, so they thought, they had just spoiled ‘another Iraqi air raid’….or so they thought.

Meanwhile, although their radar net was supposedly able to track aircraft up to 200km deep inside the Iranian airspace, the Iraqis were completely unaware of the two Iranian Tomcats nearby. The first sign of something going wrong for Capt. Mousa was when the pilot of one of the escorting Mi-8s – which was flying a couple of kilometres ahead - shouted out a warning that no less than three of escorting fighters (or what was left of them) were falling out of the skies in flame to their left and right, and that the helicopter carrying generals should make a hard right turn in order to evade the debris.

Seconds later, also one of the MiG-pilots started shouting warnings, saying that they had no clue what had attacked them, but “strongly” suggested the Mi-8 with the generals onboard to leave the area and immediately turn west! Seeing the wreckage of the downed MiGs falling towards him, Capt. Mousa was in a complete agreement with his colleagues, so he turned around, and the trip to the front by Maj. Gen. Rashid and Lt. Gen. Mohsen was over before it really started.''

So this example, believe or not in it is in cleary and definite contrast vs the claim '4-5fighters' made in West. Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling? But there is a reason also for the low number declared by Iranians as well: Cooper says, IRIAF was always put on trial because his men were too westernized, so hated by regime. In many occasions, flak of Army was taken on charge about these success: better the army than ariforce, do you understand me? --Stefanomencarelli 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole point I believe that is being made here is this: It is just a story that someone is telling on a website until there is a way to verify the claim. You say Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling?, but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference.  --Chuck Sirloin 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See below---Stefanomencarelli 16:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

USAF considered purchasing the F-14
The US Air Force was looking for to replace the F-106 Delta Dart, {the plane used to guard the USA against bomber attack], in the early 1980s. The USAF briefly considered the F-14 Tomcat, but, although the Air Force had adopted Navy planes in the past, i.e. the A-1 Skyraider and the A-7 Corsair II; the F-15 Eagle was selected to replace the F-106. It was felt the F-14 was too expensive to be picked, ($38 million for the Tomcat vs. $29.9 million for the Eagle).204.80.61.10 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Shah's support

 * It is reported that some significant amount of the funding for the development of the Tomcat program was from Iran during the reign of the Shah through the National State owned Bank E Melli. This has also been confirmed by former IIAF pilots of the Shahs reign. More info on the matter available at Official IIAF Webpage.

This was placed in the introduction today. Given that the source is billed as the official IIAF website (with no cite to the quoted article), I feel it needs review. It certainly doesn't go in the Introduction, especially as written, but I don't know where else to put it either. Most likely, somewhere on the History of the F-14 Tomcat page.

As far as to the validity of the reports, is this talking about something beyond Iran's payments for the F-14 they purchased? It makes it sound like they were partners in the development, which I have never heard about. It is common in US programs now, such as the JSF and the P-8, but not so much back then, to my knowledge.

Any comments/suggestions? - BillCJ 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is from a US source as reported by J Baugher :

''In August of 1973, the Shah selected the F-14 Tomcat, and the sale was approved by the US government in November of 1973. The initial order signed in January of 1974 covered 30 Tomcats, but in June 50 more were added to the contract. At the same time, the Iranian government-owned Melli Bank agreed to loan Grumman $75 million to partially make up for a US government loan of $200 to Grumman which had just been cancelled. This loan enabled Grumman to secure a further loan of $125 from a consortium of American banks, ensuring at least for the moment that the F-14 program would continue.''

So I wouldn't say a significant amount of funding was for the "development" of the Tomcat as that the initial nonrecurring development was paid for by the US Navy as by the time the additional funding was needed, the Tomcat was already in production (around Lot 5 or 6 according to excellent oral history of George Spangenburg) and suffering from cost escalation and need to fix all manner of issues witht he Tomcat that threatened to drive Grumman under hence the need for the loan. At any rate, they were certainly NOT partners in the development as evidenced by the example of today's JSF or the Kuwaiti support of the improved engines for their A-4KU and later F/A-18C aircraft. They bought Tomcats right off the production line with only minor differences between their versions and the then current Navy model. Good question though. HJ 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Just wanted to add that the Quonset Air Museum in Rhode Island has a F-14A which is freshly painted in VF-101 Grim Reapers colors.

Red Storm Rising
I'm not questiong that the F-14 is in Red Storm Rising, as I remember it being there when I read the book years ago. But Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists. Per WP:AIR/PC, Pop culture sections should be limited to the appearances are especially notable. To be included, the notability must be proven by verifiable sources. Without sources, the statements regarding the F-14 and its importance in the book are original research, and therefore not permitted in Wikipedia. I don't doubt that Red Storm Rising is used in military schools, but the book covers many other types of aircraft and varios other equipmant. Claiming the F-14's appearence in the book as "especially notable" requires verifiable soureces. PIf those can be provided to the satisfaction of other editors here, and a consensus reached to include the book, then fine. Until then, please refrain from inserting the appearance. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranian air forces section label
I've renamed this section from "Imperial Iranian Air Force / Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force" to "Iranian air forces" (note lower case on air forces). I did this before and got a knee jerk revert calling it vandalism. I think it is unneccassary and unencyclopedic to have the longer section label. -Fnlayson 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. - BillCJ 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, because the Military of Iran also has the IRGC Air Force, which does not operate the F-14. --Eurocopter tigre 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The text in the section lists Imperial Iranian Air Force and Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, so I don't see that as a problem.  It's not trying to say all Iranian air forces. -Fnlayson 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tomcats being shredded
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/02/shredding.tomcats.ap/index.html Pentagon shreds F-14s to keep parts from enemies WASHINGTON (AP) -- A mechanical monster grabs the F-14 fighter jet and chews through one wing and then another, ripping off the Tomcat's appendages before moving on to its guts. Finally, all that's left is a pile of shredded rubble -- like scraps from a Thanksgiving turkey. ...

drh 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This has been added to the article today.  Please don't copy & paste large parts of articles.  That can be a copyright violation. -Fnlayson 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

