It was an honor to work on the Tomcat as a maintainer because of pilots like Mike Rabens. We worked hard and played even harder. At my time stationed with him as LCDR. Rabens, a classy "Naval Officer and Pilot", that always too the time to thank us maintainers for all we did.
So as a maintainer what was it like compared to other aircraft? My father in law worked on the F-14 in the 80s on the Nimitz and he did not like working on it.
What an incredible seminar. Loved every minute of it. "With the upgraded F-14D, I could go up against any fighter out today maybe except the JSF because of the weapon systems". F-14 is the greatest fighter made, in my opinion.
Underpowered with F110? I have heard the opposite. With 60,000 lbs of combined thrust, the GE-110 engines gave it a 1.05:1 thrust to weight ratio and they were the most powerful engines ever put into a fighter. I have heard, the airframe limits were exceeded a few times where it had difficulties coping with the power. The airframe of the F-14 also generated lift and had the lowest wing loading, which is why the thrust to weight ratio was not as big of a deal. Dale Snodgrass said, he used to regularly pull 9.5g even in the lowly F-14A and has actually demo videos of pulling 9g and over. When Dennis Romano went up against the F-15 in a back to back demo, the Shah of Iran was extremely impressed when Dennis pulled a 9g 360 tight turn in an F-14A with sustained 400 knots speed producing big vapor clouds over the wing. The F-15 did a 7.5g in the same maneuver. The Shah of Iran ended up choosing the F-14 because Dennis Romano was so good that he ended up making the F-14A look more agile and nimble than the F-15 (which was not the case in reality).
The F-14 B/D could vertically climb at a rate of 50,000 feet per minute (compared to 35.000 feet per minute for the F-14A), which was the same as F-15C, but higher than the high wing loaded F-16's 45,000 feet per minute. The configuration where F-14's thrust to weight was calculated with is the typical dogfighting configuration (and not long range bombing mission one's where there are bigger missiles and additional fuel tanks making the weight close to 70,000 lbs). An empty/airshow F-14 weighed 40,000 lbs. About 52,000 - 55,000 lbs in dog fighting configuration and 70,000 - 75,000 lbs in long range bombing mission configuration. In that case, there are sidewinders, sparrows, AIM-54 and fuel enough for the mission and the better than 1:1 thrust to weight was calculated in a dog fighting configuration. Although, yes the F-14 could really tuck its nose in very hard in tight turning situations due to the variable geometry wings giving it more lift while turning in tight. Although, F-15 fanbois look at the 7.5g Grumman rating and think it could not do 9.5g peak like the F-15 could, which is nonsense since F-14 was a Navy fighter so it went through a lot more abuse landing/taking off on a carrier, which is why Grumman rated it conservatively for airframe longevity. It could turn in 9.5g sustained easily while making a full 360 degree turn in less than 19 seconds.
Not sure about that. The F-14 weighs exactly 39,600 lbs empty according to the official specs by Grumman. I find it hard to belive there will be over 15,000 lbs of only fuel for particularly dog fighting configuration, which typically is not long range. Then fuel (it did not carry as much much fuel in dog fighting/intercept configuration where it had to be relatively short range) and dog fighting configuration of 4 sparrows, 2 phoenix and 4 sidewinders all add up to 53,.000 - 55,000 lbs of weight in dogfighting configuration. No fighter jet has a 1:1 thrust to weight with high fuel and weapons load. For example, the F-16 weighs 21,000 lbs completely empty. It weighed over 30,000 lbs in dog fighting configuration while the GE-110 makes 28,000 lbsf in the version used in the F-16.
I don't want to argue about it. I am quoting exactly what the Grumman engineers and Navy said that the F-14 B/D had a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio officially. I don't know what fuel level they used to determine that, but it calculated to almost 1.05:1. Besides, the GE-110-400 engines produced a combined 60,000 lbs of thrust. Not 54,000 like you are stating according to the F-14 chief/ VP Mike Ciminera. It was exactly according to official specs 30,200 lbsf per engine at Mach 0.9 with a total of close to 60,000 lbsf in full afterburn at mach 0.9. At sea level, it was 23,400 lbsf per engine or 46,000 lbsf combined at sea level. I am not making this up. It is the official specs.
Also, the F-14 B/D could actually accelerate in a vertical unrestricted climb. The engine power and low wing loading made it possible. F-16, F-18 etc. cannot do that because they cannot overcome the drag at higher speeds. The F-15 can with a variant of the same GE-110 that makes less power (but, F-15 is 7000 lbs lighter than the F-14) can do it, though.
I was in the Naval air squadron VAQ-33, an Electronics Counter-Measures outfit home based at N.A.S. Norfolk, Va., from 71-75. We were at Miramar for exercises and I was out at the fuel pits waiting for our birds to come back and get hot re-fueled before taxiing to their parking spots. I saw the first operational F-14's arrive. They came in so slow, with wings at full forward sweep, touching down oh so lightly, and turned off the main runway in an incredibly short distance...far less than a football field length...50-60 yards...?? Whatever it actually was, it was amazing to watch..!! I always loved the F-14..!!
