If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
ISTR the 54 had a continuous rod warhead. Dodging a Mach 4 missile
coming down at you from high above seems sort of problematical - unless it's leaving a smoke trail how do you see it coming? Sure, you got some radar warning - you hope - but the main defense seems to be a) the wetware controlling the launch sequence screwed up and b) system reliability. Employed within proper parameters with a weapons system maintained within specs - even the Hughes radar Falcon could hit the target. Glad I'm retired, since similar systems to the 54 are becoming all too prevalent. W(Way)BVR takes a lot of fun out of the game. Walt BJ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"José Herculano" wrote:
Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from power. Iranian sources claim that only 12 were sabotaged, and those were later fixed with parts out of that Iran-Contra deal. Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise missile or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to hit with a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm. Well, most of the kills were against MiGs... true it seems they were not maneuvering much, but most BVR kills are like that. snip As with virtually everything else, Tamas is full of it. The AIM-54 was tested against maneuvering fighter targets during its development and nailed a QF-86 drone pulling 6g (the missile pulled 16g to get it), as well as having several successful tests against multiple fighter-sized targets (BQM-34, QT-33 or QF-9 drones, the latter augmented to MiG-21 RCS). Fighters weren't the primary target it was designed around, but it's certainly capable of killing them, especially with a BVR 'bolt from the blue' with a missile coming down from above. Guy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Jose- So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving
the Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not? BRBR Don't think that is the issue, that of giving the thumbs down vs a 'thumbs up'. The design is old, the tooling is essentially gone, the chance for a modern Tomcat was lost in the 80s when Reagan was POTUS and $$ was everywhere. The AIM-54 and F-14 are a matched set. Lose one, lose the other. Altho a good missile in the correct envelope, it was designed to knock down Soviet Bombers. Considering today's and future 'threats', I think the AIM-120 and a follow-on are a better, cheaper and more compatible to more A/C, solution. The F-14B, C, strike Tomcat would have been great and 'may' have precluded the development of the F-18F, but it wasn't and it didn't. The F-14 is history, the same way the F-8 was when I got my wings(1974), the same way the F-4 was when I entered my Department HD tour. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Tamas- Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is retiring all Tomcats. BRBR It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2 F-14 squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue. It is an old design, never modified to it's full capabilities with available technology. Analog, push rod type flight controls, tube type avionics, ****poor engines in the majority of the A/C(TF-30). BUT it had nothing to do with it being a varible geometry A/C... P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Laura O''Leary" wrote in message news:... Well, the bigger issues are requirements and cost. The requirement for a fighter to be able to engage and destroy a target at the long range of the Phoenix just isn't there anymore. The ROE is too restrictive to allow for the engagement of targets at that range. The cold war days of protecting the fleet from the big bad Soviet bombers are long gone. As for the cost, the F-14 is the highest in maintenance man-hours per flight in carrier aircraft. (The EA-6B is the next highest in maint man-hours and will follow the Tomcat into the Super Hornet world). Besides the maintenance man-hours, the availability and mission capability ratings of the Toms isn't nearly as good as the Super Hornet. While the Tomcat does do a fantastic job filling the role of a pseudo-medium range bomber, the recent trend is to deliver smaller war heads to reduce collateral damage. But, the days of going out and carrying in excess of twenty 500-pound dumb bombs have already passed. The joint battlespace doesn't require the CV to deliver that type and quantity anymore. The Air Force has to fill the role of heavy bombers which would carry numerous PGMs and the Navy has the Super Hornet to attempt to fill the pseudo-medium bomber which would also use PGMs. In summary, the Tomcat is a great aircraft whose day has unfortunately passed, but current requirements and fiscal responsibilities make the Tomcat no longer viable. "Tamas Feher" wrote in message ... It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills, with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from power. Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise missile or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to hit with a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm. Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy, trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is retiring all Tomcats. The MiG-23 has long hit the scapyard most places. Remaining F-111 has been deported to a place where planes normally fly upside-down. The Tornado flies only because anything else is better than an F-104. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... tube type avionics Presumably this refers to the TWT's in the radar system, the EW/ECM systems and not the C3 equipment ? (the Tomcat was certainly not Korean War vintage!) TWT's are "tubes" that are encased in steel (think of microwave oven magnetrons). That was the only technology at the time that could handle the power levels required for the radar packages being used. The other technology for VHF / UHF radios (NAV and air to air, air to ground, etc), were solid state designs with NO tubes. Also the FGC's were undeniably solid state, NON tube technology. To be specific, references of "tubes" are as a circuit switching or amplification device - not as a display device (ie. a PFD, or MFD). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"rob" wrote in message ...
he said 'during the 1st Gulf War' not the Iran-Iraq war. To many people, that is exactly the same thing: 1st gulf war = Iran-Iraq 2nd gulf war = kicking Saddam out of Kuwait 3rd gulf war = Bush vs Hussein - the feud continues Rob |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
KingPin- Presumably this refers to the TWT's in the radar
system, the EW/ECM systems and not the C3 equipment ? (the Tomcat was certainly not Korean War vintage!) BRBR The (h)AWG-9 was old technology that was prevelent in early radars seen on the F-4(AWG-10), never really modified when available technology was present. Poor reliability, many MH to maintain. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"José Herculano" wrote in message .. .
I've just finished reading the following book about the F-14 in Iranian hands: http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg It is a well written account which is claimed to be based upon extensive research and talks with Iranian, and some Iraqi, aircrew. With the caveat of the usual inflation of kills when talking with "those who where there", particularly in what concerns BVR kills, the book is consistent with the many leaked details that have been emerging for several years. For those less attentive to the complexities of the Middle East politics and operations, it can be a bit of an eye opener, but there are plenty of people around, from the "air-warrior" community, that have claimed in print and on the net that they had interesting times they cannot speak openly about. To cut the introduction short, and getting to the theme I'd like to see discussed... It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills, with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded claims are higher than that, but let's stay cautious. The Iraqis have sure lost quite a lot of aircraft during the long Iraq-Iran war, with quite a few MiG-21/23/25, Mirage F1, Su-22 and other assorted types being credited to the Tomcats by both sides. It has been often relayed as a fact that, during the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqis were very unwilling to go anywhere near the USN F-14s and their tell-tale AWG-9 signature, while not being so shy towards the Eagles. Reports have come out - both recent and old - of Iraqi pilots saying that the F-14s were the Iranian aircraft they most feared... So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving the Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not? _____________ José Herculano I've yet to ever hear anybody diss the F-14 based on its performance. Instead, much of what I've heard comes down to the supposed advantage of CVW's based on SH given (again supposed) advantages in maintenance. Instead of pilots, we'll need to hear from plane captains on that score. I've yet to hear this discussed, but it may also have something to do with the more complicated state of our ROE which obviates the need for or precludes the resort to missile shots from as far away as those of the Phoenix. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|