Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:28, 1 July 2006

Template:RFM-Filed

Please do not simply revert edits

Geez, this place is like a place where everybody goes around knocking down other people's sandcastles with all sorts of lame justification such as "I don't like it".

From the rules:

Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZ", or someone changing "6+5*2=16" to "6+5*2=17"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

Do the whole gnarly Nash Hudson AMC Eagle timetable, it would be great! Then, you could leave out the musings out of the articles, and the template would just say it all. I am actually thinking of doing one or a few Simca/Rootes Group/Chrysler Europe/Talbot template(s), which would present a similar situation, and I have one good idea for it - why not mark the models (and, in some cases, model years) offered under different marques and different owners with different colours? An example of this being done with regard to something else is here. I hope I didn't make it too confusing :D

Anyway - do the template, it would be great! Have fun with it! Bravada, talk - 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Are You That Guy?

A better approach to your question would be to search the page history on the Matador and find out by comparing previous page versions. Going around asking people if they're the offenders is a tad militant. However, to answer your question: having checked the page history, I see that I have made only one edit recently, and it was relatively minor (relation to citations). Anyway, good luck with editing. -Litefantastic 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

F-14

Why don't you provide your source and respond to the criticisms on Talk:F-14 Tomcat?. --Mmx1 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log

Do not delete items from the deletion log. It is serious vandalism. Let the debate continue in an arderly fashion. --Bduke 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're simply and utterly wrong, and I will call a spade a spade

I will call a spade a spade. You're wrong and the report you cite clearly contradicts the points you make - it says the Navy did NOT want an air superiority fighter. So far you've only revealed ignorance and misinformation the more you write and I have no hesitation in correcting your mistakes. I ask you to take some time and read the RAND report cover to cover and come back. I'm being kind in calling your edits "misinformed". I could be a whole lot harsher, but I will refrain from personal attacks. --Mmx1 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable evidence the F-14 is an Air Superiority Fighter

How does inclusion of the F-14 intertwined with the F-15 in the search for a generation of air superiority fighters not make it an air superiority fighter? How does the Navy's tasking of the F-18, which replaces the F-14, as an air superiority fighter make the F-14 not an air superiority fighter? How does the increase of wing area for agility make agility not a design goal? What we have here is a POV problem, and there are other ways about it than simply reverting good quality factual information. An short open source paper that omits the term "air superiority" does not the conclusion make, "the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter".

F-14 Tomcat - Misplaced Pages, the 💕 ... F-14 Tomcat was a United States Navy supersonic, twin-engine, swing-wing, two-seat interceptor fighter jet. The Tomcat's primary missions were air superiority

Military Factory - F-14 Tomcats Grumman&nbspF-14 Tomcat. Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. KNOWN OPERATORS: United States of America (B and D models) Iran (A model) BASIC INFORMATION: Designation: F-14 Tomcat ... against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216.shtml ... F-111 was not optimized for air superiority as the F-14 had been The "Hi" end was represented by the long-range, high-speed F-14 Tomcat dedicated air superiority fighter.

F-14 Tomcat 7th District American Legion of Wisconsin ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a United States Navy supersonic ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense, and precision strike against ground targets. The first F-14 flight was ...webpages.charter.net/.../F_14_TomCat_Era_Ends.htm - 39k - Cached - More from this site - Save

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat, a combat-proven air superiority fighter, continues the U.S. ... of fleet air defense, fighter escort, tactical air reconnaissance and air-to-surface strike fighter ...www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/f14/f14.html

Welcome to The F-14 Tomcat VF-211 : Fighter Squadron 211. The F-14 Tomcat. The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. ... are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. Features: The F-14 has visual ...www.military.com/HomePage/UnitPageFullText/0,13476,700906,00.html - 18k - Cached - More from this site - Save

F-14 Tomcat - QuickSeek Encyclopedia ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (the F-13 designation was skipped ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense, and precision strike against ground targets. The first F-14 flight was ...f14tomcat.quickseek.com -

Naval Test Wing Atlantic - Platforms Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division ... Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic ... are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. Features: The F-14 has visual ...www.nawcad.navy.mil/testwinglant/aircraft_details.cfm?platformID=12 -