Tomcat 21..Damn that would of been nice to see!! Got to see the last performance of the tomcat at Dayton international a long time ago. When it flew straight up,slow rolling with the afterburners lit,the ground vibrated under me and it sounded like I had a tuba in each ear..It was a religious experience,will never forget it.#F14ANYTIMEBABY
Wow Mike! I grew up a couple of miles south of Grumman, in Farmingdale , L.I. My dad worked for Grumman and Republic, til no longer feasible, so he became a building contractor. I pumped gas as a 13 year old thru high school, for flight time at KFRG, working for Flight Safety, Inc. I dreamed of becoming a Naval Aviator. Unfortunately, while in 7th grade, I found out I was color blind, w 20-30 vision. Not U.S. Navy Aviation Material. So I became an engineer, specializing in power generating plants and stations. The joy of you, sharing your experiences w others, not as fortunate to be you, is so greatly appreciated by me. As an engineer, your presentation was really well done, just love hearing you speak. Really glad at least one of us was lucky. your presentation is entertaining for everybody. I'm gonna watch this over and over. (No, I'm not a stalker) Just wish I could find a good F-14 simulator. I'll write again, your stuck w me. Stephen Hoda
As an outsider " from Ireland " my mind was blown , my jaw is still on the floor. You talk about Africans coming out of the jungle the technology in use today you just keep up with the developments . The presenter made a very technical presentation very easy to understand . Many thanks
Kewl! I was aboard Enterprise on that deployment first he mentioned! I was an MM2/MM1 #3 Reactor Plant. Mike was in VF-114 Aardvarks if I recall correctly. That Tomcat was one *sexy* aircraft!
Thank you for your service ! I went on the Enterprise for a short and very memorable visit. It was anchored in Port Everglades in Florida. It was sparkling clean, a truly beautiful ship !
For 25 years I drove back and forth along Miramar Naval Air Station, every week day the last 8 years of my career. I never got tired of watching the Tomcats fly. It was a sad day when they sent them to Nevada and Miramar became Miramar Marine Air Station. Nothing against the F-18's, but there is nothing like that roman nosed Tomcat. I still have air show pictures of the huge hangar with top gun painted across the front, and the control tower. Now I live in Arizona's Sonoran Desert, and my favorite here is the Warthog, although a pair of Hercules' flying over my head 100' above the Santa Cruz River south of Picacho Peak is pretty awe inspiring too..
Hello there! I love this video of U.S. Navy veteran F-14 Tomcat fighter pilot Mike Rabens! It is very smart and informative! But I have happened to research more about him online and I saw he was born in 1957, went to flight school from 1973 to 1979, then was a U.S. Navy fighter pilot flying the Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat from 1980 to 2006. I what I also researched was that he has been working at Northrop Grumman Aerospace since 2006 being a test pilot flying E-2 Hawkeyes, C-2 Greyhounds, and more! He seems like a interesting guy to talk to and ask questions with! Thanks!
Thank you sir, Excellent Presentation. Audience Post, USS Constellation CV64 was there 2 years earlier: The United States of America never went past Singapore until 1979, then the USS Constellation CV64 was the first into the Indian Ocean. Just like Vietnam Constellation along with Ticonderoga first strikes on Vietnam and Constellation first in the Bush Attack on Iraq. Constellation was always the first in anything for the USA, the first USN Ship was Constellation 1797, the 2nd Constellation is in Baltimore and the 3rd was the famous AMERICA'S FLAGSHIP.
I never thought I would have heard a Tomcat driver and program manager say that he would take the F-14D up against any modern fighter, save the JSF (F-35). I thought he was going to say the F-22, but I'm guessing he knew the -D plus IRST and LANTIRN could give the Tomcat good SA on the IR spectrum, but that this was not an advantage against the F-35, since it has IR sensors as well and AESA.
The U.S. NAVY Did a Study 📖 and a Pilot’s Heart ❤️ Rate Was Higher When the Pilot 👨✈️ Was Getting Back On Board a Aircraft Carrier Than FLYING in Combat Mike 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The F14 is still one of my favorite planes. I grieved when they retired it ! I still have a t-shirt with a picture of a Tomcat (bought from a military place) from a very long time ago. It treat it like a prized possession !
Great presentation Thank You! Out of curiosity have you ever tried any of the F-14 PC simulators (like DCS)? I'd be interested in your comments.... (closest a non-military pilot will get to experience it...)
I wonder if anyone has ever told him he looks like John Elway. Not that it matters, more cool being an F-14 topgun than an NFL qrtback. No offense Elway. Lets get those dang F-35Cs on deck!! Wth taking so long! They're needed by the Navy more than the Airforce needs the F-35A!!
***** Other than precision nav and attack, I agree F-35 is a lemon! Stealth is over-rated anyway, at least in the current principles on it, most of it is detectable through many non-traditional methods combined with modern processing power. An F-35 isnt any safer over a modern 2016 threat, than the F-117 was over Serbia in 99!
besides the two cockpits in the Tomcat, the F14 and F15 seem very similar ........can anyone tell me some major differences between these two fighters .....thanks
Carrier launch ability for the 14. The 15 can't land or be modified to land on a carrier, which changes its role significantly (it has a hook for emergency landings on the ground though.) There are sacrifices made when building a jet to land and launch from a carrier, so the Airforce had their 15, and the Navy had their 14. I think at some point there was talk of an Airforce F14, but it didn't pan out. There are many other differences, both role and mechanical, but that's the big one.
