At the core, there is a content dispute over the history of the F-14.
This continued for about a day before another editor who was called in on an informal RfC suggested we both take a break from editing the page (and the talk page). I'd posted an informal RfC on the Wikiproject Military History [1] and Wikiproject AircraftWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Little_brouhaha_at_Talk:F-14_Tomcat pages asking for third opinions. I agreed, though weighed in with a few brief comments on the talk page as more editors weighed in. However, despite an ongoing Request for Mediation Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#F-14_Tomcat that both of us have agreed to, Wiarthurhu has continued to edit the page in question and spread the content in question to many other pages (see Special:Contributions/Wiarthurhu. the RfM has been in the system for close to a week with no response. Additionally, Wiarthurhu is taking an aggressive stance, rewriting the RfM from a content dispute into its current form, a personal dispute with me, and further adding "loss/win conditions", which I find just bizzare. Since my version is there in the history, I've left it for a mediator to decide how to proceed.
However, this has spread into a personal dispute. While I am not one to hold punches, my comments have been reserved to describe content, not editors. And while in retrospect inflammatory and regrettable, I stand by the accuracy of statements I have made in calling edits nonsense. In one case I did throw in a "damn you" in a edit comment regarding the firefox/google bug fix google/firefox blanking issue....damn you, but given that it followed my revert of an anon edit, I think it was reasonably clear it was not directed at him but rather at the bug. In any case it's an understandable mistake if he took offense and I should refrain from such inflammatory comments.
Wiarthurhu, however, has repeatedly defamed me and questioned my qualifications, including the following[2].:As far as I know, I have no reason to believe that you have even a bachelors degree, ever taken a course in writing or logic, ever wrote a computer program, or even held a job, let alone an IQ over 100, purchased, borrowed, browsed or even read a single book, magazine, watched any media or even visited an aviation museum exhibit on the F-14.
He has also taken AfD's personally and taken strong ownership of his contributions. I admit, I did follow his User:Contributions link, as I typically do with editors whose content I feel needs cleaning up (which is where all this started). I saw two lists with nebulous criteria, submitted it for AfD, and so far it looks like consensus is with me Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_failures_in_science_and_engineeringWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_successes_in_science_and_engineering. He has described the AfD's as "knocking down sandcastles", has continued to attack me [3]: Well, take that Mmx1. Let that be a lesson to you tha AFD is not simply another tool to revert an editor you do not agree with. It's simply mind boggling that Mmx1 believes that if I had a hand in the F-111, and SST, and and had citations for both, that would be grounds for throwing out the entire page and work of hundreds of other editors that built it. He would simply toss this article and its newly created opposite twin to the delete happy wiki-wolves. If Wikipedia had ebay feedback, you'd have so many negatives your nose would be bleeding by now. WP will create policies to protect against editors like you, and there will be justice in the end. Jesus is watching you. . Lately he is claiming ownership of the article in question (in request to my request for a truce while we wait for mediation): [4], stating that I should Please ask me before you deface more of the WP again, I can give you hints on how not to ruin things.
It was the F-14, but Mmx1 follows me around, no matter where I go, withing 10 minutes of a any edit, he's there undoing whatever I had done. I have not similarly chased him around undoing all of his edits on othe pages. On uncovering the full story for the F-14, intersecting stories also need to be updated, but Mmx insists on following, even completely sinking a year old article that did not suit his tastes. This shows an incredible lack of concern and respect for others when his actions damage not only my work, but dozens of others who will have similar complaints once they start realizing that Mmx1 sunk their battleship over a personal spat with me. So it's not just him or me, but the work of everybody else was tossed into the bit bucket to suit his own selfish goals. I attempted to rally other editors, hardly a sign of not helping warn others. --matador30022:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a summary of what's gone on and what just ticks me off. It is simply beyond belief that I have posted briefly photographic copies of magazine articles that directly contradict the position that he evidently still holds that the F-14 was never designed to be an agile or air superiority fighter. Isn't a 1969 Flight International Magazine photo titled "VFX air superiority fighter, now designated F-14" good enough to prove after tossing Mmx1 verifiable reference after verifiable reference? He takes ownership, refuses to accept any verification contrary to his POV, and as a result he has managed to propogate his POV over the entire internet space with just one change in one paragraph without citation.
People who call an editor with an MIT education, a room full of reference books and magazines who has read hundreds of articles in magazines and books since 1970 and been published in Aviation and many other newspapers as a freelance columnist as "misinformed crap" and "made up shit".
People who believe they are more qualfied than Janes to determine if the F-14 is what Grumman and the US Navy called it in 1969, though they present no evidence of education, job, or having read or watched even one print or broadcast source, or writing experience outside of WP.
People who act as guard dogs over articles, making it impossible to change the mistake, entered by Red Baron in March 06 that the F-14 was never designed to optimize maneuverability, and then have it mirrored across dozens of other encyclopedias, and then appear as the opinions of other users who used the WP as a reference too.
People who consider Aviation Week, Janes, Flight International, the U.S. Navy home page, a Grumman VP and former F14 test pilot, Modern Marvels and Aero books to be unreliable sources.
People who interpret the WP encouraging removal of uncited material as removing all material without convincing citations.
People who determine "I don't see mention of air superiority" in a single open source internet source means that it impossible for the F-14 to have ever been an air superiority fighter, and then use a paper that names the F-14 as one of 4 air superiority fighters as proof the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter.
Sore losers who nominate a page to articles for deletion built over a year by dozens of editors because I finally showed him proof the F-14 was called an air superiority fighter in Flight International 1969 at the Seattle Public Library stacks, long before the F-15, and he found my contribution to the F-111 there.
I agree to the above compromise from CQJ. I should note that I have refrained from commenting on content entered after the RfC, so my talk page comments address largely the earlier "maneuverability" issue, and not the later "air superiority" that Wiarthurhu has been focused on. I am ready to state my view on the content at the appropriate time. --Mmx115:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we can get Mmx1 to cease dismissing every citation as an excuse to revert any edit he wishes, we're done. Here's the 1969 Flight International magazine caption which clearly states hat Grumman and the US Navy and Flight International (leading european aviation journal) believe that Mmx1 is in error. Mmx1 so far has not assented that he is in the wrong, that's why we need somebody to discriminate between a good source and one not strong enough to eradicate the notion that this is incorrect. I shouldn't have to dig up a 1969 article from the Seattle Public library, and have two of my articles shot down just to prove a point. --matador30018:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Flight magazine is wrong, then I'm hosed and I'm an idiot. If WP sides with Mmx1, then the Antichrist has arrived and there is no hope. --matador30018:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Let me say this before I continue. No one, you or Mmx, is an idiot. My goal here is to create consensus, not take sides. I have no administrative or authoritative enforcement power over this article or what you do. The Mediation Cabal is an informal process for dispute resolution, and if it does not work to your satisfaction, you most certainly can do whatever you feel within Wikipedia policies and procedures. Just hang in there and we'll work something out that fits Wikipedia's needs...