Aircraft: Grumman F-14A Tomcat ... weapon system for fleet air defense, escort, combat air patrol, air superiority, and interdiction missions (2 CREW ... , AZ. The F-14 might not be the best aircraft ever build ...aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/grumman/f-14a.htm

Navy Fact File: F-14 Tomcat Information on hardware of the U.S. Navy ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority,

Grumman F-14 Tomcat - HOME ... shots of the F-14 let me first ... F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.angelfire.com/stars4/f14tomcat

U.S. Military Fighter Aircraft Fighter aircraft used by the various branches of the United States Military Services. ... in a military campaign is more difficult. F-14 Tomcat Fact Sheet ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat. The F-14 ...usmilitary.about.com/od/fighter

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-14 Tomcat Grumman F-14 Tomcat history, specifications, schematics, pictures, and data. ... range air superiority fighter was accepted by the US Navy. This aircraft was ultimately accepted as the F-14 Tomcat, and ... wing geometry allows the F-14 to maximize range and ...www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f14

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat is the navy's air superiority fighter. It is the plane to have if your playing ... an enemy can put in the air before they can shoot back ...members.aol.com/CIOFAM/f14.html

F-14 Tomcat ... Description: The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place ... include precision strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense ...cpf.navy.mil/.../RIMPAC2004/aircraft_pages/F-14tomcatfactpage.htm

F-14 Tomcat Aircraft The F-14 Tomcat Aircraft of the US Navy entered the fleet in 1973. ... F-14 Tomcat Description: The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is ... missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike against ground targets. F-14 Tomcat Features: The ...inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltomcat.htm

F-14 Tomcats - Military and Civilian Aircraft All about military and civilian aircraft, airplanes, jets, transports, passenger airliners and helicopters. ... Designation: F-14 Tomcat. Type: Carrier Borne Air Defence / Air Superiority Fighter. Contractor: Grumman ... strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense. As a ...www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=63

F-14 Tomcat ... The Grumman F-14 Tomcat (specifications) is a twin engine, variable sweep wing, and air superiority fighter capable of ... simultaneously and attack six air-to-air targets with the AIM ...www.highironillustrations.com/commission_illustration/f14.html

'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Posted on 03/10/2006 9:33:43 PM PST by neverdem. ASSOCIATED PRESS. VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. ... the past 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key role in ... 30 years, the F-14 Tomcat has assured U.S. air superiority, playing a key ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594335/posts

Now does this mean the F-14 wasn't an air superiority fighter? 'Top Gun' jets return from final combat Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 10, 2006 | SONJA BARISIC ASSOCIATED PRESS There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat. The F-14 entered service in the early 1970s to defend aircraft carriers from Soviet bombers carrying long-range cruise missiles.

REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER (PDF) Chapter Five. REVIVAL OF THE AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. INTRODUCTION. The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed the development of two new Air Force. fighters—the F-15 and F-16—and two new Navy fighters—the F-14 and ... www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch5.pdf

http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html ... the F-14 Tomcat aircraft are supersonic, tandem-seat, twin engine, swing-wing, all-weather, air-superiority, strike ... engine, all-weather, air superiority strike fighter and ...www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/RANGEWEB/sectio14/sect14a.html

HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft! Zuni Rocket Pod. Usually, Zuni rockets (5-in FFAR = Folding-Fin Air Rockets) are not the weapon for an air-superiority fighter like the F-14. It's more a rocket for air-to-ground attacks and close-in support strikes.www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-zuni.htm

F-14 Tomcat ... at Air Expo '01 here May 26 and 27. The F-14 Tomcat demonstration team will take the aircraft ... Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air defense and precision strike ...www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/6_20/local_news/7302-1.html

F-14 Tomcat ... The F-14 Tomcat today: The F-14 Tomcat continues to be a premier long-range strike-fighter as evidenced ... The F-14's critical role in maintaining air superiority and its ability ...united-states-navy.com/planes/f14.htm

Aircraft/UAVs ... Intruder air frame ... F-14 Tomcat The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter. The Tomcat's primary missions are air superiority, fleet air ...www.exwar.org/Htm/9000PopA.htm