Joe John Actually it was Congress and the Based Realignment and Close Act that moved Fightertown to NAS Fallon. The Marines got the hand-me downs. An old NAS and small budget to spend fixing it up. But thanks for the compliment. It’s because of people like us you can’t have nice things:)
F-14 Still a Great Fighter and Attack Plane Top Speed 2.4 Mach still out performs the Newer Planes F-22 F35 Bureaucrats Reasons Oversight why they Re tired F-14 was Age Maintenance Repair Costs. Back in Early 2000s with Computerized Programmed CNC Machines Technology Engineers could have redesign the parts to Perform Better and Last Longer on the F-14s at a Reasonable Costs,. As of 04/2018 Air Force doing Slight Mods on F-15s to extend their service life till 2030. My Opinion Bureaucrats made a Wrong Decision retiring F-14 in 2006 the Billions of Dollars spent on that Turkey F-35 Could have Bought 100 Modern F-14Ds. Watched a Video of F-35 Launching off Carrier Deck about Exciting watching paint dry it looks like S___. Crying Shame The F-14 still had a lot of Potential but leave the Decisions to Morons in DC. You should see the New Russian Fighter T-50 now SU-57 Very Impressive Gorgeous Plane the F-35 new Nightmare.. "F-14 Launches off the Carrier Deck like a Mean MF Looks Sexy and Serious on the Ground or in the Air Still King of the Skies"
any top speed past mach 2 is very much a pointless statistic for fighters. Most cannot ever reach their top speed unless they are fully slick, eg, no payload or gas bags.. And when they do , the fuel burn is terrible, they would need to fly from tanker to tanker to get anywhere at that speed. So there's very little tactical use to that higher top speed. Other then that, yeah.. Blame Dick "shootyouinthe face" Cheney for killing off the Tomcat.
Around time 36m you talk about the fact that the iraqis were afraid of the Tom cats and didn’t want to come near you guys. Well there is a very good reason for that as the Iranian F-14s that were barely flight worthy ricked havoc on the Iraqi Air Force during the eight years of war so they were very well aware of what the Tom cats were capable of.
57:45 How does the tomcat 21 look like compared to the F-14 ? P.S. I used to be 5 foot 11 and 3/4 inches(25 yr old), Now I'm 5 foot 11 inches( 42 yr old). Gravity got me all well !
The Tomcat 21 is essentially the same airframe as the vanilla F-14 Tomcat. The main difference comes from the electronics (under the skin). There was also a Fowler flap modification for the wing that would have affected carrier recovery positively. The Tomcat 21 never got built so all we have to go buy are Grumman's wind tunnel tests with a modified F-14 wing and projections of what could be done with the avionics -- flight control systems and radar. They were talking about putting in GE F110-IPE engines. They would have been equivalent to the 29,000lb thrust engines the Block 50 F-16s use but of course navalized against saltwater corrosion with some gearbox and piping rearranged to fit the Tomcat's engine nacelle pods. Grumman projectrf that with those engines and semiconformal carriage of weapons the F-14(-21) would probably be capable of supercruising at Mach 1.3... The F-14B and F-14D already COULD supercruise but it was a low Mach Number (1.1) and probably with only Sidewinders on the glove rails. Anything more than that might be too much drag for the plane and it would subsonic. Definitely would be subsonic with Phoenix missiles unless the afterburner was used. The big aerodynamic improvements came with the wing mods. They were going to put in a Fowler flap to increase lift at low speed. The effect of that would have been to drop carrier approach speeds 20kt to 100kt for landing. It would also have been possible to launch the modded F-14 without wind going across the carrier deck; yeah, it could have catapulted in ZERO wind conditions with the new wing. Besides lower deck recovery speed, the F-14 would have been able to land with a higher gross weight -- the equivalent of six Phoenix missile recovery believe it or not. That was something they couldn't do operationally with the F-14A, B, and D. They were talking about F-14's maneuverability improving from the net effect of the suggested engine and wing improvements... How much more, I don't know. Slightly faster-climbing, faster-accelerating?? Probably. The existing plane's main maneuvering issue really was the roll rate: it paid penalties because of the distance between the podded engines (9 ft!), a variable wingsweep (lowest roll rates at 62+ft extension; highest rollrates at full sweepback, 38 ft wingspan), and the heavy weight of the plane. All that off-center weight in the engine installations and the wingsweep mechanism raised the aircraft's inertial moment and it just didn't have the built-in roll mechanisms to maximize the initial roll rate. Aside from exploiting any instability inherent in the design with a modern fly-by-wire system -- which the F-14 did NOT Use; it was the last pre-FBW fighter built in the US) --, the only way to practically increase the roll response of the plane would be to use thrust vectoring engine nozzles. Those are kind of a pain-in-the-butt to use and install. They require well-tested flight control software -- the engine nozzle movement has to be integrated with the main flight control system which can run millions of lines long in code -- and very, very strong engine ducts which raises the weight (and cost) of the plane! The plane still has to be balanced, FBW controls or not, so it would have had to have had extra weight put in the nose to balance weight growth in the rear! With Tomcat-21, at least one of the proposals had remodelled glove areas to carry extra fuel (1,000lb per side) in a recontoured area roughly equivalent to the old (extended) glove vanes the