This was the F-14 before Mmx substantially reversed its meaning: The F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation. The flat, pancake-like section between the engines acts as an airfoil to provide additional lift.
His version, after a burst of edits in Feb 2006 that I was attempting to fix before falling into his booby trap was: Though designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability, the F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation.
This restatement is simply false, and effectively reverses the #1 message, first and best air superiority fighter to "not an air superiority fighter", though it boggles the mind why one would take such a position if he had read even more than one article on the topic.
If you read the latest version of History of the F-14, you have to go into more depth than one or two reference sources, because most reference sources are restatements of press releases which concentrate on the AWG-9 Phoenix, and many make no mention of dogfighting. The WHOLE story is that the ommission of dogfighting is not proof dogfighting is not in there. The VFAX was created because the F-111B could not dogfight. [VFX] was created because Grumman had designed an agile fighter that could ALSO handle the interception mission, and that detail has been lost to history, it should not be a crime to bring it back with citatations. The F-14 test pilot and engineering manager are both on Modern Marvels to contradict the claim it was not designed to be a dogfighter. I have also placed two 1969 clips from Flight International, one which calls the "Navy VFX air superiority fighter, designated F-14" and a detail article saying it has been designed to "have twice the maneuverability of the "F-4". That's 2 key reliable people, and two key reliable articles.
There are NO articles in print that say the F-14 was not designed to be a dogfighter. The only such claim is the one placed in the WP by non other than Mmx himself, who has constructed this belief from omission from the FAS article, a gross failure of logic. The 2 other people I have found on the internet who agree appear to be people who are using Mmx's WP edit as their source, showing how damaging such a distortion can be when mirroed across the internet. Please explain to me how Mmx1 can consider these 4 sources and then dismiss them, as evidently you are. Any web search on F14 and air superiority brings up dozens of supporting sources. Can you correctly find and evaluate Mmxs own ciaation? The Rand statement does not contradict a plane which excels at dogfighting, and satisfies fleet air defence with Phoenix, so that source cannot be used to prove my point is wrong. --matador30006:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the time has was done, he had removed any association between the F-14 and any article that contained the words "air superiority", even claiming that if the Navy give the F-14 the primary air superiority role, that did not make it an air superiority fighter. All fixable, except that Mmx1 tightly polices any deviation from this POV, and accepts no citations. --matador30018:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Air superiority and maneuverability was exactly the intent. They Navy didn't have any planes that were suited to destroying maneuverable MiGs, they needed something better than the Phantom, which is what I brought out into the history. It is not a coincidence that the F-111B was cancelled, and Grumman 303 (pre F-14) occured the year after the US Navy encountered Migs and realized that they needed an agile fighter. It is Mmx's position that the F-15 is the only plane allowed on the air superiority fighter page, which is even worse than saying the F-14 was not designed to be agile. Mmx appears to have a serve POV against F-14 capablities when even placing "F-14 " on the ASP page is reverted within 10 minutes. This is a real problem. He also reverted my correction to the SST in "swing wing" his claim was that there was no volume for people the PBS SST spy program said there was weight problem. Again, please reread the current version of History of the F-14 and VFAX Mm1 has some sort of mental block that maneuverability was a primary reason for the cnacel, again this is understandable from sources, but theyre incomplete and I have citations from Jane Defence books and Flight Journal that agility lack sof is why the kille the F-111 and built the F-14, which is essentially a F111B with aglity added as a #1 requirement equal to Phoenix --matador30006:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so that this is kept legible, can we keep our comments separate? Here's my view on the content dispute (I will sidestep the personal comments):
Wow. This is a long section. Please bear with me as I go along and make my notes...
The question at the heart of this is What were the primary design considerations of the F-14 Tomcat?.
F-14 was the VFAX, which was required to dogfight migs because the f-111 could not. When phoenix was added, it became VFX. Mmx1 cannot prove this is incorrect-matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here he shows he has no direct supporting source. FAS and GS are not complete sources. They do not mention in detail the VFAX. They do NOT contradict the fact that Grummand built agility first, missle second even if some admirals are on record in Rand as the other way around. Mmx has zero evidence to contradict a series of direct supporting sources. Mmx is asking, so far successfully for us to accept is construction of understanding, and dismiss,in WP tradition, the credentials of Grumman employees who designed the F-14, and editors of Janes, Flight, Modern Marvels and the US Navy and active USN pilots. Again, Mmx is sucessfully asking you to dismiss every direct source in favor of a construction based on evidence which does NOT contradict my position, shared by all aviation media sources that are complete. --matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main openly available sources (FAS and Globalsecurity) fail to mention any consideration of maneuverability in its design criteria, and the RAND study indicates it wasn't. The only sources claiming that it was designed to be "maneuverable" in those words are the words of a Grumman (manufacturer) VP and the History Channel, which I'll disucuss later.
And a 1969 Flight Magazine, don't forget the Janes book.
Now to sidestep this lack of verifiability, he has gone on to harp the point of F-14 as an AIR SUPERIORITY fighter (ASF), as a way of concluding that since it was an ASF, it must have been designed to be maneuverable. This I feel, is a poor use of the term. The term "air superiority" is a well established one in doctrine defined as control of the air, and defined in books on military doctrine. As it relates to fighter design, however, it is ill-defined and a largely colloquial term. It's like "high-performance" car. What's that supposed to mean? High top speed? High torque? Good cornering? It's thrown around a lot lately, especially in a colloquial sense, but it's of questionable use. Air superiority is closely tied to doctrine, and certainly the doctrine for the Navy for air superiority at the time meant lobbing lots of missiles at enemy bombers.
Not true. My knowledge of the topic is much more extensive, if he even looked at the WP articles, the F-8 was tasked close range air superiority, the F-4 missles, but the F4 ended up with both as it was replacing the F8. VFAX and the 1969 VFX picture clearly specify a fighter more agile than the F-4. Anything else is made up. Most of Mmx's statement are both false and unverifiable, and demonstrate imaginative use of logic. --matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was changing in the 1960's, but the design requirements the Navy issued reflect the doctrine of the time. However, as it's a generic term usually used in praise, I feel it should be avoided. Though I had the page on my watchlist for some time I've avoided expanding it as it's really not a precise technical term Wiarthurhu, however, has embraced it as "proof" of his POV.