And your evidence that the F-14 was not, nor intended to be an air superiority fighter would be... The wikipedia article defines an air superiority fighter as one with good close combat characteristics and maneuverability, no? Disagreement is certainly understandable, but POV has no place on WP. --Wiarthurhu 19:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Take a Step Back and do some reading before editing

After reading your edits, I have to ask you to refrain from editing aircraft-related articles until you've done some further research in the area. You have made demonstratively wrong claims and it would be to your benefit to do some more reading. You have variously claimed that

• maneuverability was the "most important" design aspect of the F-14. (blatantly false) Whether or not it factored into the design analysis, the fact remains that it was designed to shoot down Soviet bombers, a task for which maneuverability is not a requirement.
• "the decisive factor in all previous air battles, maneuverability". Also wrong. Many things decide an air battle, and most pilots will tell you, quite correctly, it's training and tactics. Having a better plane makes things easier, but the contemporary differences between different fighters is much smaller than the difference between a green and experienced pilot. Also, maneuverability is not the only design characteristic that matters nor is it necessarily the most important. In WWII, powerful fighters could "boom and zoom" - that is, dive, shoot, and fly away from fighters that could turn well, a tactic commonly used on the Japanese Zero. The Zero was a superior aircraft on paper, but nonetheless American pilots developed tactics to counteract those advantages and play to the strengths of American carrier fighters. The Zero was also poorly armored and its fuel tanks not self-sealing, meaning it was relatively easy to destroy. This also had the consequence of a higher attrition rate among Japanese pilots - reducing the experience of their pilot corps.
• also, your mistaken impression of the battles between McNamara's "whiz kids", the institutional bias toward the BVR fight, and the "fighter mafia". These battles are not won or lost one one report or event, but a constant struggle between different camps; one that continues today.

I bring these up not to embarrass you, as we all have to start somewhere. But your insertion of these falsehoods into wiki is lowering the quality of the encyclopedia, and I ask that you do some further research instead of pushing a black and white view of the world. --Mmx1 20:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that I am a published aerospace writer. My command of the topic is so extensive that my comments on the topic were printed in Aviation Week in the 1970s, when I was in high school, and was read by many generals, admirals, pilots, and aeronautical engineers of the period. The omission of the F-14's primary design goal across the entire Misplaced Pages space is a travesty and contrary to every printed book magazine article, and broadcast program (not a single one of which you accept as a citation) is evidently the result of the effort of only one WP editor with a strong anti F-14 streak. You have ticked off at least one F-14 community member who thinks your position is laughable at best, (see above "quality is only getting worse"). The world is not aware that the F-14 and all related pages is being guarded by an unleased attack editor who believes that the inclusion of the F-14 in a Rand chapter on "the return of the air superiority fighter" is proof that the F-14 was not designed to be a maneuvering air superiority fighter. I'm a masters graduate of MIT with a minor in aeronautical engineer, took classes with future secretary of the air force Sheila Widnall, got a 99 percentile on both math and verbal SAT, a published professional freelance writer, software engineer, personally demolished racial preferences at the University of California, and I have assembled and acquired dozens of scale model combat aircraft, and have a wall full of combat aircraft reference books (unfortunately packed for a move). I'd like to know what your qualifications are, and when you decided over the months that you tolerated the F-14 article that you decided in March of 06 to remove all references to the F-14 being designed to be an uncompromised air superiority fighter, and introduce the only oft-reproduced-across-the-web statement that the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable. (ok you got me, they accepted the Phoenix missle, but that was the only compromise).--Wiarthurhu 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to be polite. But if you are a published aerospace writer that only illustrates the poor quality of the field. The points I raised above are all glaring deficiencies in your understanding of fighter design and history and your falling back on your "credentials" doesn't change the fact that you have serious misunderstandings of the topic. What, pray tell, did you write in Aviation week in the 1970's? If you think getting a "letter to the editor" published makes you a "published aerospace writer...read by many generals, admirals, pilots, and aeronautical engineers of the period.", you've got some ego issues. And frankly, who gives a shit who you took classes with? I've taken classes with Nobel Prize winners. Doesn't make ME a nobel prize winner. You're making these claims, not Ms. Widnall. 99% on the math and verbal SAT? that's relevant .... how? demolished racial preferences ..... so what? assembled and acquired dozens of scale aircraft.....that's so relevant. I don't need to toot my own horn, I've done my research and I know what I'm talking about. I've been willing to assume good faith until you opened your mouth and revealed your ignorance and bias in the subject. Care to rebut any of the points above? Particularly point 2? --Mmx1 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