PW Engines
The Pratt and Whitney F100/F401 engines were developed for the Air Force and Navy team until the Navy dropped out according to my F-15 Davies book. They were slightly different versions of the same engine. One version had slightly better performance and the other was easier to maintain, I think. Anyway, what the article says now matches my reference. -Fnlayson 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Mike SPick's books, which is really in depth, the F100 and F401 share a similar core, but are different engines. He refers to them as cousins rather than brothers. Both engines were sized to meet different requirements (what exactly is not stated). GLad you're OK with my rewrite! - BillCJ 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My book says the F100/F401 contract was awarded to P&W in 1970. The AF and Navy formed a Joint Engine Project Office to coordinate their different requirements. The Navy wanted more thrust and the AF wanted less frequent overhauls and could deal with less thrust. Testing ran a few months late due to a turbine failure. The Navy cut back its order and problems arose. The Navy canceled its order for F401s in 1971 and dropped out. With the Navy requirements gone, they switched to an advanced aerodynamic compressor (was too heavy for Navy). The new compressor handled performance problems and deficiencies. -Fnlayson 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good details of the brief report i have heard. If your source is usable, you might consider adding it to the Pratt & Whitney F100 page. There is really not much history on the engine as a whole there, nor do we even have a redirect on the F401. FOr now, we could put a mention of it on the F100 page. - BillCJ 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent censorship
I have restored all the three links to Acig site. Obviousely, all these were deleted because some guys are still acting thinking that all the stuff not ufficial by US Navy is no good enough to be here. Regardless that these materials are widely discussed in acig and other sites, regardless that T.Cooper has written several books about, regardless that the logic simply suggest, that seen F-14s are still in service NOW, then 20 years ago obviousely Iran had still some in flyable conditions. BUT, since wikipedia has 'decided' that Cooper don't speak true, then he is cutted out from any articles about F-14 or whetever else. I find this simply unaccetable, but this is not my problem, is of those have still and still decided to ignore all Cooper had wrote about


 * Considering the circumstances under which the F-14s and their crews had to operate in Iran during the eight-years long war against Iraq - without any support from AWACS or AEW aircraft, without even a proper support from the GCI, against an enemy that was repeatedly introducing new and more capable fighters, radars, weapons and ECM-systems in combat and was supported by no less but three "superpowers" (USSR, France, and the USA), with their crews being permanently under heavy pressure from the regime in Tehran - it is actually a pure mirracle that an aircraft as complex as the Tomcat remained operational at all. That it proved as successful in combat, and is still the premier fighter in the Iranian Air Force, is a fact beyond what most of the observers world-wide are able to comprehend, but also a result of sternous efforts of IRIAF personnel and immense investment of the Iranian economy.

(from acig site, Persian cat's article). --Stefanomencarelli 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The EL section was bloated and another user cleared off a lot of links, not just Iranian ones. So forget the not-US Navy junk. -Fnlayson 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not US junk? And when, of grace, will be considered by the grate Wikipedia that over US exists also other sources 'reliable' about something? Here is made what needs to an enciclopedic article or just to what US Gov. liked to be done?--Stefanomencarelli 22:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but I can not understand what you just wrote. I removed a whole lot of links from bloated EL section.  I certainly did not remove just the Iranian ones.  The ACIG site does not do a very good job of asserting its verifiability though.  --Chuck Sirloin 13:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how it looked to me. You just cleared out a lot of links.  WP:EL does not require verifiability for links, but it is a good idea to follow.  References have to be of course. -Fnlayson 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart that i don't found 'fair' that someone choises to prone some links, and casually, all acig. i would inform you that if there is a site that has the capabilities to give good info and also discuss them it is Acig without any doubt, surely not the Mats home. There are not many sites that have both a forum and a webmaster that is a book autor, or?

Second, someone (Billbc) has whipped out my contributions about the tecnical description of F-14. This is not an excuse in any sense. I gave a overall description about all the aircraft. If someone found that it's unusual, futile or so on, it' his problem not mine. The works about aircrafts that i usually read (made by professionists like N.Sgarlato or A.Nativi) are composed of these four parts: origins, tecnical, versions, operativity. This make readable and well armonized an article, so it's not guilth of mine if the F-14s one have not a tecnical description. If you get a look to the stuff i have wrote all it's reparted in this manner, so i expects, that if one wants really improve an aircraft article, and F-14 is a class apart, he must point to the tecnology. If there is a 'design' section without any detailed description, then do not make a guilth to me that try to post it. You can improve what i have wrote, correct, rearranged, but delete it it's not definively an 'improvement' for the article, it's vandalize it. It's not because i wrote it, it's because the article need that section as hell, F-14 is an universe to describe just for tecnology used. So i invite you to improve that i wrote, but not delete it for funny reasons.--Stefanomencarelli 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a conspiracy to silence your contributions or the Iranian contingent. The fact is that the section you added was completely unsourced (no references) and to be honest, poorly written.  I understand that English is probably a second language for you, but, while I appreciate your contribution attempts, it is not other editors jobs to fix the things you write just because you feel it should be in the article.  Most of the things that you added are already covered in the article. --Chuck Sirloin 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The following was placed on the talk page for NOR. It does not belong there ... I imagine it belongs here, or on the Iraq War talk page.

Right.

I found instead that there is such 'silence conspiration'. The fact, what happens here in the page, speaks alone.

''Recent books by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop seem to suggest that the Iranian use of the Tomcat might have been more effective than had been previously reported. These books report that during the Iran-Iraq war Iranian Tomcat crews scored numerous AIM-54 kills, that there were several Tomcat aces with over 8 kills, and that there were over 100 total victory claims.'' (from Joe Baughet site, another illuse that believes in Cooper Claims enough to post them).

Now to your comments:


 * The whole point I believe that is being made here is this: It is just a story that someone is telling on a website until there is a way to verify the claim. You say Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling?, but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference.  --Chuck Sirloin 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you are advocate to your judgement IF T.Cooper is not a reliable author. Maybe i miss something, but are you authorized to do so? Where are your references that denies all the claims of Cooper?
 * Second:Look, the wiki.en is not a dependance of US Government and surely this latter is not a reliable source. All references to the stinky bottles used by C.Powell 4 years ago at ONU about Iraqui WMD are obviousely, casuals.
 * Third: T.Cooper are published several books, his works are published in several magazines, and he holds by several years a forum/site that is one of the most cited in the web about aereonautics, both in well and bad. I have discussed with him for several years and my clear opinion in his regard is that he is in good faith. He is ready to discuss everything he had written in his site: how many are available to do so? If there is an author that don't gives a dawn to any political or economical interference, hell, is him. And perhaps this hurts someone, right? I personally am a pro-soviet stuff fan, so for me he gives mainly bad news. Even so, even if i don't believe everything he sais, to me he looks as one of the most honest and reliable writers in the actual journalistic world. So i don't see any reason to exclude him by the articles.
 * Fourth. There is more than this: Why and how wikipedia is making differentiations between sources? All works already published are perfectly reasonable as sources. T.Cooper do not says that Tomcats are capable to go to horbit, he had weitten things that are much more reasonable than the ridicolous explainations about the 'sabotaged' to all the Tomcats/F-14. In every case there are many sources that states about the air victories of F-14s, in Iran. As example Joe Baugher site. So all rests is YOUR strumenctal statements that don't believes in what Cooper says.