Also used by Grumman to describe the F-14 in an Aviation Week ad. Who is right Grumman or Mmx? What credentials does Mmx have to make him a better authority than the F-14 engineering manager?--matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you guys ever seen Patton, and the scene where Sir Arthur Coningham assures Patton that they have complete air supremacy? That's what this reminds me of...but forgive my digression. Here's where the sources split. It would seem to me that Wiarthurhu is using a lot of material from the late 1960's when the -14 was introduced, hence the doctrine of the Navy at the time would be that it would be designed as an air superiority fighter capable of zooming out, blasting some dudes from the sky, and heading back to the carrier for chow, whereas now, the air superiority mission of the Navy may be considerably different. Perhaps we should consider talking about the original mission that was intended for the -14 using Wiarthurhu's sources, and the current mission as defined by today's sources.
Moreover, the sources Wiarthurhu cites are of questionable quality. The subject matter is a Government procurement program of military technology, not commonly open to full public view (but subject to rampant public speculation). This is evident if you google JSF, a current US fighter acquisition program, and read the publicly available articles. Wiarthurhu's main sources are:
Grumman (manufacturer) product literature (advertisements) and the testimony of a Grumman test pilot for the program and former VP. With all due respect, that's like asking Bill Gates if there are any flaws in Windows. It is not a particularly reliable source and can be counted on to overhype their product's capabilities. Grumman will hype their product. They have to to get and keep their contracts. But the Navy didn't ask for a "maneuverable" or "air superiority" fighter and in the end, who's paying the bills?
The picture of the Grumman 303 says VFAX on the base. Ask Mmx if VFAX was supposed to be agile, or maybe Mmx isn't an authority on this history?? Certainly if there is a controversy an edior should still allow citations, or at least mention the existence of a controversy. If you look at the present air superioity fighter page, I have corrected to not only inlude the f14, but state it has the earliest use of the term, not F15, which is faulty and unverifiable --matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you/we have any source information from Navy test pilots or other Navy aviators with knowledge of the F-14 and its capabilities or a neutral third party source other than the Navy or Grumman with the expertise necessary to make the judgment call on maneuverability or air superiority?
One pilot commented on the talk page that it was just plain stupid for anyone to claim the f14 was not a dogfighter
Contemporary trade magazines from the period of development (1960s). Given the closed nature of technology acquision and the Cold War, was the public really privvy to the details of fighter procurement? The main sources available were generic information released by the Navy, and of course, manufacturer hype. Many of the information was later released and recorded by the primary participants in the 1980's, but that was of course not the case while the aircraft was still in development. Moreover, many of the articles in the trade magazines are necessarily speculative because of these secrecy concerns - witness [5], a recent Aviation Week story which is essentially speculation about a "possible" secret plane. These industry journals lie somewhere between Computer Shopper and PC Magazine on the reliability scale. In any case, contemporary sources are not usually the best for any field because of the issues of bias and available information.
Hey, I dug up the original article that spilled everything on the F-14. No secret it was promised to be twice as maneuverable as the F-4. Note that Mmx refuses even this as evidence, just plain irrational. --matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, there could be room for a section on what people thought of the F-14 at the time and what it's become in our time. Just a thought. What does Jane's Defence Weekly have to say on the subject?
That brings us to the next source available - individuals directly involved with the program. Wiarthurhu cites the memoirs of a George Spangenberger. While detailed and very interesting, unfortunately a full reading of his memoirs reveals that he was opposed to the "hi-lo" mix of expensive and cheap fighters that is currently implemented, and strongly advised buying the F-14 entirely over splitting the force between F-14's and F/A-18's. Again, not a wholly reliable source.
Spangenberger explains what VFAX was about, unless Mmx wants to say VFAX was not about agility. Again, we must question the mental stability (I am quite familiar with my own limitation) of a person who claims to be a better authority on the F-14 than Spanenberger, Kress, Janes and Flight. --matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly is George Spangenberger, and what relevance does he have to the F-14 program?
The History Channel's Modern Marvels. Pop history is not a reliable source. I advise you to watch an episode on any subject which yo uare an expert in and you'll see that it's not an accurate treatment of history. The Modern Marvels series sets out to hype up a particular subject, and presents no opposing or dissenting views. The one episode I managed to get my hands on of the M-16 (another subject I'm well versed in), painted it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, with one commentator remarking that everybody uses it except those that can't afford it. Right....except England, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Russia, etc. It also made a glaring error in attributing the OICW program to the Marine Corps, not the Army (I detailed sources for this in the F-14 talk page). While this seems like a minor error, it's well-known to anyone familiar with current military acquisitions programmes, and any of the people they quoted could have corrected them on it.
This does not justify then summarily reverting edits because you have the right to reject any source. Mmx fails to demonstrate how any point is false. MM is where I added the section of a series of design features beyond the wing that make it a dogfigher, and interviews of key grumman people. Calling it "unreliable" is simply part of a mental pattern of rejecting ALL contrary evidence, and constructing falsities in the lack of positive sources. In fact the sort of thinking (if it can be called that) constitutes original research if you cannot cite a source which said a similar idea first. --matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like Modern Marvels, but I definitely don't believe everything I see on television, however, I rather not say anything about the show on the F-14 unless A) I've seen it or B) I'm an expert on the F-14, neither of which conditions exist on my part :-) .
So what do we have? The Navy specifications, which numerous sources have stated asked for a "fleet defense fighter" with no mention of air superiority or maneuverability or any synonym thereof.
After all, if Grumman wants to build a minivan and the Navy wants an SUV....who's paying for the program anyway? The best source from a wiki perspective is the RAND report, written by an academic (PhD. in European military history and analysis). RAND, FYI, is a consulting firm that has a long history with the military (primarily the Air Force) and performs a lot of defense analysis. They are still considered the benchmark for defense analysis firms. This paper was written from 1993-2003 and presents a better perspective on matters. This is written by someone who has access to priviledged information (RAND has a close relationship with the Air Force), but at the same time, was not directly involved with the project and so there are no obvious reasons for bias. What does it say?
In the introduction (first paragraph) it omits mention of the F-14 when discussing fighters that represented significant departures from previous thinking.
The other fighters are more advanced, but all of the fighters in this chapter fall under the heading "return of the air sup fighter" mat
Dr. Lorell does use the term "air superiority" - he states that the Navy wanted to cancel the TFX and replace it with a fighter "optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions" (p4) More tellingly, in a chapter about air superiority fighters, where he uses the term to describe the F-15, he doesn't for the F-14, describing it: "That month, the Navy sent out RFP's to industry for a new VFX fighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet air-defense mission".