F-14, part deux

How about addressing this before wholesale reverting my edits? I have laid out all the reasons and written a NPOV version. --Mmx1 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, put it here and let's see it.--Wiarthurhu 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it, put this in.

http://www.topedge.com/alley/squadron/pac/vf124his.htm December 1973 saw Marine Corps officers report to VF-124 to start training as instructors. Marine Corps involvement continued until mid 1976, when the Corps finally decided the F-14 was too expensive for its needs, ending their requirement for aircrew trained on the type.

Just because you don't see a citation doesn't mean it's not true. What, there's something that I know about the F-14 that you don't? How could that possibly be?? Just where and how did you first learn about the F-14 anyways? I learned from Aviation Week and Janes since 1968 when the studies were first started. Your sources, and how much experience do you have in military aircraft research??

--Wiarthurhu 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you claim something is citable...it's generally a good idea to provide the citation as well. Here's an idea: click on the link Talk:F-14_Tomcat#Removed_para where I've laid out the reasoning.--Mmx1 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

USMC - more original research

So let's see..... your version:

In addition, the Marine Corps elected to wait for the F-18 to replace the F-4 , in a tradition of retaining less expensive but still effective weapons like the AH-1 Cobra and M-60 tank.

What the source actually says is that the USMC pulled out because the F-14 was too expensive. Again, you've taken a true fact and thrown in your own drastic oversimplification of reality. The AH-1 was not retained solely because of its cost; it was also simpler to maintain, had a smaller footprint, was rated for sea usage (the Brits had to redesign the Apache for sea duty), and maintained parts commonality with the UH-1, which the Corps retained for the light utility helicoper class. The M-60 was eventually replaced with the M-1, so your argument is moot. The Corps does not solely buy cheaper stuff because it's "tradition", it has different needs and it was determined (after 3 years of flying the F-14) that it didn't suit them for the cost. --Mmx1 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to know how many military reference books you own, how many you've read, and how long you've been reading them, and how many degrees you have, how much have you been published, and how many years you studied aeronautical engineering. Or are you just amateur?? What makes you such an authority on the F-14 that you can declare 200 hits on "F14 air superiority" as invalid evidence that the two are somehow connected? --Wiarthurhu 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're an amateur

You're an amateur, too, and damned if your own words don't prove it. Reading and owning books does not make on a professional. Nor is aeronautical engineering relevant to history. If you're so insistent on your publications, how about providing citations? What did you really write as a high schooler?

How about addressing the difference between a mission and a classification? The navy states the F-14 has the mission of air superiority, but describes it as a "strike fighter". I really don't care to argue it, it's a matter of semantics and I was never a fan of the air superiority fighter article itself, for exactly this argument. The "mission" has been applied to many aircraft, the "classification" has been very infrequently used until recently.--Mmx1 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're an amateur too? I would never have guessed. Well you certainly pointed out the error on the US Navy's F-14 page about air superiority, didn't you? As an amateur, then, what are your qualifications? What would your resume state if I were to hire you onto the staff of Janes or Aviation Week, or even Air Enthusiast magazine? How many aircraft magazines have you purchased or read, or read in the library? I've read hundreds for over 40 years. You've not supplied even one statistic that backs the claim that you are remotely qualified to know what you are talking about, let alone qualify you to guard the F-14 article against all other Points of View. I'd tell cite the AW letters except they are packed up too. 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. You're up against an entire F-14 community that has all of the above. Did you put the citation in for me?--Wiarthurhu 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to cite my certifications, I know my facts, I've done my research, and I won't delve into personal attacks. If you want to start bringing up writing or logic, I can start nitpicking your grammar, too. Or the deliberate misciting of the RAND report which you have repeatedly done despite my pointing it out. And what does "writing a computer program" have to do with Aviation history? You want to start a pissing contest over lines of code? And you've not retracted a single one of your erroneous statements, including "the decisive factor in all previous air battles, maneuverability" which you placed into the F-14 and McNamara articles.