''but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference.''

LOL-With the same thinking, i would not believe in the Men on the moon, in the Holocaust, in the 11 september, and so on. But in every cases, there are not reasons to exclude his works about F-14 if not a clear case of genuine censorship. And you still not give me the reasons about that. Even the greatest historians have made herrors, lies and so on: there is not any sources sure 100%, Wikipedia has tons of pages about gods, goddeness, Silence conspiracies, etc. etc. But look, just T.Cooper is a 'non reliable source'. And this is due to what? To your judments obviousely. So i talk cleary to you and those like you: this is censorship and nothing else, a ridicolous one, a shamelessy one.--Stefanomencarelli 17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Combat losses
"The F-14 suffered its only loss from enemy action on 21 January 1991 when b/n 161430, an F-14A upgraded to an F-14A+, from VF-103 was shot down by an SA-2 surface-to-air missile...."

Mmmk so I guess this isn't all that specific, but the Mirage F1 article states that two other Iranian F-14's were shot down by Iraqi Mirages during the Iran-Iraq war. Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article either, so I think someone should add it Masterblooregard 18:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The combat loss sentence is in the US Navy section and is referring to US losses. Also the paragraph in the Mirage article is unreferenced.  -Fnlayson 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the list of F-14 losses (2-3 to Mirages and one to MiG) is from Acig.org, that is obviousely 'dislaked' in wiki.en.--Stefanomencarelli 11:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical description section
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that Stefanomencarelli added a very extensive "Technical Description" section. While I appreciate the level of detail and depth this section brings to the article, I noticed there are some grammar and organizational issues with the section as is. To that end, I submit for your consideration this version of the Technical Description section, below. I used Stefanomencarelli's version as a base and moved, added, and deleted some information.

Technical description
The F-14's fuselage consists primarily of a large flat section, called the "pancake", the forward fuselage section ahead of the "pancake", and two engine pods below it. This "pancake" forms a flat deck between the two engine pods at the rear, and extends forward where it smoothly transitions into the forward fuselage pod, which houses the cockpit, radar and avionics, among other systems, as well as a retractable in-flight refueling probe. The flat deck allows space for weapons underneath, and contains integral fuel tanks. At the extreme aft end of the "pancake" deck, called the "beavertail", there are speedbrakes on the upper and lower surfaces, and an arrestor hook beneath the beavertail, as well as a fuel dump pipe inside the beavertail.

Each engine pod houses one engine at the extreme aft of the pod. At the front, each pod has a rectangular, highly swept back air intake. These intakes stand off the central fuselage enough so that complex splitters are not needed, as on other aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom. Inside each intake are a series of movable ramps that help to regulate the airflow into each engine, keeping it below subsonic speeds and keeping shockwaves from reaching the engine. Atop the intakes are bleed doors that alternately allow extra air into the engines (such as during takeoff) or allow excess air to bleed away. The intakes are angled outward from top to bottom when viewed from the front.

Extending outboard of each engine pod is a wing glove, which houses the variable-sweep wing mechanism and structure. These wing gloves form a diamond shape when viewed from above. Inside these gloves is a massive wing carry-through box, formed of titanium alloy. This carry-through box has the pivots for the variable sweep wing sections at each end. This carry-through box also contains integral fuel tanks. The glove vane provides hardpoints for missile pylons and launchers.

Attached to this carry-through box are the outer, swinging, wing sections. Each wing is of dual-spar construction, with fuel tanks between the spars. Attached to the trailing edge of the wing are flaps which extend the full span of the trailing edge. Slats span the entire leading edge, and spoilers are situated on the wing upper surface. These flaps and slats can be moved under the command of the central air-data computer to provide increased lift during maneuvering (early aircraft, before Block 90, had manual control only). There are no ailerons; roll control is provided by the spoilers and the all-moving horizontal tail. At wing sweep angles greater than 57°, the spoilers are locked down, and roll control is provided solely by the horizontal tail. Also, during carrier approaches, the spoilers are used as part of the Direct Lift Control (DLC) system, which, when engaged, causes the spoilers to extend slightly. When extra lift is required, the spoilers fully retract, providing lift without requiring changes in attitude.

The wing sweep angle is controlled by a AiResearch CP-1166B/A central air data computer (ADC), which calculates the optimum wing sweep based on speed and other conditions. It also controls the air intake geometry and maneuvering flap/slat positions. At takeoff and landing, the wings are set at their full forward position, which gives a 20° wing sweep. As speed increases, the wings are swung aft by actuators under the control of the ADC, until full wing sweep (68°) is achieved for high-speed flight. The ADC can, of course, be overridden by the pilot in emergencies. On the ground, the wings can be overswept to 75°, which reduces the space needed for carrier stowage and eliminates the need for folding wings. Throughout the wing sweep range, an aerodynamic seal between the wing and the part of the fuselage it swings over is maintained by inflatable canvas bags that are coated with Teflon to reduce friction. These bags inflate to fill the gap when the wings are swept forward.

Inside each of the wing gloves is a triangular glove vane. These were originally designed to aid stability at supersonic speeds; however in practice they provided marginal benefit and added weight and complexity. In the field they were locked shut and their actuators removed, and later build Tomcats were built without them.

Atop the aft section of each engine pod is a vertical stabilizer. The original Grumman design featured a single tail, but this was changed to the twin-tail arrangement at the request of the Navy. The twin tails each have conventional rudders and provide better yaw control, increased survivability (allowing for continued flight if one tail is damaged), and reduced height for carrier storage.

On the outboard side of each engine pod is an all-flying horizontal stabilizer. There are no separate elevators; the entire stabilizer moves on a pivot. The two stabilizers can move in the same direction for pitch control, as well as in different directions for roll control. These stabilizers are constructed primarily of boron composite, with aluminium leading and trailing edge and tip parts.

The flight controls are mechanical, using rods, cables and springs, among other devices. There is no fly-by-wire or artificial stability system, but there was an analog stability augmentation system which was intended to improve control. This was not effective, and in the late 1990s to early 2001 a new Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) was developed and installed fleet-wide. The DFCS improved handling and provided protection from unrecoverable flat spins (a notorious and dangerous flight characteristic of the Tomcat).

The pilot and Radar Intercept Officer (RIO, colloquially known as the "Guy in the Back Seat") are seated in either Martin-Baker GRU-7A (F-14A/B) or Martin-Baker SJU-17 NACES (F-14D) ejection seats. The crew is arranged in a tandem, one-behind-the-other, arrangement, which provides less drag than a side-by-side arrangement. The crew is covered by a large canopy that provides good all-around visibility.