F-14A used for approximately 20 years of the Tomcat's operational life. I think Grumman was also looking at using that not only for extra fuel but additional lift and as a potential destabilizing point (at supersonic speeds) like the old glove vanes were to improve the aircraft's maneuvering power at supersonic speeds with the added benefit of extended range. The avionic improvements? At least basic air-to-ground modes to the APG-71 equivalent to the F-15E (which was never implemented because of costs and the fact that only 50 APG-71 sets were ever bought for the F-14D only)... If Grumman had gotten the go-ahead and enthusiastic support from the Navy, they would have suggested a next-generation evolution beyond this with avionics and radar kit developed for the A-12 but it didn't happen... The Navy went ahead and bought the "improved" F-18 based on some foolish, short-sighted advice and essentially castrated naval aviation. The planes they have today may have lower maintenance than what they replaced but they also have MAYBE half the potential range of what the Navy retired in the 1990s and early 2000s and nowhere near the speed and payload range, either. They'd better pray the Top Gun training is that good because they're stuck with fighters that are slower and shorter-ranged than a lot of the land-based opposition... The Navy has no equivalent to the F-22 let alone the F-15 right now. They have a multi-role plane in the F-18 but it is NOT a great air superiority machine. It lacks endurance and radar, period. The F-14 WAS the Navy's F-15 equivalent but the higher-ups didn't support the plane and developed it haphazardly through the late 1980s. From the mid-1990s, the frontline squadrons proved the F-14's worth as a medium-range bomber but it was too late because with no new airframes and limited supplies of spare parts, it was only a matter of time before they had to retire the plane... The Navy still probably did retire the F-14 at least a decade earlier than they had to but they did it to themselves!
Well, also Dick Cheney wanted F-14s gone at all costs. Iran had been busted trying to smuggle F-14 parts from a warehouse in Ft. Lauderdale to London to Tehran using internal connections. Bush administration was obsessed with putting the highest sanctions against Iran so Dick Cheney wanted to make sure the Irani F-14s are inoperable.
@@AvengerII Also, one of the most compelling arguments for retiring the Tomcat, its costly maintenance was also addressed by Grumman when they proposed the Super Tomcat 21
Crying shame they went with super-slow-hornet!! The hornet is not a longrange attcker, super or otherwise. Legacy hornet is a fantastic light attack and mig cap! Super bug just has a wizbang weapons system and radar. Airframe-wise the legacy hornet performs better in climb and acceleration from what Ive heard. Range is less with legacy, but the superhornet is not a vast improvment in range. The F-14 and A-6 had much better range than any hornet. I guess F-35C is supposed to be decent, but I won't at all be surprised if the Navy cancels the F-35C, in favor of more lame super bugs.
***** Sad state the Navy's in now! Chenney destroyed the F-14 community when he cancelled further F-14D production, or upgrades to D std! Retiring the A-6 was smart, but choosing superhornet over continued F-14 procurment was terrible! Yes the 14 is quite a bit older than the superhornet, but capability better. Entire military is in shambles since the 90s. The F-35 program is as old or older than my nephew who graduated from high school, yet not one in service yet! Well if it sucks its time to cancel it now than continue another 10 or more years of development and testing BS!
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
It was an honor to work on the Tomcat as a maintainer because of pilots like Mike Rabens. We worked hard and played even harder. At my time stationed with him as LCDR. Rabens, a classy "Naval Officer and Pilot", that always too the time to thank us maintainers for all we did.
So as a maintainer what was it like compared to other aircraft? My father in law worked on the F-14 in the 80s on the Nimitz and he did not like working on it.
Would you recommend that job to a young man these days ? ( it's not me, ha ha )
Outstanding career, outstanding gentlemen.. thank you for bringing us these excellent videos. All the best from the UK
Could listen to these stories about the f-14 forever great job
Thank You 🙏 Mike For Your Service to Our Country in the U.S. NAVY as a F-14 Tomcat Pilot 👨✈️
What an incredible seminar. Loved every minute of it. "With the upgraded F-14D, I could go up against any fighter out today maybe except the JSF because of the weapon systems". F-14 is the greatest fighter made, in my opinion.
Underpowered with F110? I have heard the opposite. With 60,000 lbs of combined thrust, the GE-110 engines gave it a 1.05:1 thrust to weight ratio and they were the most powerful engines ever put into a fighter. I have heard, the airframe limits were exceeded a few times where it had difficulties coping with the power. The airframe of the F-14 also generated lift and had the lowest wing loading, which is why the thrust to weight ratio was not as big of a deal. Dale Snodgrass said, he used to regularly pull 9.5g even in the lowly F-14A and has actually demo videos of pulling 9g and over. When Dennis Romano went up against the F-15 in a back to back demo, the Shah of Iran was extremely impressed when Dennis pulled a 9g 360 tight turn in an F-14A with sustained 400 knots speed producing big vapor clouds over the wing. The F-15 did a 7.5g in the same maneuver. The Shah of Iran ended up choosing the F-14 because Dennis Romano was so good that he ended up making the F-14A look more agile and nimble than the F-15 (which was not the case in reality).