You're also apparently unable to distinguish nuance. I've never been opposed to the inclusion of "air superiority" as a mission; I am however opposed to your characterization of the F-14 as an "air superiority fighter" as a backdoor to insert your maneuverability nonsense. --Mmx1 00:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

re: F14 maneuverability an accident

Carrier aircraft require low landing speeds. The F-14, as a fleet interceptor (not air superiority fighter), was designed for high-speed dashes to meet incoming attackers. To combine the low-speed landing performance and high-speed dash capability in a single aircraft, Grumman (and General Dynamics - see F-111) utilized variable geometry wings.

The F-14's maneuverability was a direct result of the VG wing being computer-controlled. The F-111 was manual, and therefore the high-lift spread configuration could not be taken advantage of during combat. The F-14, on the other hand, was automatic and afforded an additional but not primary benefit of increased turning capability. Maneuverability was of course important, but not the primary goal of the designers, and as such it's misleading to suggest that the VG wing, and the aircraft itself, was designed to be highly maneuverable. ericg ✈ 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it's nice that you figured this out, but do you have a source that says so in so many words? Every book I have and website I've checked and modern marvels says that maneuverability was a key requirement. The whole point of the F-14 was that the F-111B would never cut it in a dogfight, which is exactly what they discovered after 1965. The closest I can come to supporting position is that maneuverability came in 2nd after fleet defence (thus they did not drop Phoenix like the USAF effectively did). Mmx is actively guarding the Wiki pages against any other point of view, and makes it vanish within 10 minutes ofan edit. do think that's a good idea??

--Wiarthurhu 00:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Check Greg Goebel's article on the F-14. It's extensively sourced. He repeatedly describes the F-14 as an interceptor, and the whole point of the F-14 was that the F-111B was too heavy to land on a carrier. Maneuverability had nothing to do with the abandonment of the F-111B. Here are a few other choice items:

• 'It was a capable aircraft, but also big, heavy, somewhat underpowered, something of a handful on carrier approach, and had a few nasty handling characteristics.'
• 'Grumman had basically designed the Tomcat as a multirole machine.'
• 'Its ability to loiter for extended periods at extended range, coupled with its advanced missile armament and powerful radar, made it an impressive shield against intruders such as adversary strike aircraft.'

I couldn't give a shit what you or other users are doing regarding your other pet topics. Stating that the F-14 was designed primarily for maneuverability is untrue, however, and that's what I care about. It was designed as a fleet interceptor. As the wikipedia explains, an interceptor is a "fighter aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft, particularly bombers, usually relying on great speed". This is why the 65-degree sweep position existed - to allow for the high-speed interception capability. Note that the maneuverable and stealthy F-22 has a much lower top speed than the F-14 and F-15, which were designed with different capabilities in mind. ericg ✈ 07:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the user's edit history, especially w.r.t. Robert McNamara (). I am open to sourced citations (e.g. I readded the USMC tidbit, appropriately rewritten without original research), after the source was provided). However, the user has a strange, black and white perception of history and his edits are grossly oversimlifying issues and inserting his own POV into matters ("proudly flying", "utterly embarrasing and expensive failure", "The shadow cast by the accountant's approach to fighter design was so thoroughly discredited that planners stripped multiple roles from both the F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat until the 1990s."). He gets an A for creative writing but a C for historical accuracy.--Mmx1 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Misplaced Pages

I reverted your recent changes to Misplaced Pages concerning the content dispute on F-14 Tomcat; the Misplaced Pages article is not the place to gripe about existing disputes. (The issue of content disputes and reliability is already covered in the article; we don't need a laundry list of edit wars).

In general, the sources quoted on Misplaced Pages should be external observations about the encyclopedia (or official pronouncements or policies), not the talk pages of other articles.

If you can't resolve your current dispute, may I suggest taking it to WP:RFC?

Thanks,

--EngineerScotty 22:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I posted the following to User talk:Mmx1, and am posting here has well.