The F-14A (the first version) was powered by two Pratt & Whitney TF30 afterburning turbofan engines. At the exhaust end of the engine there are variable exhaust nozzles, which slide fore and aft to open or close the nozzle opening, respectively. These engines were not intended for a fighter like the F-14, were underpowered, finicky, and especially susceptible to compressor stalls and blade failures. More detail on these problems can be found in "Upgrades", below. The later F-14B and F-14D models were fitted with much more reliable, more powerful and less temperamental General Electric F110 engines.

The F-14 has a tricycle landing gear, with a twin-wheel nose gear strut in the forward fuselage and single-wheel main gear struts outboard of the engine pods. All gear struts retract forward; the main gear wheels rotate 90° to lie flat in the gear well.

The F-14 has a comprehensive suite of electronics for navigation, communications, electronic countermeasures (ECM)/jamming, and identification and targeting of enemy aircraft. The F-14A is equipped with a Hughes AN/AWG-9 radar and fire control system. This system is able to track 24 targets and attack six more targets with its Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. The system is also capable of looking down, to identify low-level targets. The later F-14D variant was equipped with an upgraded Hughes AN/APG-71 radar.

Beneath the nose of the F-14 are a variety of electronic chin pods, depending on variant. Early F-14As were equipped only with an electronic jamming pod, an AN/ALR-23 infrared (IR) seeker, or both. In practice, this IR seeker was ineffective and replaced on later F-14As and F-14Bs with a Northrop Television Camera System (TCS) which enabled long-range visual identification of targets. The later F-14D is equipped with a dual chin pod with the TCS and an IR seeker side-by-side.

Other avionics and on-board electronic systems include
 * ASN-92 CAINS II (Carrier Aircraft Inertial Navigation System II) inertial navigation system
 * APX-71 transponder and AXX-76 identification friend-or-foe (IFF) equipment
 * ARC-51 (replaced by ARC-159) UHF radios, and KY-58 cryptographic system
 * APN-154 beacon augmenter, APN-194 radar altimeter, Gould ARN-84 TACAN and ARA-50 automatic direction finder
 * ASW-27B digital datalink, for high speed communication between the aircraft and the ground, as well as early warning aircraft

The F-14 can be armed with a variety of weapons, including air-to-air missiles and bombs. The F-14 can be loaded with the following missiles:
 * AIM-54 Phoenix: A long range, radar-guided missile. The Phoenix works with the AN/AWG-9/APG-71 radar to reach its target. It can fly a preprogrammed course to its target, home in on radar signals reflected off the target by the F-14's radar, or use its own radar to home in on the target. The Phoenix can be mounted under the tunnel between the engine pods on special pallets, or on pylons beneath the wing gloves.
 * AIM-7 Sparrow: A medium range, radar guided missile. This missile requires that the F-14 illuminate the target with its radar in order for the missile to hit the target. Sparrows can be mounted in the tunnel between the engines, semi-recessed, although this is rare. They are more frequently mounted on the wing glove pylons.
 * AIM-9 Sidewinder: A short range, heat-seeking missile. They are usually mounted on the underwing glove pylons.

There were plans to modify the F-14 to accept the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, but these were scrapped by the US government.

The F-14 is also equipped with a 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon for close-in dogfighting. It fires out of the port side of the forward fuselage looking forward, and contains 675 rounds.

The F-14 can also be used for precision guided and unguided bombing; see "Transformation" below.

Please tell me what you think, and if you think that this version should replace the current section. If you have comments or changes for me to make, please say so here as well! I am aware of the lack of references, wikilinks/external links, or sources, and will add them if/when it is decided to add this section to the article.

Thanks very much, Nick L. 10:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nick this is an immense improvement on the section. I have highlighted small typos but otherwise, the only other concern is to provide some corroboration in the form of citing reference sources. FWIW Bzuk 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC).


 * We're been trying to fix spelling and format issues. It still needs copyeditting.  That's why the Copyedit tag is there.  Anything you can do there would be great.  I don't totally get this bolding errors thing.  It adds more stuff to fix/delete later.  Try the  tag for confusing wording.  Spelling degrees is not really an error. -Fnlayson 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find so 'good' such version. The part about electronic is whipped out, that's unaccettable for the F-14 description. The fuel system is lacking, unaccettable as well. When Bzuk will finish to magnificate every thing against my work, perhaps he also will see that this version is not complete and an overall worsement respect to the one now present. Dont' rely too much about 'language spelling issues' i know i am not of mother language, but i am not a moron as well).--Stefanomencarelli 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns about the proposed version, especially with regard to electronic and fuel systems. I am working on a revision that will address these areas which you have found lacking. Nick L. 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made some changes to the section, mostly about the electronics. I've also seen to some of the sections that needed work, and removed the bolded text (seems like they've been fixed). Please comment. Also, I would like to know your opinions regarding the replacement of the section in the article with the above version. Thanks, Nick L. 04:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks alright to me. Seems like you can just tweak the wording in the article instead of here. -Fnlayson 04:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be better to replace the section in the article with the above versus fixing the section that is currently in the article? Nick L. 17:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical Description 2
A lot of interesting stuff, but a lot is also mentioned in several other places. There are lot of stuff missing, there are a different set of ejection seats in the F-14D, and the stuff about the Tomcat lacking multi funciton displays is just not right. With the additon of the LANTIRN in the 1990's, MFDs were added. The text is mainly about the F-14A. And the A-model must have had MFD's as well, at least the RIO, otherwise it would have been problematic due to the LANTIRN pod and the RIO must at least be able to select options and what not when using the LANTIRN and laser guided bombs.

The section about the engines are only in regard to the F-14A, nothing is deeply mentioned about the B and D. Hagman1983 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Hagman1983

Technical description 3
Hi. I went through the section and copy edited it. I understand that there are plans to replace or rewrite the whole section, but the section in its current form was pretty much incomprehensible in places, so I thought it best to do something ASAP. There are also a lot of uncited statements. Regards Davidelit 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited statements from Joe Baugher site. The word 'only' about internal fuel capability: are you aware how much is 9000 l.? Just to checking. There is no other western fighter capable to do so. So definitively 'only' is a wrong word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


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

--
 * I just divided the "Tech description" section for better readability and further summarizing. Did it because that section was just too huge, but all most important components of this bird are explained, at least for the "A-cats". So I rearranged a little bit to glue these together. I just found that here are some, who really care about this article, hope this gives them a bit of a framework to move on. Please don't mind the headings for it's just a try to break the text into tinier parts. As english isn't my mother tongue it's impossible to me to shorten it properly.

