3 seater f-14

I immediately said to myself that it was fake, but was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. It happens to everyone so don't worry about it. But there's no way they could put a radar that sized on a fighter, considering that the only other two planes that carry one at all are the E-2 and E-3.

[edit on 6/22/2006 by Zaphod58]

Its photoshop. Notice how the second and third man have the same position, cables etc. Its a cloned piece...

Actually I was talking about the EF-14 pic that he posted a few posts ago.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I immediately said to myself that it was fake, but was trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

It happens to everyone so don't worry about it.

But there's no way they could put a radar that sized on a fighter, considering that the only other two planes that carry one at all are the E-2 and E-3.

Yup, I considered your comment about the lack of other data.

Then I thought to myself, "Now what would happen when the F-14 goes full afterburner?", and I kept envisioning this giant frisbee flying off towards the horizon at Mach 1, and a giant wad of flaming aluminum alloy plummeting to earth at nearly the same speed.

At that point, I thought that maybe a bit more research might be in order.

Yeah, but just think how cool it would be to see the "giant frisbee" go screaming off into the distance at Mach 1. *laugh*

Okay, now that I've debunked my own pic, I'm gonna try my hand at debunking the original 3-seat F-14 pic.

Looking at the first pic, there isn't much in terms of distinguishing aircraft markings, aside from the "106" on the wings and the three diagonal lines on the fuselage near the pilots seat, to go on.

But the diagonal lines are important, as there is only one squadon has these markings, and that is the Marine squadron VF-143 Pukin' Dogs.

Pics of F-14's with the VF-143 markings can be seen here and here.

So now we just have to find the a plane from the VF-143 squadron with a number "106" on it. The "106" designation is called a modex number. Each squadron assigns a unique modex number, in the form of 1xx or 2xx, to each plane in the squadron.

So, if my reasoning is correct, the following image: VF-143-AG106, should be the plane in question, and yep, it only has two seats.





[edit on 23-6-2006 by Xenophobe]

Good stuff Xenophobe.

To be honest I find it incredible that anyone seriously believes this 3 seater F-14 picture could have been genuine at all. The guy who is trying to claim that he knows it is a 'genuine EF-14' must surely be havingh a laugh if he expects people to believe that an ECM/wild weasel type variant could be produced by inserting a third seat into the airframe and leaving much less room for electronic systems than the basic F-14 has to start with as well as removing a fairly large fuel tank. As well as the earlier made point about their being no aerials or pods etc.



Going back to the photo, there should be no 'reflection line' on the rear canopy section at all as it clearly runs to the bottom corner of the middle section, and then repeats the trick on the rear section. All very obvious.


[edit on 23-6-2006 by waynos]

My old roomate and friends were in VF-143 at NAS Oceana, this was a Navy fighter squadron (VF), not Marine Corp fighter squadron (VMF).

The tail numbers were just 3 digit numbers assigned to planes for easier recognition. All 100 and 200 series use to be F-14s, 300 and 400 were F/A-18s and so on. This was for letting us know what type of plane is coming in while you were on the carrier or flightline. If you were to look at pics of all F-14s you will see this, all other a/c will be done accordingly. It's alot easier to hear/say a/c 102 coming in, then F-14 tail number 102 coming in. I hope you get what i'm saying.

There is a number on the engine door area that is the real number of the plane, most of them are very faded and not noticable on pics, sorta like a VIN number on a car. Squadrons swap planes over time so the same tail # will be used on a different plane. Think of tail numbers like license plates.

The AG on the back of that one pic designates the coast the squadron is originally from. All Atlantic squadrons began with A and all Pacific began with N. All F-14s in this country are on the east coast now so that is just part of F-14 history.

Maybe that will help you guys out a little.

The F-14 Tomcat is my best ever Jet Fighter, Its a big shame to see them go

All USN Pilots who flew it will be singing
'Where have all the Tomcats gone? Gone to AMARC every one'

www.michaelsimonds.com...


Here you go people. the image is a fake, as here is the four seater version as well as a three engined version of the F-14.

Top Gun is one of my favorite films of all time and laughed alot when i first saw the thread on a three seat f-14 because I knew of a four seat fake but not the more real looking three seater....very good photo manipulation though.