If WP:RFC is unsuccessful at resolving a dispute, the next steps available are:

• Request for mediation. Mediators will get involved, and suggest ways to resolve conflicts (focusing on the personalities involved and their conduct; not so much on the content itself, as the mediators are generally not subject matter experts). This is non-binding.
• Request for arbitration. The matter is brought before the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee, which studies the matter and can impose binding resolutions, and enforce penalties on any participant in a dispute, up to and including banning the party from commenting on or editing a particular subject, imposing probation, or (in extreme cases), banning an individual from editing Misplaced Pages altogether. Note that the "plaintiff" in an arbitration can be affected just as much as the "defendent". Like RFM, RFA primarily focuses on the behavior of the participants, and does not issue rulings on such things as who is right and who is wrong, or which source is more reliable or trustworthy. Note that personal attacks, 3RR violations, and such which weren't noticed and/or punished by an admin when they occurred, can be later sanctioned by the arbcom.

Please note that I wish no part of, and take no side in, your present dispute at F-14 Tomcat and elsewhere. My only interest is that discussion of this dispute is inappropriate for the article Misplaced Pages; and suggesting resolution procedures to any interested participant.

--EngineerScotty 23:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If I have the bandwith, I'd opt for mediation, but wait a day or too.--Wiarthurhu 23:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Filing mediation now. Gimme 30 min to put together the links. --Mmx1 23:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation#F-14_Tomcat, and you are invited to participate.

--Mmx1 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

About the nasty comments you left on my talk page...

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --ApolloBoy 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely return the same courtesy you showed to me. Did you fix the damage you did to the Matador page? --matador300 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Damage? I think both you and I agree that the Matador page looks much better than before. I've added plenty of info to that page, including dimensions, engines, transmissions and a bit about the Cassini Matador. Also, stop trying to act as someone else. I never called you a "menace" or "nuisance", so don't say you're "return the same courtesy" when clearly you're just making up excuses to harrass me. Just stop this already. --ApolloBoy 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just put back the 2-door that you took out. And stop being a nuisance and no one will call you that. Remember God didn't make you the final arbiter of right and wrong.--matador300 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And could you do me a favor and get rid of that ridiculous deletion recommendatin on 1971 specfications? I should get an award for putting up that resource, and all you do is jump all over it. It does need a wiki-table proper format, maybe you could help with that. There are more tables where that came from if you don't delete this one, I have Ford and Chrysler for that year, plenty more in Seattle Public Library I would be happy to put in for other years. People like you are what make WP such a pain. --matador300 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll put the stuff about the Matador hardtop in, but I'm not going to remove the deletion notice for your table because as I said before, tables do not constitute an article. You should add in those specifications to their respective articles in the future. Besides, you're not the final arbiter of right and wrong either. ;) --ApolloBoy 22:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean there are no tables like that in the wp???--matador300 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC). You do need to check with me on AMC stuff, I am a fanatic on that stuff since 1971. Is there a list of most obscure cars yet?

My opinion on it all

All right, since my opinion was asked for, here it is.

The F-14 was designed to intercept missile-carrying bombers before they could launch missiles on carrier groups. To do so, it required speed, altitude, and range. It was not designed to dogfight, but was designed to gain air superiority by using long range missiles to destroy anything coming within range of the carrier group.

The F-14 may have been designed to be maneuverable, but the maneuverability is of a different type than that of the dogfight, and compared to its contemporaries, it is not an effective dogfighter as that is not what it was designed for.

Perhaps the dispute in F-14 can be resolved by this: If the article states that it was designed to gain air superiority by intercepting aircraft carrying long-range missiles, and designed with low speed maneuverability in mind, to aid in carrier landings, but was not pricipally designed as a dogfighter. Dogfighting being a last resort. Therefore it is an air superiority aircraft though it is not the best dogfighter.