Hope that's allright for the moment... Greetings, Andi 11:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on your "talk" page. Better readabillity is a laudable goal considering the patched up mess this article that has resulted from recent edits but my question was over the use of the word "gear" which may not always mean "landing gear." BTW, get a proper userid so that your work is identified to a serious researcher. Also, use the four tilde (~) method to sign off the comments on talk pages. FWIW Bzuk 11:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

Technical description 4
I think it just should be removed. It's too much, it's cumbersome to read, unnecessary information. You don't see the wiki-pages about the F-15, F-16 or the F/A-18 variants with such information. Remove it, the page will look more cleaner, better readability and it's too "technical" and a this page has turned into a total mess. Hagman1983 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's too long but not all to it has to go. Also, the Upgrades and Transformations sections are over detailed as well, in my opinion. I'll try to cut things back. -Fnlayson 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Errr, if F-15/16/18 have not this 'over-unnecessary' info it's not a merit, it's because they are not enough deepth in description. You cannot delete tecnical description of F-14 except you want to have a drastically incomplete article about it. It's simply impossible make a good work without this info level, that is usually searched by aviation fans (the more interested to such articles).

Moreover: it's false that the tecnical description is already covering the whole avionics set. Just the main elements like the radar, but the list total is far more greater.

But the others are much more, over 40:

Radar: Hughes AWG-9, (later APG-71), APN-194 radar altimeter, DSQ-23 (Phoenix missiles)
 * Central Air Data Computer (CADC): AiResearch CP-1166B/A
 * RWR: Originally an AN/APR-25 and AN/APR-27, then replaced by AN/ALR-45 and finally by AN/ALR-67
 * IRST/TV: Originally, AN/ALR-23, later Northrop TCS
 * RWR:ALR-45, ALR-50
 * ECM: ALQ-100, later ALQ-126B, (against enemy tracking radars), ALQ-91 (against data links), AN/ALE-29 (chaff/flare), later replaced by AN-ALE-39
 * HUD: Kaiser AN/AWG-12
 * Com/nav.: data link KY-28, JTDS, radio UHF AN/ARC-51, 159 and AN/ARR-69, TACAN, radio compass AN/ARA-50, KY-58 cryptographic system, radios Have Quick, ARN-84 TACAN, ARA-50 automatic direction finder, ASN-92 CAINS (Carrier Aircraft Inertial Navigation System II) II inertial navigation system
 * IFF: AN/APX-72, AXX-76 IFF interrogator
 * Flight controls and data: CP-1166B/A Central Air Data Computer (CADC), AN/ARA-63 aircraft approach control system (with AN/SPN-41 AN/TRN-28 transmitters), Direct Lift Control (DLC).

If you don't like this part, there is not much problem (even if i think this should be in the article). There are sub-articles of F-14 tomcat, so the best thing could be simply to split the stuff in a dedicated article about the detailed, tecnical analysis and description of Tomcat. This aircraft is, among the many fighter, the most sofistied as tecnical and avionics, with ten aerodinamic surfaces and dozens avionic elements. Just think to Mirage III, that has only three fixed surfaces, one radar, one RWR and one radio-nav set. Almost a toy.

I propose: F-14 tecnical description.

Or History of the F-14 Tomcat, enlarged to tecnical analysis.--Stefanomencarelli 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhmm, yeah, sorry. A seperate article would work of course. Hagman1983 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So we agree?--Stefanomencarelli 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I say no. Aircraft already has a few split off articles. There weren't enough F-14s made to justify more articles, imo. -Fnlayson 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur, and especially because this is what has happened in the recent past, see:. .FWIW Bzuk 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the F-14 should not be split, but without a complete and extensive tecnical description the article loose greatly in deepth and for 'aviation fans' also in interest. I think that no F-14 article could be made without an extensive tecnical-avionic description, so i don't think that this is excessive. But if someone is interested to cut it a bit, this cannot be done removing the stuff. It must be done with the right solutions. So i'll remove the F-14 tecnical description and place it in History of F-14.--Stefanomencarelli 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


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

So the famous duo Bill/Bzuk strike again. Every time you can make gratouitous provocations is good enough, huh? First, Bill, you have no really clue of what you are saying, unless you desire to make a second rate class article.

Second, the stuff to remove a simple prhase that claiming a clear attack against me made by Bzuk is unsupportable and illegal. I remark that in discussion pages there must be much care to 'remove' 'personal attacks' far from be proof. The only thing i can say for sure, is still that you two dear boys are still hers JUST to provocke me as mob. So, since while someone has deleted absolutely in a illegal manner my 'partial edit' to Bzuk, i not only contest this, but also remove the Bzuk statement itself, that was a clear and gratuoitus attack on my self.--Stefanomencarelli 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


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

One, BE POLITE in discussions. Your kindly word should be keep away from this. Two:

''Discussion page vandalism Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page.''

Since: Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor. is considered a PERSONAL ATTACK, so Bzuk has made one against me, for the obvious purpuse to throw me discredit and surely this cannot be accepted in a CIVIL discussion.

So who is babbling about 'personal attacks' Huh?.--Stefanomencarelli 09:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gents, I was lucky enough to pilot the F-14A with VF-1 on USS RANGER 1991-92, then the F-14D with VF-2 on USS CONSTELLATION 1993-1994. I enjoy your descriptions, and have two items to add.

First, the 'pancake' section of the fuselage (I've never heard it called that), being flat on the bottom and cambered on the top (between the heat exchanger vents) is actually a LIFTING BODY. This comes into play at high speed when the wings are swept and provide little lift. Its noteworthy that when the wings are swept, the wings spoilers are locked down and only the horizontal stabs provide roll.

Second, the reason for Cheney cancelling the F-14D is more simple than stated here. The airplane had huge downtime maintenance compared to the Hornet. For two-plane launches we almost always manned a third jet as a spare in case a Tomcat went down before launch. Hornet squadrons would seldom man spares, or would do so with just one spare per 4 or 6 Hornet launches. It always amused me to see our RIOs make elaborate, impassioned presentations during squadron meetings on how the Navy was blowing it by canceling the Tomcat instead of continuing upgrades. First, we squadron members of course have no say on the future of the program. Second, it made perfect sense to me to go with the newer F/A-18 E/F. I have friends who fly it and rave about how the 'bubble' expanded for them tactically.