This did not print out the entire specification, and nowhere does it state it was not built for agility as obviously it is, MMx again constructs a false statement based on ommission, he does not have a fact which contradicts the F14 was a dogfighter VFAX first. mat
This paper was released in 1993?
Wiarthurhu also cites sources that say improvements were made to the F-14's maneuverability as indications it was designed with a focus on such. That's like saying a paint job renders a car a piece of art. One such source he cites is a NASA site that states :"The multirole F-14 fighter employs many Langley technical concepts that permit it to accomplish diverse requirements such as supersonic dash and landing on an aircraft carrier in adverse conditions." and "During the development of the variable-sweep wing at the Langley Research Center, researchers recognized the advantages of applying the concept to multimission aircraft. One ideal application was for naval fleet defense fighters, which must be able to quickly intercept threats and yet slowly approach aircraft carriers to land. Variable-sweep wings in the fully swept (high-speed) configuration permit efficient supersonic dash and the carrier-approach requirements could be met with the wing in the unswept (low-speed) position." Ultimately, the swing-wing was a result of the high-speed dash requirement - had the focus been on maneuverability, the result would have been a fixed-wing aircraft like the F-15 (considered for naval service), F-16, or F/A-18.
Again constructing falsehoods is Original Research, not permitted on WP. mat
Then there is the reality of performance. Which, despite Wiarthurhu's claimed training in aeronautical engineering, he has not tried to address. The F-14, in fact, is indisputably and verifiably less capable in a close turning fight than its contemporaries (F-15,F-18, and F-16), its primary aerodynamic and performance statistics (wing loading, t/w ratio, turn rate, turn radius) are below its American peers. These are not in dispute. Wiarthurhu puts in the uncited assertion that the F-14 could easily beat a Vietnam-era A-4 (which was used in aggressor training), which primary sources (Navy aggressor pilots) have contradicted. No, not a citable source, but primary source vs no source..... what do you think?
Can you provide the primary Navy source information so I can take a look? I don't doubt your assertion, I'm just nitpicky about knowing as much as possible about an article as I can...
It's getting into nitpicks over words and their meaning, and frankly I don't care if the word air superiority is used, so long as it's not the base of further unsubstantiated conclusions about its maneuverability. The reality is that the F-14 was designed as an interceptor;
An incomplete fact which does not contract matador
combined with the carrier requirement this favored a swing-wing design. The swing wing resulted in a more maneuverable aircraft than most interceptors and rendered it a competitive dogfighter (unlike most interceptors), but its weight and design compromises rendered it less capable than later designs (F-15/16/18) which were explicitly designed with an eye on low-speed turning performance).bold emphasis added by CQJ00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might be true, but again, does not contradict that F-14 was a dogfighter first. matador
Same question, can you show me the source that this came from besides what's already on Wikipedia, not to be nitpicky, just to cover the bases...
Side issues:
Credibility. Wiarthurhu has so far presented no professional credentials w.r.t. the subject matter - he lays them out on his talk page if you'd like to see them. I have refrained from overtly criticizing them but as he is claiming precedence on their basis I feel they are fair game for critique - some have been wholly irrelevant, such as his SAT score, his political activities, and his collection of model airplanes - again, these were items he brought up as reasons he's more credible than I. I have been trying to avoid getting into a pissing contest over degrees and publications and would rather but if it is fair game I will describe my background and critique his.
What the !@#$%@!? This guy is unbelievable. He not only dismisses all sources while presenting none of his own, he dismises all credentials, presenting none of his own. I was an xpert on the F14 in 1974 when I was in high school, and written letters chosen by editors of Avation Week to be printed, I have read probably hundreds of books and magazines on F14 and similar fighters. Mmx has probably read all of 100 open source web documents his entire life (e wont say), has never been published, has never worked in any industry or taken any engieering or writing course for that matter, and that makes him a better arbiter of truth than Bob Kress of Grumman or the editor of Janes??--matador30007:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not see this descend into another pissing contest over degrees, backgrounds, SAT scores, girls that one has dated, blah, blah, blah, but with the complexity of the subject matter and the assertions that are being made, that may be necessary before everything is said and done, however, I don't think a critique of anyone's background is necessary. Everyone has their own little areas they contribute in.
I just noticed that the F-14 history article states that the F-14 uses "essentially swinging versions of the A-6's wings". I find this claim highly dubious and suspicious given that Wiarthurhu previous added to the F-14 page a note to compare the model planes of the A-6 and F-14. While it is not uncommon for model companies to recycle parts, it is of very questionable usage on real aircraft, especially from a fixed wing aircraft to a variable-geometry wing. Feel free to consult aeronautical engineers (User:Ericg is one).
I'm about to put that citatoin in. I know he doesn't like this, but a true fact without a citation is more true than a constructed falsehood with a citation --
Hm. Don't know what to do about this, but if the need arises, I'll give him a shout (Eric, that is).
History of the TFX. Wiarthurhu has taken it somewhat personally, rewriting the F-111 as an indictment of Robert McNamara. While I am no fan of the man, I think terms like "Robert McNamara, CEO and fighter designer" and "the accountant's view to fighter design" are derisively amateur and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
I don't know anything about McNamara aside from snide comments from movies of the time, but we'll handle that after the issue is settled here first.
Here, Wiarthurhu has taken his narrow vision of history and his focus on maneuverability and cast it on the TFX history, portraying it as the reason that killed the TFX. Reality is more complex than that:
Within the military in the 1960s, the institutional view to aerial combat was that it would be settled at long range via missiles - lead mostly by bomber advocates. This is verifiable in the doctrinal manual and fighter designs of the era. This is not in dispute.
So we're in agreement that in the 1960's, Naval and aerial combat doctrine was to settle disputes at long range via missile - does this mean that this is the 1960's definition of air superiority?
There was a growing cabal of fighter pilots from WWII who were now rising in rank to just under General (John Boyd, et al, nicknamed the "Fighter Mafia") who felt that the institution was wrong and that close-in dogfighting was not obsolete and in fact very relevant. This is also not in dispute
Hence the need for places like Miramar. So you're saying that the Navy (and Air Force) specifically set their doctrine at long range stuff as opposed to dogfighting, while the rank-and-file flag officers and below were howling for a fighter that could dogfight?
