The F14 vs what we are doing now

observed:

AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.

If what I read in Av Leak is to be credited, AESA is capable of
"non-kinetic attacks."

Depending on the susceptibility of the ground targets to directed energy
weapons, it seems to me that AESA *might* be able to accomplish some
missions now undertaken by standoff precision kinetic attack ordnance.
And it's not inconceivable that AESA might be used against airborne
targets as well -- as a *weapon* rather than as a *sensor.* Indeed, AWST
has speculated regarding the capabilities of a large ground-based AESA
hooked into the power grid. And there has been coverage of proposals to
install AESA on transport-sized aircraft, like whatever replaces the EP-3
and/or RC-135 family.

But all I know is what McGraw Hill tells me.

Paul Michael Brown wrote:
observed:


AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.


If what I read in Av Leak is to be credited, AESA is capable of
"non-kinetic attacks."

Depending on the susceptibility of the ground targets to directed energy
weapons, it seems to me that AESA *might* be able to accomplish some
missions now undertaken by standoff precision kinetic attack ordnance.
And it's not inconceivable that AESA might be used against airborne
targets as well -- as a *weapon* rather than as a *sensor.* Indeed, AWST
has speculated regarding the capabilities of a large ground-based AESA
hooked into the power grid. And there has been coverage of proposals to
install AESA on transport-sized aircraft, like whatever replaces the EP-3
and/or RC-135 family.

But all I know is what McGraw Hill tells me.

"Non-kinetic attack" is another name for Electronic Attack (EA). This
typically means jamming (e.g. radar jamming, referred to in the ancient
days of history as ECM), but there are other things you can do with it-
it does not involve shooting down a plane with a beam of microwaves, or
a laser, or anything like that. It usually involves disrupting the
gathering or passing of information (jamming your radar or your radio,
for example), but generally does not do any physical damage in and
of itself- hence non-kinetic. Non-kinetic attacks attempt to defeat
a target, as opposed to destroying it.

See

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...e_Rethinks.htm

for a short discussion on electronic warfare as a non-kinetic capability.

Mike Williamson
EC-130H Compass Call

Does the F18's radar have the same tracking capability as the F14? I feelwe
are doing a disservice to the Navy by retiring this plane. This is
heartbreaking.
-JC
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
"TV" wrote:

:As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some
F15Cs,
:and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
:superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as
Ed
:said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an
ultra-long
:range fighter radar is not necessary.

Actually, the F-15 is lagging in radar (there is a plan to upgrade
some of them to cover the slide right in JSF delivery, I gather). The
radar on the Super Hornet is probably slightly better (in some
regards) than that on the F-22, not being constrained by the 'stealth'
design.

As for the complementing missiles, the Slammer has a shorter range but
a MUCH larger 'no escape' cone than the Phoenix. It's lighter and an
aircraft of a given capacity can carry more of them.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

---------
In article ,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

especially against 9/11 style airliner attacks. It scrambles fast, transits
fast, and has a long-range missile suited to bringing down large
lumbering targets such as airliners (and bombers).

It would never be used that way. Nobody would ever approve a long-range
shootdown of an airliner.




D

"DDAY" wrote in message
k.net...
---------
In article ,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

especially against 9/11 style airliner attacks. It scrambles fast,
transits
fast, and has a long-range missile suited to bringing down large
lumbering targets such as airliners (and bombers).

It would never be used that way. Nobody would ever approve a long-range
shootdown of an airliner.


Yeah, but even at short(er) visual distances having the phoenix can be a
good thing. I can't be sure that a sidewinder or even an AMRAAM would
destroy the airliner enough so that it couldn't still kamikaze its target. A
sidewinder would take out an engine, and the AMRAAM maybe a wing section,
but you better goddamn believe a phoenix would make that airliner not fly in
a big hurry. It's an aerial torpedo... an airpedo! Seriously, doesn't it
have like a 150lb warhead? Plus the 90 miles worth of unused fuel? and the
radar would home straight in on the fuselage and just obliterate it.
Especially if you had, say, four or six of them heading toward the liner. Or
8 to 12 since they (tomcats) travel in pairs. And, I'd be a heluva lot more
scared of two tomcats off the cockpit than I would be of two hornets. They
just don't look mean.

Jason

can you imagine seeing 12 phoenixes streaking toward you?

Mike said:
"Non-kinetic attack" is another name for Electronic Attack (EA). This
typically means jamming (e.g. radar jamming, referred to in the ancient

days of history as ECM), but there are other things you can do with it-

it does not involve shooting down a plane with a beam of microwaves, or

a laser, or anything like that.

Directed energy, particle beam weapons, destructive lasers, etc. all
fall under EA as does electronic disruptive techniques such as jamming.
Whether or not any capabilities of an EA destructive nature are
operational has not been publicly acknowledged.