The Tomcat was an iconic aircraft, a marvelous weapons platform and a real crowd pleaser at airshows. It was ahead of its time, and bridged the gap very well between the Phantom and the Hornet. Tbarn9 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LastCatshot.jpg

Correction to Survivors
There is no F-14 located in Air & Space's national mall building. It is located in the Dulles annex.The Witch King 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The survivor's note on this aircraft (BuNo. 159610) has been changed to accommodate the new location. Was it ever displayed in the main NASM building? I noticed that the aircraft emerged from restoration in 2006. The museum’s F-14D (R) on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center, was restored with the help of the Navy’s VF-31 squadron technicians. Was it restored at the NASM? See: F-14 FWIW Bzuk 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Iranian aircraft coords
I removed this from the main article: Two Iranian F-14's and an F-4 are visible at Oibb Bushehr AB, Iran at these coordinates:, , and , respectively. The images are a bit interesting since they don't appear to have the desert camo paint scheme I was expecting, more like the US paint scheme I think. The first two images. F-4 has the camo. --Dual Freq 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Thats because they are repainting them in a new scheme (blue and matte brown) that fits the role better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.73.173.88 (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Current Users
Well this is my first time adding something, well I haven't added yet. Anyway I was in Hawaii and saw multiple Tomcats fly over more than once. I thought I would just throw this in because in the first section at the end it says that only some Islamic countries fly them, when this is untrue. I want to help keep this article as accurate as possible. From what I hear it is only flown by some reserve bases (US only). That's it. Stunta1350 July 25, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stunta1350 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Only the US and Iran ordered the F-14. The US retired it in 2006.  Must have been another type of aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Controversy
Wasn't there some controversy over the retirement of the F-14? I think there should be some sort of mention of that. --74.232.40.83 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No controversy. There were plenty of Tomcat pilots, RIOs and maintenace folks that were sad to see it go.  There were lots of lamenting the change - particularly folks that lost thier jobs (mainly the NFOs, many of whome were not transitioned to the Super Hornet).  The retirement was moved forward significantly, because the cost of maintaining it were enormous. If you can find a legit source for controversy, add it! E2a2j (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NFO/RIO's loosing their jobs? I find that strange as there are two-seat F/A-18s and I bet you a lot of former RIO's have become Weapon Systems Officer, even if their last F-14 squadron went to F/A-18Es, they would just have gone to an other squadron flying F/A-18Fs. I doubt the Navy would just fire capable officers that can be in the backseat of an F/A-18F. Hagman1983 (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The NFOs weren't "fired", but many of them were not offered F-18F back seats. The numbers just didn't support it.  The S-3 was being retired at the same time, so there was a glut of NFOs - too many for the available seats.  The same thing happened when the A-6 went away.  NFOs were subject to a "transition screening board" that determined who got to transition to a follow-on platform. E2a2j (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There was controversy outside the military, since its not really proper military etiquette to criticise your superiors (see President) while still serving. Retired officers as high as Rear Admiral's offered alternate theories as to why the F-14 was retired, including, pointing the finger at connections between Cheney and the F/A-18E sub-contractors. Basically the controversy relied heavily on the fact that the F-14 outperformed the F/A-18C and F/A-18E in most missions and was cheaper then the bigger Hornet. They also pointed out that the big Hornet was in fact an entirely new aircraft which added nothing in terms of capability at a cost of billions ... the reason they allege for it being named Hornet was that they wanted to 'sneak' it past unsuspecting Politicians and the public. If the allegations were true, then this would've been one of the greatests government frauds in the history of the USA. That said, a decent way to measure how good these birds are is generally how many non-US clients purchase them ... and the F/A-18E seems to have out-performed the F-14 on that front.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that this is not a discussion forum (WP:NOTAFORUM). Find another site with a forum for this. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

f-14 Iran
four f-14's can be seen in Teheran! coordenates are, 35'42'15.90 N and 51'17'51.04 O google earth 213.73.171.102 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty certian that the F-14 is no longer in action.

kingpenguins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpenguins2007 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Iran has an estimated 44 with a minimum 13 operational per Combat Aircraft magazine, Jan 2009 issue. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The article states that 13 aircraft were delivered before the overthrow of the Shah, then orders to the west were cancelled. It also says that Iran has 59 F-14's. 13 does NOT equal 59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.122.27 (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


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


 * You must be getting the 13 from my post above. The only places where 13 appears in the article are part of dates in the references. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 13 operational F-14s part was added to the article after the posts above, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting that Iran has 44 airframes available, and 13 are currently operational. I would like to see the article, though. Cooper usually kicks around a number between 20 and 25 in the past, so 13 struck me as low. The Scythian 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair. The Aviation Week Source Book lists 20 F-14As for Iran as of Jan. 2009 and Flight International lists 25 as of Nov. 2008.  No agreement but at least there are in the same ballpark. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The ones they have currently flying I dare say would be inferior in comparison to the current US inventory. All the Tomcats the Shah inherited were sabotaged by outgoing Grumman technicians. Certain components were pulled from the aircraft and were made inoperable one way or another. Until this could be confirmed by visual inspection, caution is still advisable, but not overly done. Nighthawke75 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That was almost 30 years ago, mate. Totally irrelevant rumour for todays Iran AF inventory of f-14s.Wikinegern (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

No, the USMC did not use the F-14. They retained F-4s until the F/A-18 enterd service. - BillCJ (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

USMC were more interested in fighter/bombers than pure fighters the F-14 was. 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighthawke75 (talk • contribs)

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

They have roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of their original inventory to 75% combat capability. The outgoing Grumman techs saw to that by destroying certain avionics in the aircraft. They would be hard-pressed to take on modern aircraft. Nighthawke75 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of hardpoints
Concerning the recent edits regarding the number of hardpoints, these two pictures show them all. I've also found a written source for it, but it does not mention wether or not the TARPS point is (or should considered to be) a seperate one or the same hardpoint as one of the missile points. Somehow I doubt if any source will mention it unless it's very in depth. But the number of points is clearly either 10 or 11 (unless the fuel points are not counted for some reason). - Berkoet (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Photos are inconclusive, as your own statements show - I have no clue how you get 10 or 11. The F-14 has one place on each wing glove fo a pylon, which can carry a missile on the main rack, and 1 Sidewinder on a rail - but that is one "hard point" if you define it as a place on the fuselage to attach stores. It also has a place on each engine duct for a fuel tank. It has 4 recesses in the fuselage for Sparrow/Amraams, or two pallets for 2 Phoenixes each. And that doesn't include the TARPS, as you pointed out, tho I believe that only 49 F-14ss were modified to carry it, and I don't know if that precludes carring any other stores there. So, "hard point" is probably a useless term in this case. Whater we do put, it needs to be from reliable sources, - BillCJ (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I dig around to find a source and get questioned for it. The TARPS pod is mounted at an existing attach point.  That required modifications to add extra wiring and such for the pod.  12 or 10 however you want to count them.  They can't all be used at one times, except possibly with smaller missiles or bombs. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The TARPS uses and adaptor on weapon station#5 on aircraft in air-to-ground configuration (right rear Phoenix station). This is useful but not sure it is a reliable source. Note the term weapon station not hard-points. MilborneOne (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Sorry, Jeff, I'm not jumping your case. I looked at the Spick diagrams, and it doesn't go into any explanations. It's just that with the F-14, it's complicated; I got most of what I said from other sources. I do think we need to add about the Sparrow recesses somewhere in the specs, but it's getting a bit crowded already, so I haven't done it yet. I do think perhaps "weapons stations" is a better term to use then hardpoints, but it might be more obtuse in meaning. Oh well! - BillCJ (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was replying to Berkoet.  That's why my indent was even with your post.  Months ago I added some TARPS info in the "Improvements and changes" section.  It mentions a right rear location.  The weapon stations look complicated on the F-15 as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Milb1. That chart looks accurate to me, but I'm not sure it's considered a reliable source by WP standards. - BillCJ (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input Milb1, BillCJ. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