References:

• Boyd The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram
• Attack and Interceptor Jets by Michael Sharpe
• The Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft by David Donald and Jon Lake
• How to Make War by James F. Dunnigan

LWF 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I was just reading the Rand Report, and it says "As the Air Force struggled to hammer out a consensus on performance requirements for an all–Air Force F-X, the Navy tactical fighter community, allied with Grumman, increasingly sought to cancel the F-111B program and replace it with a new R&D effort for an all-Navy fighter optimized for fleet air defense and uncompromised by requirements for the Air Force strike-attack or air-superiority missions.6" So I'm afraid I must retract my statement that the F-14 was designed for air superiority. LWF 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ughh.uncompromised by air superiority means that the Phoenix stays. Grumman test pilot states in an interview that the F-14 was designed for air superiority, agility and dogfigting. These statements are not contradictory. Retaining AWG-9 and Phoenix satisfies the fleet air defence requirement. Building an agile dogfighter in no way compromised that requirement. If it was not stated in VFX (can anybody find this document someplace???) It was stated by Grummans intent of the 303 to build a better fighter than the F-4, at the time the Navy's premier air superiority fighter. There is no place on the web or print other than MMx's modification of the Wiki article that states the F-14 in so many words was NOT designed with agility as a consideration. Look at my new edit, backed by verifiable sources. The article, I must point out, is about the development of 4 new air superiority fighters, including, not excluding the F-14. By its inclusion, the F-14 is, at least in the scope of the paper, defined as A, if not the most optimized air superiority fighter. The problem is when MMx insists on erasing any attempt rectify this ommision and deliberate deletion.

To recap:

1. Building a dogfighter did not compromise the fleet defence requirement. Adopting the F-15 would violate this requirement. Thus "they Navy did not want to compromise for the USAF air superiority requirement" The USAF compromised itself by insisting on a superset of the F-4 which resulted in a heavy fighter. Navy F-4 Phantom pilots were already shooting down Migs by 1965, about the time the Navy realized they needed some way out of the F-111B contract which never said a word about agility.

2. If an FAS article states that the F-14 was built to shoot down bombers with Phoenix, that in no way contradicts Grumman's design intention to build an agile fighter. It must be observed that in the current universe, it is entirely possible for both the FAS and Modern Marvels to be correct on this matter.

3. If a former Grumman test pilot and Grumman VP testifies on Modern Marvels, watched by thousands, that the F-14 had to be agile, that contradicts the notion that there is a consensus that there was no agility design goal for the F-14. The fact that at its introduction, the F-14 was, without question the best dogfighter in the world until the introduction of the similar F-15 tends to cast question on the probability that mere adoption of a swing wing to meet F-111B specs would produce this result. F-14 pilots themselves would dispute the notion of F-15 superiority, especially the F-14D. One unsourced comment in these notes says that at speeds approaching landing speeds, the F-14 handles much better than the F-15 due to wings that can be optimized for this regime, which is logical if difficult to verify an original source.

4. Mmx must cease and desist being the sole arbiter, and severely mutilating the #1 open source and oft replicated reference on this topic. If a group of individuals wants to construct a minority opinion, and back it up with verifiable sources, they should put a note in the main F-14 story as a controversy, not verifiable fact. --matador300 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to end this dispute, and to this end, I'm cleaning up the article now and I will give you an advance notice of the changes:

• lowercase "j" in jets ok
• cut "much less win" from sentence "survive, much less win a dogfight." if it won't survive then it's obvious it won't win, extra phrase is redundant ok
• added ' to indicate possessive ok
• rm hopefully unneeded hidden message ok
• rm widely spaced engines adding hardpoints, F-14 doesn't make use of extra space no, that's how they can jam 2 phoenix, 2 sparrow or 2 x 2000 lb bombs down there
• rm word much, isn't particularly needed ok
• rm hidden message ok
• rm part about F-14 being most maneuverable at introduction, uncited no, this is undisputed fact. The only aircraft that anyone has said was more maneuverable would be later teen-series fighters, not the A-4 or Mig-17.
• rm sentence about skilled F-14 pilots, it is common sense that they could ok
• tightened sentence about swing wings and low speed maneuverability ok
• rm sentence about maneuverability, no hard proof it compares well no, all mainstream books and magazines support this.
• rm part about F-14 being first use TF30, F-111 was already using it operationally ok
• rm portion saying AMRAAM being shorter ranged than Sparrow, it's not ok, I meant vs Phoenix, so clarify that
• mentioned F-14 never carried AMRAAM operationally I was about to do that
• changed air superiority to fleet defence, fleet defence includes air superiority no, they are distinct missions. - AS = F-111B -FADF = VFAX AS + FADF = F-14
• added A in F/A-18 ok
• changed AWAC to AWACS ok

I will submit a list of these changes to Mmx1 and if you both find them to be satisfactory hopefully this dispute will be over. LWF 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It will be over the minute Mmf ceases to summarily revert "The F-14 was designed to be a maneuverable air superiority fighter".