Oh but there is one thats actually real on that site and its the close shave picture - The pilot actually got grounded for 30 days but as it was his last with that squadron thought it was well worth it for the picture.

[edit on 1/7/06 by GSA]

ok, four seat can not prove that three seat is fake logically, the key is that find out an original photo.

Originally posted by jetsetter
The SR-71 shot is not photoshoped and the Fire Fox is from a movie.l

Look at the shadows.

The three seat picture is there as well, along with the four seater and the three engined Tomcat.

There never has been in the history of the F-14 a three seater version - Ill hunt for proof to back this up of course, but I was for years addicted almost to collcting images / pictures / film clips of the F-14. Its a pity that A) Im not american, B) short sighted and C) Am a women (Women can fly them now, but in the 80's was rare as hens teeth), or i would of begged borrowed or stole to get to be a pilot for the F-14 as a naval aviator.

I've found sites that list pretty much every variant ever even designed for the F-14, and there is no EF-14, or three seater listed ANYWHERE.

Looking at the diagram of the F-14 - you do NOT want to move any of that stuff. Avionics is back there (or I would assume - since that big honkin' radar takes up most of the nose) - and those are VERY important to the F-14. A fuel store is back there - and the F-14, because of its swing-wing design, doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of fuel to lose.

The F-14 has also had no 3 seat variant.

I always wanted to pilot the Tomcat, as well. Now that I am joining the Navy - with the ambition of going through the reserves to become an officer (and eligible to fly planes), they retire them...... I live on the hope that, maybe, just maybe, they'll reactivate them when we go to war with China (that's a mathematical eventuality), or that the F/B-23 'rumors' are credible and the Navy adopts a varyiant. (I'd squee like a little girl at a slumber party and probably wet my pants if I got selected to fly something like that. Absolutely a badass airplane - and a worthy successor to the F-14s legacy... rotten F/A-18E).

You could use an F-14 as an AWACS as-is. The thing has a frightfully powerful radar - and can hit SIX targets with independently guided missiles. Imagine what an updated version of the F-14 with advanced composites, revamped engines, avionics, radar, and Phoenix missile system could do.... That's one scary interceptor. Supercruise would increase the kinetic range of the missiles (theoretically - they're an air-launched ballistic missile - complete with detatchable 're-entry vehicle'), and the whole idea is just plain crazy. Equip the thing with harpoons and have fun doing anti-shipping runs. F/A-14E - yeah, I'd love one!

Congratulations Aim64 - You'll get to fly the new SuperHornet - Not bad....but it would be better if it was a navalised FB-23 Black Widow, complete with all internal hypersonic AA /AG missiles! Squel? you'd hear me from Tibet to Moscow if I even got to take a flight in one (Presuming they fly) and well, I'd make my own sonic boom if I got the keys to one!

As for the sorry state of retiring the F-14, well I guess that big old 60 ton Interceptor had its enemies within the services - At the end they even had it doing potent air to ground missions over Iraq and afghanistan, and the irony being that it could get from carrier to target before the field based craft alot closer.

A sad sad day when they got rid of the F-14

That's why I'm thinking that the Navy may be looking at the concept of the F/B-23 (I've heard through the enlistment ranks that the brass is talking about it... so, in my mind, that solidifies that it EXISTS....). The plane would (in theory) be capable of employing the Phoenix missile system, as well as the GBU-27s that the F-14 would carry in on precision strike missions - only with SUPERCRUISE! It gets there EVEN FASTER and with a less chance of being detected..... So, not only can a flight of those things ruin your command staff party - but it can also shrink the maintenance budget of your airforce!

The super-bug doesn't impress me all that much. It's pretty cool to see when it's stripped of ordinance, but, otherwise it's not very impressive. I got to see one strutting its stuff at Wings Over Whiteman this year - and was kinda glad to see a Navy aircraft up there, for once.... but I wasn't all that impressed because I could tell, by the amount of throttle the pilot was using, that the plane would be about as maneuverable as a fly in syrup when it was fully loaded.

Not getting into whether or not they secretly exist, I thought I would share a picture of a design study model from Grumman - I found this site while looking for more information on it...enjoy!

www.doublesingularity.com...

For a breakdown into the 3 seat f-14 myth and the radar dish as well.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IMHO its fake. Notice the helmets appear to be exactly the same in each picture?