very big mistake!
I know this was a very long time ago when this actually happened but the man who convinced the navy to go with the f14 not the F-111B was my great grandfather Robert Lee Townsend. He was a 3 star general in the navy and lost his chance of a 4th star by "burning" some higher ranked men who had invested in the F-111B. For those of you who read this and are very mature you will understand why my great grandfather decided not to fight for the credit of convincing the navy against Thomas Connolly. He thought it wasn't worth fighting for because he had better things to do then. He lived to be 102 when he died and i am his namesake. I am not like him though, he died with only family and probably a few friends and some Co-workers who knew the truth. But i can't stand that the credit of such a great decision was taken from him! I want to set the story right! I want the truth to be known! My great grandfather Robert Lee Towndsend was the man to fight long and hard to have the Navy use the F14 Tomcat instead of the F-111B not Thomas Connolly. There have always been men who would take the credit of others to get more "popular" or "impressive" but my question is how come he couldn't do it himself? Why did he have to take the credit from someone else? I cant stand men(or women) like that. Worthless bunch of fools who waste time then when they get nothing accomplished mooch off of others. Don't get me wrong im not saying that Thomas Connolly was completely like this, after all he was a 3 star general. All i want is that my great grandfather is given his due respect. He is dead now and made a large difference when he was alive. There isn't much on him on wikipedia but i am planning on making a page about him soon just need to gather alot more information. Just please change any mistakes about this fact in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertleespeers (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the following Wikipedia Guidelines: Releiable sources and No original research. Unless your material is cited from reliable sources, it is origianl research, and will be removed from the article if you add it. I know this may seem unfair, but Connolly is credited in many relaible sources, not your grandfather, and that is what we are allowed to cite. If a well-known and relaiable magazine, newspaper, or reputable online site, icludign a government or DOD site, such a a Navy historical website, or a book be a reputable author, has written on the sublject, then those sources can be cited. ALos, it is possible for both your grandfather and Admiral (not "General) Connolly to have been big F-14 proponents, and influential in the USN choosing the F-14 over the 111. You don't have to tear down one person in order to get another one recognized. That's a big red flag for many editors,and a sign the user may be overly-biased toward one point of view. By the way, WP also has Conflict of Interest guidelines; you'll need to review these, and consider recusing yourself from direct contributions on this subject. WP has had users crusading to get their relatives/firends their "just" recognition before, and most do not rely on reliable sources for their contributions, just "the truth". Anyone can claim anythign is the truth, so that is why reliable sources are required. Thanks for understanding, and any of the regualr contributors on this page will be happy to assist you, provided you are willing to follow the policies and guidelines of WP. - BilCat (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find something but my dad is also in the military and he tells me that the files that can prove what i am saying are there...but they are in a sense "untouchable" but i talked to my dad and my grandmother(Robert Lee Townsend's daughter) and they told me everything...just if i could prove it....i will try..i just need time...and i am new at wikipedia so please gimme a bit of a break with all the reading and guidelines(theres tons!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertleespeers (talk • contribs) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I only pointed you to 3 policies! I know it's a lot to absorb, and no one can absorb it all on a first reading, and we don't expect you to either. But it will help you to understand and avoid some problems before hand. You or someone else may have to spend years getting access to those files before the whole story can be made public. It's not easy work, but if there are no other reliable sources that state this info, that is the only real option left. There are investigative reporters who thrive on this kind of stuff, and perhaps you may find one somewhere along the way who'd be willing to do the heavy lifting. Your congressperson's or senator's office may also be willing to help. Beyond that, I don't know. ANyway, many kinds of people from all walks f life read and edit WP, and perhaps someone who can help more substantively will see this discussion. One never knows!