The third party in this drama are Kennedy's "Whiz Kids", lead by Robert McNamara, a former CEO named Defense secretary. McNamara believed the services could save money by pooling requirements - he asked "why do you all wear different shoes and uniforms?". He introduced organizational practices from business, many to great success. His urging of the Air Force to adopt the Navy's F-4 and A-7 were also successes. However, he required the two services to combine their new fighter acquisition programs in the TFX, which ended up as a debacle. So far, not in dispute.
What is in dispute is the nature of the interplay between the three. Wiarthurhu paints a simplistic picture History_of_the_F-14_Tomcat#Return_of_the_dogfighter that amounts to essentially - a few of our fighters get shot down, military is shocked, and overnight disclaims the missile view to embrace dogfighting. They realize the F-111 can't dogfight its way out of a wet paper bag, are aghast, and discard it. The "accountants" are disgraced and never show their face in the Military again.
So, essentially the F-14's capabilities to dogfight were cobbled into what the F-14 could already do, and the Navy developed dogfighting doctrine for the F-14 around its capabilities and existing design? If this assertion is correct, please source it so I can take a look.
Reality: Military factions are like brothers - they fight with each other all the time but will gang up on anybody that pick on them. In this case, the third party was civilian oversight in the form of McNamara. Both factions hated consolidation. The RAND source is the main source for this. It does indeed say the "fighter community" was shocked by this revelation. But the fighter community is not the military nor even the Air Force (e.g. Gen. Curtis Lemay). In reality, the Air Force and Navy were against the TFX from the day they were ordered to participate (easily verifiable). But so far the concrete complains were not very tangible to civilians - the TFX was overweight (making carrier operations difficult), crashed twice in carrier trials, and was getting rather expensive. What the Grumman study (that showed the F-111 could not win against new Russian Fighters) did was give the Military brass something to take to Congress and say "Even if it gets in the air, it won't win a fight". That's something congressmen understand, and gave them the clout to kill the F-111.
Moreover, the legacy of McNamara is deeper than just a failed fighter program. The corporate philosophies have taken root in the military (the Navy and Marine Corps in my experience utilize Operational Risk Management in EVERYTHING; all services now send senior officers to intern with majr corporations as a form of professional education), and especially procurement programs. In fact, the analysis that went into subsequent fighter programs and the right "high/low" mix are exactly the System Analysis techniques that McNamara pushed on the military. The JSF has been many times compared to the TFX (also verifiable, not "speculation" as Wiarthurhu calls it).
Certainly, all perfomance aspects are important, but in any design tradeoffs must be made to reflect mission priorities - no plane can be the fastest, turn the tightest, carry the most payload, have the most range, and be the cheapest. I asserted that the F-14 was designed with the premium on the high-speed dash, with maneuverability as a secondary requirement. Hence the use of a heavy swing wing as opposed to fixed wings as on every other modern fighter. Wiarthurhu believes it was....very important. I won't put any further words in his mouth.
I'd like to share my point of view. Since qualifications seem to be an issue in some of these discussions, let me state mine: BS: MIT Aero/Astro, MS: USC Aero Eng., 15 years working for major aircraft companies in structures, systems, and advanced design (6 as an engineering manager), 6 years as an engineering consultant (primarily aero and defense). I'm also a licensed pilot and aircraft owner. (Not sure if that's significant in this context, but it shows the depth of my interest.) Oh, and if anyone's interested, I also have a room full of reference books on aircraft design and history.
So it seems that there are two issues: is the F-14 an air superiority fighter and was it designed to be maneuverable. To address these, I'd prefer not to rely on anecdotal evidence and comments that are perhaps not unbiased and are taken out of context. Instead, let's look at the F-14 itself. Clearly the F-14 is both an air superiority fighter and maneuverable. (In this case, I'm defining air superiority fighter as a fighter that is employeed in air-to-air combat, as opposed to air-to-ground strike.) As Wiarthurhu has noted, the F-14 has design characteristics that confirm that it is. For example, the presence of the glove vanes, maneuvering flaps, large stabilators, slats, etc. seem to indicate that some attention was paid to maneuverability. Similarly, the presence of a Vulcan cannon, which was absent in the earlier F-4 and F-111, can only indicate that the Navy considered it likely that the F-14 may find itself in a short range dogfight.
Where Wiarthurhu and I diverge is the level to which he takes his assertions. The use of the word "uncompromising" in referring to an aircraft design is at best inappropriate; at worst it's naive. Every aircraft design is a compromise and the F-14 is no exception. Its primary design objective was obviously to be to be a "missile truck". As Wiarthurhu outlined in the history, the F-14 originated in the F6D, which had virtually no air-to-air capability other than long range missiles. The F-111 was an improvement in its greater speed and power, and the F-14 was a further improvement, but all along these were designs that first and foremost were designed to carry the heavy and bulky electronics of the era and equally heavy long range missiles. To say otherwise flies in the face of the fact that it's carrying a crew of two (an obvious compromise) and carries a large and heavy radar system.
If this isn't convincing enough, let's compare it to a contemporary aircraft that I think everyone concerned will agree is a highly maneuverable air superiority fighter: the F-15. The items to be compared are a few basic characteristics that can illustrate the compromises required.
Weight: F-14 - 58,900 lbs (with four AIM-7), F-15: 42,200 lbs.
Thrust: F-14 - 41,800 lbs. (TF-30 of the F-14A), F-15: 47,600 lbs.
Thrust to Weight: F-14 - .71, F-15 - 1.13
Wing Loading: F-14 - 104, F-15 - 69 (It's true that the F-14 derives some lift from the fuselage, but so does the F-15, as demonstrated by its famous landing minus one wing.)
The compromises made to the F-14's maneuverability in order to support its long range interceptor mission are obvious. (There's probably some small penalty penalty for being carrier based, but that's relatively small, as indicated by a variety of evidenc: F-4B vs. F-4C, F-18C vs. F-18L, T-45 vs. Hawk, etc.) In the end, it may be able to dogfight, but it's not a dogfighter. I doubt there's a pilot with wings who'd choose the F-14 over an F-15, F-16, or even F-18 in a short range gun fight. That's not intended to disparage the F-14; it's simply designed (primarily) for a different mission.
