The F14 vs what we are doing now

Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:

:On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:37:00 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:|"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.
:
:Are you referring to the AIM-120?

Yep.

:BTW how does that relate to the Army's
:SLAMRAAM program?

What do you mean, "how does that relate"?

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

Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:

:What about the F14's F111 heritage?

What about it?

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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

:
:"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" wrote in message
.. .
: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:37:00 GMT, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
:
: |"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.
:
:Fred is a day late and a dollar short again. The F-15C AESA, with
:APG-63(V)2, has been flying with the USAF for about six years now. The
:aircraft so configured were all based out of Elmendorf last I read.

And Kevin, as usual, thinks his state of ignorance is shared by all.

They're doing more of them, Kevin.

Look about halfway down the page:

http://lott.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fus...lea se_id=221

F-15 Radar Upgrade – $19.9 million

The Senate bill added$19.9 million to the Air Force budget request to
provide for a radar upgrade for the F-15 fighter. The radar is
produced at the Raytheon plant in Forest.


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

One could also make the argument that a follow-on to AIM-54 isn't
required--threat is gone and the fact that the system was never used
in combat during its life cycle would indicate that other weapons
would have a higher priority for budget $$.

Except it was of course much used in combat during the Iran-Iraq war,
with some 60-70 victories claimed for the AIM-54 missile.

jok

wrote in message
ups.com...
guys have been talking about the eagle and the tomcat as dogfighters -
either one have been really ever vaunted
as good turning jets. they are bvr platforms. the hornet and viper can
easily defeat both the eagle and tomcat in
practically any turning engagement

aesa radars in elmendorf based eagles are very, very good...

Spoken from cockpit experience? I thought not.

I grant that both aircraft are more difficult to fly well in the "knife
fight in a phone booth" environment (particularly so when compared to the
point-and-pull Hornet). Easily defeated? Hardly.

R / John

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:57:54 GMT, Yeff
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:07:03 GMT, Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:

What about the F14's F111 heritage?

The F-14s deny it but the neighbors secretly know and won't let them date
their daughters...

IS this the real problem with the JSF?

Peter Skelton

"Typhoon502" wrote in message
ups.com...
The only heritage that the F-111B really passed along to the F-14
was
the AWG-9 radar and the design spec to carry Phoenix. The airframes
have no commonality, other than they're both swing-wing and
twin-engine. For some of the F-14 run, it used the same engines as
the
F-111 but that diverged as well.

SLAMRAAM = surface-launched AMRAAM.

The warning tone one's ECM suite gives as one is targeted with this
system is, of course... wait for it... "the SLAMaRAAMa ding-dong."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

i have less than 300 hrs in the hornet, and my comments about beating
the eagle
in bfm are from my experience only. on my squadron the eagle is
generally regarded
as a poor turning platform and i tend to agree. you need to remember
sustained turn
performance is but one measure of fighter capability.

Aahh but who came up with the Swing Wing idea & did the initial work? BARNS
WALLIS!! Rule Britiania !! Sorry guys I did not mean to go a little Arnt on
you.

DD



"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:07:03 GMT, Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:

What about the F14's F111 heritage?

The F-14s deny it but the neighbors secretly know and won't let them date
their daughters...

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

Jukka O. Kauppinen wrote:
One could also make the argument that a follow-on to AIM-54 isn't
required--threat is gone and the fact that the system was never used
in combat during its life cycle would indicate that other weapons
would have a higher priority for budget $$.

Except it was of course much used in combat during the Iran-Iraq war,
with some 60-70 victories claimed for the AIM-54 missile.

jok

Good point... Iranian use is not as talked about in the west as USN
use, but it is an interesting look at the F-14A.