 * Finally, I'd encourage you to pursue some of your other interests on WP to get your feet wet, and to expose you to how it works. Haqve a favorite movie? ook? Aircraft? CAr, SHip? Tank? State? City? Look them up, read them as you can, and start making small edits to things liek grammar and editing mistakes. Then erhaps by the time you have some sources on you great-grandfather to work on, you'll also have some editing experience on WP to make it easier. But beware: WP is addictive! ANd if all tht is not something you want to get into, that's your choice too. - BilCat (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Dick Cheney's reasoning for canceling F-14
The F-22 Raptor interceptor had first flew in the 1990, but as the prototypes were well known at the time. F-22 Raptor is the 2nd most expensive military project after B2 Spirit. I think the funding migrated to the YF-22 Raptor project. A request for proposal (RFP) was issued in July 1986 Renegadeviking 05:50am 24 December, 2007 (CST)
 * Funding and probably need were factors. That part of article need a reference.  Techncially the YF-22 first flew in 1990 and the F-22 in 1997. (YF-22 is prototype version.)  -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, they studied a naval version of the F-22 under the Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) program. But with swing-wings, it was nearly a new fighter and would be expensive.  NATF was canceled in 1993.  So the moving of money could not have happened as you suggest. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was because the F-18 was going to be cheaper to maintain--68.199.113.247 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1989 when the push to cancel the F-14D to began, all the stories I've skimmed seem to say it was an attempt to reduce the budget deficit, by favoring advanced aircraft of the future over newer versions of older aircraft. According to this quote, he wanted to modernize existing aircraft instead, to save money: "Our fleet of F-14 fighters could be modernized at a cost of $25 million each, Cheney said, but to keep production lines open in Long Island, N.Y., Congress has insisted the Pentagon buy completely new and updated F-14s at a cost of $50 million each. For the sake of jobs, not defense, this policy will cost the taxpayers an extra $1 billion over the next few years to modernize 30 percent fewer fighters." - Colorado Springs (Colo.) Gazette Telegraph, Aug. 5 and Sept. 20. (1989) --Dual Freq (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Mr. Cheney has also decided not to produce a new version of the F-14 plane, instead converting older models, a saving of about $2.4 billion over the next five years." Cheney Defends Budget Decisions To Cut Some Weapon Programs MICHAEL R. GORDON. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 26, 1989. pg. A.21 --Dual Freq (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pentagon officials have characterized the F-14 as 1960s technology. In budget recommendations to Congress, Cheney proposed stopping production of the Grumman plane and beginning the upgrade of 400 existing F-14s to the newer "D" configuration. Those remanufactured planes would be used until the successor aircraft - the Advanced Tactical Fighter - is available." Cheney Aims Barrage at F-14D Calls keeping jet a `jobs program'; By Stephanie Saul. Newsday Washington Bureau. Newsday. Long Island, N.Y.: Aug 24, 1989. pg. 06. --- That didn't exactly work out, Congress funded a couple years of F-14D's and spent less money on advanced projects than was requested. The Navy never got an ATF version, getting the Super Hornet instead. I don't think the fact that the Navy didn't get an ATF is Cheney's fault, though. At least not from reading 1989 articles about the 1990 budget fight. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole point was to allow the F/A-18E to get into service without severe scrutiny. The Super Hornet, according to some former Naval Air Admiral was a dog compared to the F-14 but Cheney was in league with the contractors providing the new aircraft. Note, the Super Hornet is an entirely new aircraft, with nothing now in common with the original Hornet. Its slower, has less payload, range and weapons capacity next to an F-14 and is also ironically more expensive. So in other words the point was to sabotage a capable, yet old aircraft so that people wouldn't blink when a 'stop gap' measure was brought in to solve the Navy's problems.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Cheney called the F-14 a "jobs program", and when the F-14 was canceled, an estimated 80,000 people lost jobs as Grumman employees, subcontractors, or support personnel." I have a problem with that "80,000" people lost jobs comment. The citation for that quote is from a 1989 article, so it was an estimate, not a fact, and those numbers are always the list of people who are in some way related to the F-14 program. Every company that manufactured an F-14 part didn't go out of business and lay everyone off when the F-14 ended production. I'm sure some people lost jobs when the F-14 ended production, but it wasn't 80,000. I think that line should be removed from the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why no C model?
Why was the Super Tomcat designated the F-14D and not the F-14C? Vicarious Tendril (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A F-14C was projected, with an avionics upgrade, and the TF30 engines. The D was bascially the C with the F110s. - BilCat (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you add a sentence saying that on the C-model? I've checked my books and they only say it was a proposed variant.  Do the descriptions at M.A.T.S. page google book seem right?  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The MATS material is awfully convoluted. For one thing, the F101DFE was the development engine for the F110 - the engines may not have been identical (I don't know), but one led to the other. The MATS page makes them seem unconnected. I'll see what I can find in my print sources; I wouldn't add what I wrote above to the article, as I could be wrong on the exact details. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * OK, I've added a sentence from Spick (2000) on the F-14C. If we find any more details, we can just add them to it. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Additional Citations for Verification in the Design section
I'm wondering if there are specific passages/claims that have been identified in the Design section which need citations. The section is quite large and covers many different details. Without pointing out what's at issue, it will be very difficult for anyone to satisfy the one requesting verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all the paragraphs without references. That's why a section tag is used there instead of individual  tags. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a certain number of references that is required per paragraph? The only paragraph without a reference in that section is the first one. I apologize in advance if this requirement is spelled out in an article tutorial page; I haven't gone through and become familiar with all of the rules that apply to Wikipedia articles. Agsftw (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


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


 * As well, when quoting someone, when adding material to biographies of living people, checking content added by others, and uploading images. (Just to show that I was more thorough.)Agsftw (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job. It depends on the number of references.  But one reference per paragraph would be a fine start.  There's some good info on J Baugher's site that may reference some parts. I'll help with this where I can.  I put this on my To Do list. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. So there is a number of references required per section? The wikipedia guidance on citations does not specify a number. There are quite a few citations in that section, and most of what I've read in that section does not seem off base. I think whoever is asking for citations needs to be more clear as to why the citations are needed and what specific statements he/she has issue with, otherwise, we should take off that section tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction to my ealier statement that there's only one paragraph in that section without citations: there's actually nine. I agree it's important to cite your work and there are large swaths in that section without any citations. I'll see if I can help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a few references, cited passages, and made a grammatical correction. I also changed one word and deleted another to reflect the references associated with the sentences those words were in. There are still a few paragraphs in the section without citations. I'll attempt to appropriately cite those later. It took me a while to figure out the intricacies of wiki code :)Agsftw (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentences I changed were all in the Design section. The first change was in the third sentence of the Overview paragraph: I changed the word "allround" to "all-round" for a recognized spelling of the word. The second change was in the fourth sentence of the Overview paragraph: changed the word "several" to "most" to reflect information in the associated reference; the intent one of the planned outcomes of the F-14/VFX was to create a better performing fighter than the F-4. (I'll try to find another reference I know of regarding this performance comparisons between the two aircraft. There's a publication that details a Navy "fly-off" b/t the F-4J and F-14A). Removed word “mainly” from third sentence in first paragraph of the Armament sub-section in order to reflect the information in the same reference. Let me know if you have issues with the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


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

Speed
Why is speed quoted as 2.34? The aircraft is not a Mach 2 class aircraft. --99.235.15.225 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.


 * Yes it is. It was designed as an interceptor & fighter.  See the Navy fact file and other web sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Encyclopedia of World Air Power, it has a top speed of Mach 2.34. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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


 * I know of no reliable sources that show the Soviet Union acquiring an F-14 from either Iran, or off the bottom of the ocean. The photo you speak of has been proven a doctored fake. Any similarities between the F-14's avionics and the Mig-31 more likely would be due to espionage or congruent engineering development than anything else. The reality, as I understand it, is that Iran simply had no wish to give up it's precious F-14's to anyone, and never trusted the Soviet Union/Russia very much anyway. A good source on the F-14's service in the Iranian Air Force can be found here. The Scythian 09:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Myths and rumours like these are all based on prejudice in some way or the other. It help see through these by consider people on the other side. The Soviet needed an inteceptor to defend their borders, and the obvious solutions to the similar problems resulted in similarities to the F-14 in some ways. This does not mean they copied anything. As evidence of that is the Mig-31 radar that was more advanced than the F-14s.Wikinegern (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

History article needs help
I think this article is in good shape overall. But History of the F-14 Tomcat is in poor shape. Should some of that be merged/moved here or some other solution? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I cut that article back to only Operational history and renamed it F-14 Tomcat operational history. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Specification proposal
I was thinking of using a table to list all the F-14 variants. I saw a similar variation of this on the Boeing 737 page, and I think it looked fantastic, and I think it's a good feature rather than just showing one variant AVKent882 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop asking this on every aircraft talk page, see replies on F-16 page and please bring up at WP:AIRCRAFT talk page if you need to discuss further, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


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