"John C" wrote in a broken top-posting, which
I have corrected:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
:news : "TV" wrote:
:
: :As far as radar equivalent, I would wager that the V2 radars in some F15Cs,
: :and the radars in the F18E/Fs, and definitely the radar in the F22, are
: :superior to that in the F14, even if brute power is different. Plus, as Ed
: :said, AWACS plays a central role in most combat situations, so an ultra-long
: :range fighter radar is not necessary.
:
: Actually, the F-15 is lagging in radar (there is a plan to upgrade
: some of them to cover the slide right in JSF delivery, I gather). The
: radar on the Super Hornet is probably slightly better (in some
: regards) than that on the F-22, not being constrained by the 'stealth'
: design.
:
: As for the complementing missiles, the Slammer has a shorter range but
: a MUCH larger 'no escape' cone than the Phoenix. It's lighter and an
: aircraft of a given capacity can carry more of them.
:
oes the F18's radar have the same tracking capability as the F14?

Define what you mean.

:I feelwe
:are doing a disservice to the Navy by retiring this plane. This is
:heartbreaking.

The Navy are the ones that accelerated its retirement. It's simply
too expensive to maintain and operate, given its age.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Jason H" wrote in message
news:Mt_Yf.20704$dU3.522@trnddc01...

"DDAY" wrote in message
k.net...
---------
In article ,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

especially against 9/11 style airliner attacks. It scrambles fast,
transits
fast, and has a long-range missile suited to bringing down large
lumbering targets such as airliners (and bombers).

It would never be used that way. Nobody would ever approve a long-range
shootdown of an airliner.


Yeah, but even at short(er) visual distances having the phoenix can be a
good thing. I can't be sure that a sidewinder or even an AMRAAM would
destroy the airliner enough so that it couldn't still kamikaze its target.
A sidewinder would take out an engine, and the AMRAAM maybe a wing
section, but you better goddamn believe a phoenix would make that airliner
not fly in a big hurry. It's an aerial torpedo... an airpedo! Seriously,
doesn't it have like a 150lb warhead?

135 pounds for the AIM-54. Versus a respectable 44-50 pounds (depending upon
the source) for the AIM-120. I doubt the AIM-54 would be significantly more
lethal than the more accurate AIM-120.

Plus the 90 miles worth of unused fuel? and the
radar would home straight in on the fuselage and just obliterate it.
Especially if you had, say, four or six of them heading toward the liner.

Geeze. If you are going for such overkill, why would not a half dozen
proven-lethal (in real combat, something that the AIM-54 never did in US
hands at least) AIM-120's be just as good?

Or
8 to 12 since they (tomcats) travel in pairs. And, I'd be a heluva lot
more scared of two tomcats off the cockpit than I would be of two hornets.
They just don't look mean.

Jason

can you imagine seeing 12 phoenixes streaking toward you?

Not anymore, being as the aircraft that carried them is going to the
scrapheap.

Brooks

----------
In article Mt_Yf.20704$dU3.522@trnddc01, "Jason H"
wrote:

sidewinder would take out an engine, and the AMRAAM maybe a wing section,
but you better goddamn believe a phoenix would make that airliner not fly in
a big hurry. It's an aerial torpedo... an airpedo! Seriously, doesn't it
have like a 150lb warhead? Plus the 90 miles worth of unused fuel? and the
radar would home straight in on the fuselage and just obliterate it.
Especially if you had, say, four or six of them heading toward the liner. Or
8 to 12 since they (tomcats) travel in pairs. And, I'd be a heluva lot more
scared of two tomcats off the cockpit than I would be of two hornets. They
just don't look mean.

Jason

can you imagine seeing 12 phoenixes streaking toward you?

You seem a little enthusiastic about shooting down airliners filled with
civilians.




D

In my non-experienced, non-pilot, non-military personal opinion, the
NAVY, Congress, the Pentagon, or whoever, should've opted for one or
more of Grumman's proposals for an advanced Tomcat.

Tomcat 21 aka Super Tomcat 21 aka ST-21

or

Attack Tomcat 21 aka Attack Super Tomcat 21 aka AST-21

or the most advanced of all, the ASF-14, (Advanced Strike Fighter ?)
a completely new Tomcat aircraft, an alternative to a Naval ATF /
F-22N

.....the lowest-end proposal, 'Quckstrike', an F-14 equivalent of the
F-15E Strike Eagle, may not have been enough..... I'd want the ASF-14



http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0132.shtml
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14x.htm
http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_13.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8629/14var.htm




also, should have developed the AAAM ~ Advanced Air to Air Missile, a
longer range replacement for the AIM-54 Pheonix family

in a REAL war with China and/or Russia, are those F/A-18E 'Super'
Hornets really going to cut it ?