What bothers me more, though, is not the issue of maneuverability or air superiority, but the larger lack of NPOV. The article reads like an F-14 advertisement with multiple comparisons to other aircraft and statements extolling the virtue of the F-14. The result is a long, clumsy, confusing article full of extraneous information and editorializing. I'd like to see it streamlined and re-focused. Dabarkey05:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the F-14 is an idea dogfighter is not this issue. The issue is whether Mmx has the right to summarily revert any edit and dismiss ANY supporting reference that the F-14 was designed to be A) maneuverable or B) an air superiority fighter. The issue is not whether some people agree the F-14 is the most maneuverable or is the best design, or a design that makes no compromises. As long as there as a requirement for an aircraft substantially more agile than the F-4 (both VFAX and VFX) and the requirement went beyond the F-111B missle carrier (they did), proposition A is correct or at issue at worst since no contradicting evidence for (not A) exists. B has been proven by the existence of the use of that term to refer to the F-14 as early as 1969.
That's a user conduct dispute. May I remind you that all disputes have two sides to the story, yours and his. While I'm attempting to sort out the issues already present, more issues and mud is being slung. I've asked you both to stop editing the article and comply with WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN at the very least while I try and figure out exactly what's going on here. Please do so.
This statement is True
The F-14 was designed with ability to outmaneuver Migs as at least one requirement.
Direct supporting source#1: Spangenberg :"This design finally evolved as a multi-mission airplane, VFAX, capable of performing better than a F-4 as a fighter, and better than the A-7 as an attack airplane"
source #2: Flight International 1969:"maneuverability is projected to be double the F-4's capability"
source 3: Bill Gunston "combat air patrol was given priority"
The F-14 has been called an air superiority fighter as early as 1969. Flight International
We are not dealing with the content dispute yet. Please refrain from posting anything relating to the content dispute.'
This statement is False
The F-14 was not designed with maneuverability as a requirement
noncontradicting source:#1 Rand - Navy wanted fleet air defence without being compromised by USAF air superiority requirement. Grumman 303 met both requirements to Navy's satisfaction. Without compromised means that agility did not affect ability to fire Phoenix, which it did not affect in the least
noncontradicting source:#2 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14.htm" it is the most feared fighter in the sky." "the Tomcat's variable-sweep wings give the F-14 a combat maneuvering capability that could not have been achieved with a "standard" fixed planform wing.
" There is no statement that it was not designed to maneuver, in fact providing evidence the wing aids maneuvering.
noncontradicting source #3: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm "designed to attack and destroy enemy aircraft at night and in all weather conditions.: "world's premier air defense fighter" There is no statment supporting the assertion.
The F-14 is not an air superiority fighter. That term was first coined for the F-15 Eagle
(no citation given for unverifiable statement which replaced verifiable wiarthurhu edit)
None of Mmx's sources directly support his claim without resorting to Original Research. None of Mmx's sources contradict the story that I have uncovered from the depths of the internet and magazines of the era and Modern Marvels that the Grumman 303 was an agile VFAX first, and a AWG-9/Phoenix equipped VFX second.
I also found out that former RAF Bill Gunston, who if you do a WP search is cited by dozens of WP articles was the technical editor for Flight International and Janes, is todays #1 top respected aviation sourceand probably the person writing both 1969 F-14 articles as well as "Modern Air Combat" where he states that "combat air patrol and deck launch intercept were given priority." Combat Air Patrol is basically shooting down MiG fighters, and if Mmx can't read "maneuverability into it", well, I won't be surprised. Mmx1, please convince everybody that Bill Gunston can't know squat because of his biased and unencyclopedic un-NPOV statement "The F-14 is the top end of the fighter market"--matador30015:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is just ONE issue that should be settled by one valid reference. Evidently Mmx utilizes similar use of creative logic and similar tenacity on every issue, so we should thank God he only does this to aircraft articles. Does the Wikipedia similary allow and encourage all authors to summarily dismiss all references and construct falsehoods? --matador30015:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What bothers me more, though, is not the issue of maneuverability or air superiority, but the larger lack of NPOV. The article reads like an F-14 advertisement with multiple comparisons to other aircraft and statements extolling the virtue of the F-14. The result is a long, clumsy, confusing article full of extraneous information and editorializing. I'd like to see it streamlined and re-focused." Dabarkey05:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a different problem from having Mmx essentially police the entire wikipedia from attempts to rectify the import ommision of a) f14 designed to be a dogfighter and b) f14 is also an air superiority fighter, I hope we both agree both these well supported assertions should not be allowed to be cleansed by Mms on this topic.
The F-14 article was too big when I got there, but that's not my fault, but the enormous popularity of the F-14. The state of the article is that it encompasses more information than almost any print article, and many books on the topic,w whic shows the power of WP, and the power to damage when a fellow like Mmx1 is allowed damage it, and then police his POV, without respect for sources.
I basically don't have the time to fight it out with someone who writes and researches with a bipolar behavior pattern. I may just give up and leave it to someone else to figure out what's going on as that appears to be how the world really works when most people not only tolerate but encourage folks like Mmx1.
--matador30015:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch your 'bipolar behavior' comments. You're bordering on WP:CIVIL which you've agreed to comply with throughout not only this mediation, but your Mediation Committee case. CQJ16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmx's only opposition is to the second one. Mmx is not quite sure what the F-14 was designed to be more maneuverable and agile as a long-range interceptor means. What is wrong with just stating that maneuverability was a secondary design aim? Also "moreso than other fighter aircraft of its time" is a bit vague. Time of introduction? Time of service? The latter is definitely not true. The former....possibly on a technicality, as it reached service a few years before the F-15. Not sure about contemporaries in other militaries, but even the A-4 was about par and superior in some aspects, so it's not at all clear.
Regarding the central dispute over the swing wing, Mmx states that numerous sources, including NASA, attribute the swing-wing to the mix of high and low speed mission profiles and that only later in the design process did designers realize that computer-assisted geometry change (as opposed to manual) could aid maneuverability.--Mmx122:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refinements:
to the first, numerous sources state that the primary mission profile was to engage with Phoenix or Sparrow long-range missiles; this would be clearer than the current wording of the mission profile.
to the second, it was more maneuverable and agile than its predecessor the F-4, to allow it to engage targets at short range as necessary. However, this was not its primary mission. It is more maneuverable than most interceptors.
to the third. There are two different missions, really. Fleet Defense on the open seas would not have likely involved the presence of fighters due to range. Escort duty for strike packages (a secondary mission) would have, so the description is a bit off. I however accept the "capability to maneuver .... so it could defend itself if necessary" wording and suggest it be extended to "defend it self if an aerial engagement devolved into a close-range fight.