The F-14 B/D could vertically climb at a rate of 50,000 feet per minute (compared to 35.000 feet per minute for the F-14A), which was the same as F-15C, but higher than the high wing loaded F-16's 45,000 feet per minute. The configuration where F-14's thrust to weight was calculated with is the typical dogfighting configuration (and not long range bombing mission one's where there are bigger missiles and additional fuel tanks making the weight close to 70,000 lbs). An empty/airshow F-14 weighed 40,000 lbs. About 52,000 - 55,000 lbs in dog fighting configuration and 70,000 - 75,000 lbs in long range bombing mission configuration. In that case, there are sidewinders, sparrows, AIM-54 and fuel enough for the mission and the better than 1:1 thrust to weight was calculated in a dog fighting configuration. Although, yes the F-14 could really tuck its nose in very hard in tight turning situations due to the variable geometry wings giving it more lift while turning in tight. Although, F-15 fanbois look at the 7.5g Grumman rating and think it could not do 9.5g peak like the F-15 could, which is nonsense since F-14 was a Navy fighter so it went through a lot more abuse landing/taking off on a carrier, which is why Grumman rated it conservatively for airframe longevity. It could turn in 9.5g sustained easily while making a full 360 degree turn in less than 19 seconds.
Not sure about that. The F-14 weighs exactly 39,600 lbs empty according to the official specs by Grumman. I find it hard to belive there will be over 15,000 lbs of only fuel for particularly dog fighting configuration, which typically is not long range. Then fuel (it did not carry as much much fuel in dog fighting/intercept configuration where it had to be relatively short range) and dog fighting configuration of 4 sparrows, 2 phoenix and 4 sidewinders all add up to 53,.000 - 55,000 lbs of weight in dogfighting configuration. No fighter jet has a 1:1 thrust to weight with high fuel and weapons load. For example, the F-16 weighs 21,000 lbs completely empty. It weighed over 30,000 lbs in dog fighting configuration while the GE-110 makes 28,000 lbsf in the version used in the F-16.
I don't want to argue about it. I am quoting exactly what the Grumman engineers and Navy said that the F-14 B/D had a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio officially. I don't know what fuel level they used to determine that, but it calculated to almost 1.05:1. Besides, the GE-110-400 engines produced a combined 60,000 lbs of thrust. Not 54,000 like you are stating according to the F-14 chief/ VP Mike Ciminera. It was exactly according to official specs 30,200 lbsf per engine at Mach 0.9 with a total of close to 60,000 lbsf in full afterburn at mach 0.9. At sea level, it was 23,400 lbsf per engine or 46,000 lbsf combined at sea level. I am not making this up. It is the official specs.
Also, the F-14 B/D could actually accelerate in a vertical unrestricted climb. The engine power and low wing loading made it possible. F-16, F-18 etc. cannot do that because they cannot overcome the drag at higher speeds. The F-15 can with a variant of the same GE-110 that makes less power (but, F-15 is 7000 lbs lighter than the F-14) can do it, though.
as i left Miramar n VF-114 in 1982 you came onboard! never forget it either!
I was in the Naval air squadron VAQ-33, an Electronics Counter-Measures outfit home based at N.A.S. Norfolk, Va., from 71-75. We were at Miramar for exercises and I was out at the fuel pits waiting for our birds to come back and get hot re-fueled before taxiing to their parking spots. I saw the first operational F-14's arrive. They came in so slow, with wings at full forward sweep, touching down oh so lightly, and turned off the main runway in an incredibly short distance...far less than a football field length...50-60 yards...?? Whatever it actually was, it was amazing to watch..!! I always loved the F-14..!!
Tomcat 21..Damn that would of been nice to see!! Got to see the last performance of the tomcat at Dayton international a long time ago. When it flew straight up,slow rolling with the afterburners lit,the ground vibrated under me and it sounded like I had a tuba in each ear..It was a religious experience,will never forget it.#F14ANYTIMEBABY
Excellent, I learned a lot. I was one of those people thinking the F14 was worn out and suffering corrosion issues etc. Glad I found out different.
Fantastic video! I bet he has some great stories he couldn't share with a mixed audience!
It seems like the A-10 and F-14 are aircraft we need to either keep or to build brand new with upgrades.
Rifle Twist ...... I thank so to BUT WHO ARE WE ..... FOR ME I AM WITH YOU ON THAT ONE
WE NEED F-14S FOR CARRIER DEFENSES, f-18s cant do it!
Did you listen to this presentation all the way through? He said the F-14D even with all the upgrades is no match for the JSF (F-35). Go to 39:00
@@eriktml and yet the F-18's have been doing it for a while now! Shocking!
Wow Mike! I grew up a couple of miles south of Grumman, in Farmingdale , L.I. My dad worked for Grumman and Republic, til no longer feasible, so he became a building contractor. I pumped gas as a 13 year old thru high school, for flight time at KFRG, working for Flight Safety, Inc. I dreamed of becoming a Naval Aviator. Unfortunately, while in 7th grade, I found out I was color blind, w 20-30 vision. Not U.S. Navy Aviation Material. So I became an engineer, specializing in power generating plants and stations. The joy of you, sharing your experiences w others, not as fortunate to be you, is so greatly appreciated by me. As an engineer, your presentation was really well done, just love hearing you speak. Really glad at least one of us was lucky. your presentation is entertaining for everybody. I'm gonna watch this over and over. (No, I'm not a stalker) Just wish I could find a good F-14 simulator. I'll write again, your stuck w me. Stephen Hoda
DCS World - Digital Combat Simulator - just added a F-14b. Said to be the best simulator out there, many fighters available. Strong Island!