I have now scanned enough of the fragments of the VFAX VFX story off the web to construct the entire missleer to F-18E air superiority story in all its gory detail, but it will be wasted if Mmf is allowed to summarily declare all citations up to Janes Defence to be invalid and continue his Jihad against the F-14's true origins. I don't agree with all your edits, especially since AS was a distinct requirement separate from FADF in the VFAX/VFX specifications. VFAX was essentially to handle all non-F-111B tasks, so a force would be F-111B plus VFAX. VFAX + Phoenix, once Grumman showed the admirals what they were up to, essentially bolting Phoenix missles to their VFAX, was the VFX. This issue is serious enough for me to choose to fight it to the end so that jokers like this don't get away with such gross slaughter of facts. Controversies like this need to be noted as minority opinions, not enforced by self-appointed wiki guard dogs. See my approvals above, if no, expect edits from me. --matador300 03:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Except....you're wrong...again

The assertion that the F-18 is making the high-low mix "go away" is just wrong. Regardless of whether or not you call the SH a "design extension" or a new aircraft, the Super Hornet and legacy Hornet take complementary roles in the current force structure, and with the introduction of the JSF as a replacement for the F-18C, will retain that complemntary mix.

And no, forum posts do not count as reliable sources. --Mmx1 04:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A source is a source. Not being reliable is only a problem if it's wrong, and sometimes even reliable sources can be wrong (ask George W Bush re. WMD) I have listed sources that I believe are true, and one that I believe are false. It's the only place you'll find a ranked VFX spec, the chance of it being bogus are very, very small. If you have reason to believe it is incorrect. then let me know. I've also given you a homework assignment. --matador300 05:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs forums and usenet are not valid sources

A source is a source. Familiarize yourself with: WP:RS. Scribner 05:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And again

Your "F-111 book" says they made up the charges against the F-111. Ever think there might be some bias in that statement? Your MIT training apparently didn't include any history. For the record: the fully loaded weight of a F-111 is over 80k lbs (on TF-30 engines)

• of a F-14D, 61k
• of an A-5 Vigilante, 50k
• of a A-3 (Whale), 70k.

Who made up what?

--Mmx1 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to believe George Spangenberger

He's got a lot of stuff to tell. But it turns out he's no neutral observer, but a fierce opponent of the F-18 and the hi/low mix. He wanted to buy lots of F-14's. Might he have been exaggerating the capabilities of the F-14? Especially as the stores management system on the F-14 was never developed?

For the Navy, the F-18 fighters are costing much more than an equal number of F-14s would have cost.

It seems clear that those who advocate high/low mixes in the fighter field should provide a rationale to support the concept. At the moment, the net result will be a lower capability at a higher cost -- hardly the goal being sought.' --Mmx1 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell if he was for me or for you. In any case I'll have to dig up my old Aviation Week letters because the F-14 F-18 topic was exactly what I was writing about in 1974, though it was probably the reason I didn't get accepted Havard when I used it as my application essay (yes, I'm that hard core). I personally think the admirals were idiots for falling for the CURSE OF THE F-111 in refusing to replace the A-6 with the F-14. The F-14 is freaking bigger and heavier than the A-6 and even has better wings and turbofan engines for long range cruise. It is a much better bomber than the F-18 family can ever be, and if the Australians can keep their !@#$% F-111s flying, refurbishing F-14s would be a lot cheaper than any F-18E. On the other hand if we REALLY want to save money, then just replace the F-15 and F-16 with the F-18E, then we'd be back to a true multiservice F-4 follow-on, because the F-18E is essentially a 2006 Phantom II. If I ever planted that idea on wiki article, there would be hell boiling over. Now don't bug me for at least 20 min. --matador300 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)