Originally Posted by
Lima Juliet
Actually, the F14A which we are talking about here had the troublesome TF30 engines (apart from the last few delivered). The thrust to weight ratio on these was about the same, if not marginally worse, than the F3. They were prone to compressor stalls, blade failures and the famous flat spin of Top Gun fame (some 1/3rd of accidents were attributed to that engine). It was only after they became F14A+ and then the F14B, with the GE F110 engines did the airframe become really dogfight capable able to hold its own with more agile aircraft. By the time it became the F14D Super Tomcat or “Bombcat” it was way superior to the F3, but I would say that the F3 was superior to the F14A on paper when it was selected in the last 1970s.
Further, the AWG 9 RADAR was really just a “blue water” RADAR with a very wide doppler notch compared to more modern affairs - the F3’s AI24 FOXHUNTER by the early/mid 90s had far superior overland performance and integration of JTIDS L16 on the RADAR and Plan displays. I flew with many F14 pilots and worked with a similar number of RIOs who explained this (sadly I just missed the final F14 exchange as the buggers were promoting me (no place for second!)).
There were features that both aircraft had that the other didn’t, but that is not for here.
As for a comparison of the F14A engine to the F14A+, F14B and F14D engine. The same improvement could have been achieved by replacing RB199 with EJ200 for the Tornado F3 (which was planned under Tornado 2000 but was shelved through fear of Eurofighter being cancelled).
Aside from retro fitting the F3 with the EJ200 engine, there was also the option of upgrading the RB199 performance by 20% from the XG20/Demo20 programme +15% dry and 20% reheat.
This was an MoD funded project and not only did it demonstrate the thrust increase, it was also aimed at life cycle and reliability improvements.
Would the F3 have really been able to utilise the significant EJ200 thrust increase from a structural perspective ?