As an outsider " from Ireland " my mind was blown , my jaw is still on the floor. You talk about Africans coming out of the jungle the technology in use today you just keep up with the developments . The presenter made a very technical presentation very easy to understand . Many thanks
Gosh, I would love to talk with Mike and just ask him 100 questions. What an awesome and humble guy!!
Kewl! I was aboard Enterprise on that deployment first he mentioned! I was an MM2/MM1 #3 Reactor Plant. Mike was in VF-114 Aardvarks if I recall correctly. That Tomcat was one *sexy* aircraft!
Thank you for your service !
I went on the Enterprise for a short and very memorable visit. It was anchored in Port Everglades in Florida.
It was sparkling clean, a truly beautiful ship !
For 25 years I drove back and forth along Miramar Naval Air Station, every week day the last 8 years of my career. I never got tired of watching the Tomcats fly. It was a sad day when they sent them to Nevada and Miramar became Miramar Marine Air Station. Nothing against the F-18's, but there is nothing like that roman nosed Tomcat.
I still have air show pictures of the huge hangar with top gun painted across the front, and the control tower.
Now I live in Arizona's Sonoran Desert, and my favorite here is the Warthog, although a pair of Hercules' flying over my head 100' above the Santa Cruz River south of Picacho Peak is pretty awe inspiring too..
Hello there! I love this video of U.S. Navy veteran F-14 Tomcat fighter pilot Mike Rabens! It is very smart and informative! But I have happened to research more about him online and I saw he was born in 1957, went to flight school from 1973 to 1979, then was a U.S. Navy fighter pilot flying the Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat from 1980 to 2006. I what I also researched was that he has been working at Northrop Grumman Aerospace since 2006 being a test pilot flying E-2 Hawkeyes, C-2 Greyhounds, and more! He seems like a interesting guy to talk to and ask questions with! Thanks!
I don't care what this guy says about himself...if he can maneuver and fly an F-14,HE IS A ROCK STAR!
Great video! Listened to every word. What a career Mike has had- 23 years well spent.
F14 IS THE BEST FIGHTER. AN ENGINEERING MARVEL THAT STARTED A WHOLE GENERATION OF FIGHTERS
A very interesting video about the F-14, illustrated by a real top gun pilot. AMAZING!!!!
Thank you sir, Excellent Presentation.
Audience Post, USS Constellation CV64 was there 2 years earlier:
The United States of America never went past Singapore until 1979, then the USS Constellation CV64 was the first into the Indian Ocean. Just like Vietnam Constellation along with Ticonderoga first strikes on Vietnam and Constellation first in the Bush Attack on Iraq. Constellation was always the first in anything for the USA, the first USN Ship was Constellation 1797, the 2nd Constellation is in Baltimore and the 3rd was the famous AMERICA'S FLAGSHIP.
Excellent talk thank you for sharing and thank you for your service
I never thought I would have heard a Tomcat driver and program manager say that he would take the F-14D up against any modern fighter, save the JSF (F-35). I thought he was going to say the F-22, but I'm guessing he knew the -D plus IRST and LANTIRN could give the Tomcat good SA on the IR spectrum, but that this was not an advantage against the F-35, since it has IR sensors as well and AESA.
Mike, i fixed ACTION JACKSONS F-14 many times aboard the America! He would get flat pissed! :)
Fantastic! Listened and watched this as I’m building the 1/32 F-14.
Watched the entire presentation. Very much enjoyed your insight.
Outstanding, great, very interesting speaker
The U.S. NAVY Did a Study 📖 and a Pilot’s Heart ❤️ Rate Was Higher When the Pilot 👨✈️ Was Getting Back On Board a Aircraft Carrier Than FLYING in Combat Mike 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The F14 is still one of my favorite planes. I grieved when they retired it ! I still have a t-shirt with a picture of a Tomcat (bought from a military place) from a very long time ago. It treat it like a prized possession !
Outstanding presentation. Thank you Sir.
first saw it in 1975 Paris Air Show - Baby Blue, took off, immediately went vertical and disappeared :) showing off!
Thanks for sharing!
Excellent.Thank you very much.
I'm coming to the talk tomorrow!
Great presentation Thank You! Out of curiosity have you ever tried any of the F-14 PC simulators (like DCS)? I'd be interested in your comments.... (closest a non-military pilot will get to experience it...)
Excellent talk
I wonder if anyone has ever told him he looks like John Elway. Not that it matters, more cool being an F-14 topgun than an NFL qrtback. No offense Elway.
Lets get those dang F-35Cs on deck!! Wth taking so long! They're needed by the Navy more than the Airforce needs the F-35A!!