The sprit of 4 is fine. The wording is a bit off. Maneuverability is a trait, air superiority is an adjective, I wouldn't call it a trait. --Mmx122:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Mmx1 is to become a productive member of WP rather just a loose cannon, I'd like to see some recognition that errors were made, and a commitment to learn from those errors. With regards to "bipolar" I am speaking not just of a derogatory, which it need not be, but from experience from friends who do have this condition, and from working with a psychologist to manage a somewhat different, but related set conditions that I myself have worked with professionals to manage. A prime sign of this condition is inflated self worth, a lot of mental activity, and a consistent effort to denigrate the work or value of others, especially those with established credentials, thus dismissing of all sources all the way up to VP and engineering manager of Grumman, Aviation Week, Flight International, and Janes Defence, and complete confidence in one's own infallibility. This can be consciously managed as long as one has the tools to detect when boundaries should be followed, and to recognize one's own limitations.
I also tend to dismiss common wisdom and on occasion overestimate my own self-worth, but at least I have some credentials with which to back up some of my claims. In my experience, most users don't have problems with persons like Mmx1, but a personality like my own will take a stand and take considerable fire in order to correct a wrong. --matador30020:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing user conduct at this point. If you'd like to discuss that, we can do so, however, be aware that I'm fully aware of what you're doing with Wikipedia strategy especially in regards to Mmx and that it's a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, which I've asked you repeatedly not to violate. As your mediator, I highly recommend that you focus on the content dispute rather than the user dispute at this time. In addition, I would recommend that you not use the word "bipolar" to discuss anyone's editing patterns ever again - I find your use of the term highly offensive and derogatory, regardless of whether you have friends that are bipolar or have similar psychiatric issues yourself. You have no right nor position to make declarative judgements in regards to an editor's psychiatric patterns indicated by their submissions to the encyclopedia. That IS a blatant, clear-cut definition of at least WP:NPA, and I won't stand for it or further incivility on your part again throughout this process. I'm sorry to be so straightforward and to the point in those regards, but that's the way it has to be. CQJ22:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive the lack of sensitivity then, one should not be pointing out what may or may not be an item of weakness of another, I just thought it was explanatory of the behavior of inflated self-esteem, and dismissing all authorititative sources.
With repect to the Navy's requirements, we can take the timing of the first air combat with MiGs over Vietnam from both the Rand air superiority paper, and the WP F-14 article. The both state that pilots were shocked at the effectiveness of subsonic Migs in 1965, which happens to also be the year that the F-111B development was complete enough for a first flight. US Air Force F-105 were suffering terrific losses. The Navy F-4s were the only planes to register MiG kills that first year, but it can only be assumed that without intense air combat training, it was difficult in such a large plane. The Phantom was not designed for visual range air superiority, only the coincidence that it had 2 very powerful engines, and had a large wing because it was not optimized like the F-105 for high speed on the deck made it the #1 air superiority fighter of its day. Remember that up until then, there appears to be little evidence of dissatisfaction from the Navy over issues other than weight, radar size, etc.
I'm going to break comments and use italics again to make things a little easier on the eyes. I'd prefer to NOT use internal Wikipedia documentation to shore up the content debate in this case.
After 1965, based on Spangenbergers' history of the F-14, and Flight Magazine stories on the VFAX, the VFAX was created only after it was realized that the F-111B did not have sufficient performance to neutralize a MiG at close range, thus the Grumman dogfight study in the Rand paper, and the testimony "all the thrust in Christendom won't make that plane a fighter". Since the Phoenix missle profile is that it has to accelerate to Mach 5 and 80,000 ft, that obviously isn't of much use in a visual range dogfight. The VFAX requirements were, in the words of both the Navy and Grumman's 303 design which was designed to VFAX produce a fighter for combat air patrol and escort (translation, Mig killer) substantially better than the Phantom, with bombing capability as well.
Is there a copy of the VFAX requirements freely available for us to look at?
The plan was to supplement nonmaneuvering F-111B with smaller, cheaper VFAX. According to Flight Magazine in 1966, the Navy had by that time decided, probably upon looking Grumman's proposal, that it was possible to field a new airplane that could do both -- by grafting the AWG-9/Phoenix capability into their 303 VFAX, Grumman had created a dogfighter which did not compromise the fleet air defence capability of the F-111B. As it turns out the F-14 was deemed too expensive and large, leading to the F-18A and F-18E Super Hornet which ironically grew up to be nearly as large and much more expensive than the F-14, yet still less capable. In Vietnam, and indeed the entire period up to the present, all actual combat has been in the same dogfight style as in Vietnam. No combat has ever occured as envisioned by the original fleet defence specification, shooting down bombers or their lauched cruise missles, nor has it ever been employed in continental defence, even though F-14's flying on patrol from Cape Cod could have detected and shot down out both errant NYC airliners in 120 seconds simultaneously. That last item is a speculation that wouldn't last 5 minutes on the main F-14 page, but I figured I'd throw it out here to get it out of my system.
For the record, let it be known that while Mmx1 probably still considers himself a better authority than I on the F-14, I believe it is quite impossible for Mmx1 do have done the depth of research I've done to settle this issue once and for all, obtaining actual 1960s magazines and scanning the internet for all evidence of the elusive mysterious code of the VFAX which has now been solved. The only additional reading he has done beyond the two open source articles are those he has adopted as his own that I have supplied to him. --matador30022:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me chew on that paragraph for a day or so, and I'll get back on it. Let's take a break until at least tomorrow night on everything here, if that's okay...you should see a response from me no later than 2100 UTC. CQJ01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just throwing in my 2 cents here, see you tommorow. This "timing argument" is firstly original research, and secondly, waaaay faster than things work in the military. The military does not change doctrine to reflect a single incident. The whole "fighter mafia" cabal was based on WWII combat experience and they didn't get their changes implemented until the end of the Vietnam war. The RAND report actually states On April 5, 1965, several North Vietnamese Korean War vintage MiG-17s equipped only with guns shot down two sophisticated F-105s on a bombing run against the Than Hoa Bridge. This incident shocked the U.S. tactical fighter community and galvanized sentiment in the Air Force for a new air-superiority fighter. Shortly thereafter, General McConnell, Air Force Chief of Staff, issued a formal document emphasizing the importance of the air-superiority mission. This document served as the basis for a requirement statement for an new fighter.(forgive the typos, the RAND pdf does not allow copy-paste)
As a note, the F-105 was a fighter-bomber, a misnomer really as its primary mission was delivery of nuclear payloads. So the shock was not about the failure of contemporary fighters per se, but rather of multi-mission aircraft. Also note the word "galvanized". It was not news to many in the fighter community - the fighter community was largely the one pushing for a dedicated airframe. It was fuel for the "fighter mafia"'s fire.