*****
Other than precision nav and attack, I agree F-35 is a lemon! Stealth is over-rated anyway, at least in the current principles on it, most of it is detectable through many non-traditional methods combined with modern processing power. An F-35 isnt any safer over a modern 2016 threat, than the F-117 was over Serbia in 99!
that was just great!
i'm married to Bob Kress's daughter. have his patents and models.
this guy is great
Excellent!
besides the two cockpits in the Tomcat, the F14 and F15 seem very similar ........can anyone tell me some major differences between these two fighters .....thanks
Carrier launch ability for the 14. The 15 can't land or be modified to land on a carrier, which changes its role significantly (it has a hook for emergency landings on the ground though.) There are sacrifices made when building a jet to land and launch from a carrier, so the Airforce had their 15, and the Navy had their 14. I think at some point there was talk of an Airforce F14, but it didn't pan out. There are many other differences, both role and mechanical, but that's the big one.
'in the good guys favor' LOL
F14's are still flying in Iran. Even with Phoenix missiles.
Johan Smith Telephone polls or Phoenix missiles.
@@Make-Asylums-Great-Again too bad you don't believe it :) cause its true anyways.
Yup, and upgraded cockpit and maybe also upgraded (thought it was the best radar) radar...done by the russians.
This guys are the best !! Miramar is not Miramar anymore because the marines ruined everything !!!!
Joe John
Actually it was Congress and the Based Realignment and Close Act that moved Fightertown to NAS Fallon. The Marines got the hand-me downs. An old NAS and small budget to spend fixing it up. But thanks for the compliment. It’s because of people like us you can’t have nice things:)
hmm I would love to know more about that comment "we have a little bit going on at palmdale" as I guess it's classified giving the plant type
Iranian tomcats saw plenty of combat
Like the U.S. AIR FORCE Would Say the Sparrow Missile Went Ballistic Mike 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
is Mike Rabens contactable?
Yes, he is on the internet. LA area.
21:25 What makes him think they were the „good guys“...?
Awesome!
Phantoms Phor Ever.
F-14 Still a Great Fighter and Attack Plane Top Speed 2.4 Mach still out performs the Newer Planes F-22 F35 Bureaucrats Reasons Oversight why they Re tired F-14 was Age Maintenance Repair Costs. Back in Early 2000s with Computerized Programmed CNC Machines Technology Engineers could have redesign the parts to Perform Better and Last Longer on the F-14s at a Reasonable Costs,. As of 04/2018 Air Force doing Slight Mods on F-15s to extend their service life till 2030. My Opinion Bureaucrats made a Wrong Decision retiring F-14 in 2006 the Billions of Dollars spent on that Turkey F-35 Could have Bought 100 Modern F-14Ds. Watched a Video of F-35 Launching off Carrier Deck about Exciting watching paint dry it looks like S___. Crying Shame The F-14 still had a lot of Potential but leave the Decisions to Morons in DC. You should see the New Russian Fighter T-50 now SU-57 Very Impressive Gorgeous Plane the F-35 new Nightmare.. "F-14 Launches off the Carrier Deck like a Mean MF Looks Sexy and Serious on the Ground or in the Air Still King of the Skies"
any top speed past mach 2 is very much a pointless statistic for fighters.
Most cannot ever reach their top speed unless they are fully slick, eg, no payload or gas bags..
And when they do , the fuel burn is terrible, they would need to fly from tanker to tanker to get anywhere at that speed.
So there's very little tactical use to that higher top speed.
Other then that, yeah.. Blame Dick "shootyouinthe face" Cheney for killing off the Tomcat.
Around time 36m you talk about the fact that the iraqis were afraid of the Tom cats and didn’t want to come near you guys. Well there is a very good reason for that as the Iranian F-14s that were barely flight worthy ricked havoc on the Iraqi Air Force during the eight years of war so they were very well aware of what the Tom cats were capable of.
57:45 How does the tomcat 21 look like compared to the F-14 ?
P.S. I used to be 5 foot 11 and 3/4 inches(25 yr old), Now I'm 5 foot 11 inches( 42 yr old). Gravity got me all well !
The Tomcat 21 is essentially the same airframe as the vanilla F-14 Tomcat. The main difference comes from the electronics (under the skin). There was also a Fowler flap modification for the wing that would have affected carrier recovery positively.
The Tomcat 21 never got built so all we have to go buy are Grumman's wind tunnel tests with a modified F-14 wing and projections of what could be done with the avionics -- flight control systems and radar.
They were talking about putting in GE F110-IPE engines. They would have been equivalent to the 29,000lb thrust engines the Block 50 F-16s use but of course navalized against saltwater corrosion with some gearbox and piping rearranged to fit the Tomcat's engine nacelle pods. Grumman projectrf that with those engines and semiconformal carriage of weapons the F-14(-21) would probably be capable of supercruising at Mach 1.3...
The F-14B and F-14D already COULD supercruise but it was a low Mach Number (1.1) and probably with only Sidewinders on the glove rails. Anything more than that might be too much drag for the plane and it would subsonic. Definitely would be subsonic with Phoenix missiles unless the afterburner was used.
The big aerodynamic improvements came with the wing mods. They were going to put in a Fowler flap to increase lift at low speed. The effect of that would have been to drop carrier approach speeds 20kt to 100kt for landing. It would also have been possible to launch the modded F-14 without wind going across the carrier deck; yeah, it could have catapulted in ZERO wind conditions with the new wing. Besides lower deck recovery speed, the F-14 would have been able to land with a higher gross weight -- the equivalent of six Phoenix missile recovery believe it or not. That was something they couldn't do operationally with the F-14A, B, and D.
They were talking about F-14's maneuverability improving from the net effect of the suggested engine and wing improvements... How much more, I don't know. Slightly faster-climbing, faster-accelerating?? Probably. The existing plane's main maneuvering issue really was the roll rate: it paid penalties because of the distance between the podded engines (9 ft!), a variable wingsweep (lowest roll rates at 62+ft extension; highest rollrates at full sweepback, 38 ft wingspan), and the heavy weight of the plane. All that off-center weight in the engine installations and the wingsweep mechanism raised the aircraft's inertial moment and it just didn't have the built-in roll mechanisms to maximize the initial roll rate. Aside from exploiting any instability inherent in the design with a modern fly-by-wire system -- which the F-14 did NOT Use; it was the last pre-FBW fighter built in the US) --, the only way to practically increase the roll response of the plane would be to use thrust vectoring engine nozzles. Those are kind of a pain-in-the-butt to use and install. They require well-tested flight control software -- the engine nozzle movement has to be integrated with the main flight control system which can run millions of lines long in code -- and very, very strong engine ducts which raises the weight (and cost) of the plane! The plane still has to be balanced, FBW controls or not, so it would have had to have had extra weight put in the nose to balance weight growth in the rear!
With Tomcat-21, at least one of the proposals had remodelled glove areas to carry extra fuel (1,000lb per side) in a recontoured area roughly equivalent to the old (extended) glove vanes the F-14A used for approximately 20 years of the Tomcat's operational life. I think Grumman was also looking at using that not only for extra fuel but additional lift and as a potential destabilizing point (at supersonic speeds) like the old glove vanes were to improve the aircraft's maneuvering power at supersonic speeds with the added benefit of extended range.
The avionic improvements? At least basic air-to-ground modes to the APG-71 equivalent to the F-15E (which was never implemented because of costs and the fact that only 50 APG-71 sets were ever bought for the F-14D only)... If Grumman had gotten the go-ahead and enthusiastic support from the Navy, they would have suggested a next-generation evolution beyond this with avionics and radar kit developed for the A-12 but it didn't happen...
The Navy went ahead and bought the "improved" F-18 based on some foolish, short-sighted advice and essentially castrated naval aviation. The planes they have today may have lower maintenance than what they replaced but they also have MAYBE half the potential range of what the Navy retired in the 1990s and early 2000s and nowhere near the speed and payload range, either. They'd better pray the Top Gun training is that good because they're stuck with fighters that are slower and shorter-ranged than a lot of the land-based opposition... The Navy has no equivalent to the F-22 let alone the F-15 right now. They have a multi-role plane in the F-18 but it is NOT a great air superiority machine. It lacks endurance and radar, period. The F-14 WAS the Navy's F-15 equivalent but the higher-ups didn't support the plane and developed it haphazardly through the late 1980s. From the mid-1990s, the frontline squadrons proved the F-14's worth as a medium-range bomber but it was too late because with no new airframes and limited supplies of spare parts, it was only a matter of time before they had to retire the plane... The Navy still probably did retire the F-14 at least a decade earlier than they had to but they did it to themselves!
Well, also Dick Cheney wanted F-14s gone at all costs. Iran had been busted trying to smuggle F-14 parts from a warehouse in Ft. Lauderdale to London to Tehran using internal connections. Bush administration was obsessed with putting the highest sanctions against Iran so Dick Cheney wanted to make sure the Irani F-14s are inoperable.
@@AvengerII Also, one of the most compelling arguments for retiring the Tomcat, its costly maintenance was also addressed by Grumman when they proposed the Super Tomcat 21
I was 8 years old when i seen top gun at ontario place theater. Since then i was i love with the F 14 Tomcat, not tom cruise...
OUT STANDINGS!
Oh
Kill ratio of 1:1 in Vietnam?!? I think not. The lowest figure I've seen is 4:1 where for every 4 enemy planes shot down, the US lost 1.
political garbage kept the ge engine out, in the beginning..............................
Crying shame they went with super-slow-hornet!! The hornet is not a longrange attcker, super or otherwise. Legacy hornet is a fantastic light attack and mig cap! Super bug just has a wizbang weapons system and radar. Airframe-wise the legacy hornet performs better in climb and acceleration from what Ive heard. Range is less with legacy, but the superhornet is not a vast improvment in range. The F-14 and A-6 had much better range than any hornet. I guess F-35C is supposed to be decent, but I won't at all be surprised if the Navy cancels the F-35C, in favor of more lame super bugs.
*****
Sad state the Navy's in now! Chenney destroyed the F-14 community when he cancelled further F-14D production, or upgrades to D std! Retiring the A-6 was smart, but choosing superhornet over continued F-14 procurment was terrible! Yes the 14 is quite a bit older than the superhornet, but capability better. Entire military is in shambles since the 90s. The F-35 program is as old or older than my nephew who graduated from high school, yet not one in service yet! Well if it sucks its time to cancel it now than continue another 10 or more years of development and testing BS!