Wiarthurhu is completely wrong about the TFX; we will get to that at the appropriate time. Again, he attributes everything to maneuverability when not a soul in either the Navy or Air Force wanted a joint program the day McNamara ordered it. They had little concrete proof as it was nothing more than an idea (but acquired more as the program took shape), but their professional opinion was that it was impossible. I have in front of me a copy of Into the Jet Age: Conflict and Change in Naval Aviation that is a compilation of personal statements from Admirals at the time (including Kent Lee and Connolly ...also has the original "not enough thrust in Christendom" quote) that will back that up. They hated the idea of the TFX and used every excuse they could find to sink it.
Again demonstrating his love affair with maneuverability, he attributes to it the founding of VFAX. Actually, according to his source Spangenberg (not berger) [6] states One of the concepts that came along was that we would accept the fact that we were going to have to have one squadron of F-111Bs on board our carriers, and they would be used for the FAD (Fleet Air Defense) mission only. Then we were to find ways to get a reasonable capability for meeting the so-called OFR (Other Fighter Requirements), fighter escort, close air support, etc. Out of that acceptance of reality came a concept of an airplane called VFAX.
So by Spangenberg's quote above, the VFAX program was designed to satisfy the OFR that the F-111B could not - fighter escort, close air support, blah blah blah..
Secondly, all this talk about the VFAX is again nonsense original research in an attempt to distract from the indisputable fact that the F-14 was procured via the VFX program, and which most sources, RAND included, state was a requirement for a fleet defense fighter. The VFAX is nothing but a spiritual predecessor of the VFX, according to the George Spangenberger quote that "In essence, this finally evolved as upgrading the VFAX to carry the AWG-9 fire control system and the Phoenix missiles." However, "in essence" is not the same as "what happened was". While spiritually the predecessor, the lightweight and strike missions were clearly dropped, and most sources state that the VFX was a "fleet defense" or "air superiority" fighter.
Now, oddly, I do agree with Wiarthurhu on one statement (which he will probably regret making) "Grumman had created a dogfighter which did not compromise the fleet air defence capability of the F-111B" is basically about right. The maneuvering characteristics of the F-14 (computer assisted as opposed to manually operated swing-wings, glove vanes, etc) did not compromise the interception mission. The interception mission did compromise its maneuvering characteristics - the size of the aircraft as determined by the Phoenix missiles and the weight of the swing-wing mechanism both significantly compromised its ability to fight at close range by reducing its t/w ratio and wing loading. You are free to draw your own conclusions.
Thus where the air superiority and maneuverability compromise comes into play. They're not mutually exclusive terms, as I believe we've already agreed.
I cannot let this go unanswered In Vietnam, and indeed the entire period up to the present, all actual combat has been in the same dogfight style as in Vietnam. That is patently wrong and illustrates the editor's bias. Matador may have a minor in Aero Engineering, but he clearly didn't get any training in history. The field most relevant to our current discussion is not Aero E (since the perfomance or characteristics are not in dispute), but history and defense analysis. Consult the link [7]. Out of 34 aerial encounters since the Vietnam War (including training/development fratricides and some really odd ones like the 2001 P-3 incident in Hainan....I'm not sure a collision followed by capture counts as an "aerial victory") resulting in the loss of aircraft, 12 have been with long/medium-range missiles (AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-120 AMRAAM) fired from beyond visual range, i.e. not "dogfight style". Most recent kills have in fact with the highly effective AMRAAM (with over 60% effectiveness) from long range. OR about F-14's preventing 9-11.....I'll leave that one alone.
I have exhausted the library resources of a top-10 University (geez, it isn't that hard to figure out which one) and posted the citations where appropriate (I'm still holding off on the TFX stuff until this is resolved). Besides, if I wanted to know about windows 95, would I
ask Bill Gates? Am I denigrating him to insinuate *shock!* that he may be less than truthful about his own product?
consult a 1993 copy of PC Magazine offering a "Preview of Windows 95", utilizing leaks and press releases to cover what is a highly secretive process?
Or consult later sources that take a historical view with the benefit of hindsight and newly available information not available to contemporary sources, like this bookorthis book
Oh, and regarding the reliability of Flight International, since magazines vary in accuracy from the professional and academic down to the fan rags: Since I've been accused of denigrating it, I may as well live up to my criticisms. My university has a top-10 international affairs school that shares staff with West Point and the Army War College, as well as all the major defense consulting firms including RAND and Brookings. What does it tell you about its professionalism or utility that we don't have a paper subscription to Flight International? The later issues come with Proquest and a few other general electronic catalogues, but we've never seen fit to buy the magazine prior to the electronic catalogues? Must be a reason. As far as individual credentials, it's irrelevant as neither of us are citable sources for this article. My training's given me the tools to critically analyze sources; Matador's training's taught him that a company representative is a reliable source regarding their products.
By the way, the only thing stopping me from bringing an RfAr at this point is respect for the mediator and the time he's put into this. "Lack of sensitivity"? "may or may not be a weakness?" Nice way to continue the insinuations.
Revising the Revised Compromise: More comments[edit]
Accept revised compromise. First of all, this statement is not the core of the conflict (which has not yet been resolved), but rather, a supporting element of it.
The original issue which sparked all this was whether the variable-sweep wings were motivated by maneuverability or the mixed speed mission profile (dash/loiter/land). Both Brassey's and NASA support that it was the latter; and Brassey's goes further to explain that the variable sweep compromised maneuverability by requiring small wings. Dabarkey, and AeroE, has also explained below that other parts of the interceptor requirement compromised the maneuverability of the aircraft. While these compromises were mitigated by other factors such as the computer-assist and the fuselage design, it does not change the fact that the decision to go with a swing wing aided the interception mission and hurt its maneuverability for the escort mission.
From this came the competing assertions that maneuverability was either a secondary or co-equal design parameter with interception - since the choice is binary (actually, it could have changed over time, but there's no indication of that). Every source gives the interception/fleet air defense as a primary mission and design parameter; that is not in dispute. Though no source states that maneuverability was secondary in those words exactly, what we have instead are some sources that stop at the interception mission and some that list maneuverability as co-equal. Most, particularly those considered generally neutral (Globalsecurity, RAND) list it as its only "primary" mission. The inclusion of the "dogfighting" as a co-equal design parameter by company literature should not override those sources. Keep also in mind that the F-14 was also offered to the Air Force for its F-X program, which did have interception and dogfighting as co-equal design parameters, so Grumman had to sell the F-14 as a mix as such to try to get that contract (which, incidentally, they did not). The F-14 gained an increasingly large escort mission through its lifetime, but what's at issue here is not its lifetime mission (which can accurately be described in terms of change), but the design parameters. --Mmx121:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
