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
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:01:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:44:49 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote: Why were the AWG-9 and the AIM-54 not put into any other plane? The answer is simple: needs at the time and the aircraft construction. The AWG-9 was a huge system when designed for the F-111B, which was developed for service aboard the USN carriers through the 1960s. Although considerably updated and thus made lighter by almost 500kg, it remained a huge system when it was put into the F-14, in 1969. And still, the F-14 was not designed "around" the AWG-9 and the AIM-54, but first as a dogfighter, armed with a gun, Sparrows and Sidewinders, to fight MiG-17s and MiG-21s. Once this capability was developed, the designers went to find out how to fit the AWG-9 and the AIM-54s on it. One of the results of this work became the "paletts" on which the AIM-54s are mounted. Another was the largest cockpit of any fighter aircraft ever. While I bow to your knowledge of the radar and AIM-54, as well as history of the Iranian applications of the aircraft, I've got to question some of your other assertions here. Clearly by the time of production of the F-14, the anticipated threat had migrated forward beyond MiG-17 and focussed more closely on 21, 23, 27 and future developments from the Soviet block. Additionally, there was concern with free world designs used by swing nations--aircraft like Mirage III and F-1, for example. (As an aside, how does size of the radar or "paletts" for the Phoenix result in a larger cockpit? Gotta say the F-105 cockpit was the biggest single-seat office I ever saw and the F-15 operator station isn't cramped, either.) The cockpit of the Crusader III looked pretty big too. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Sujay Vijayendra" wrote:
Anyone know why the AIM-54 Phoenix is carried only by the F-14?? Why hasnt the air-force developed a long range air to air missile like the phoenix? As far as I know, the AIM-120 is about the longest range modern missile they have in their arsenal. If you look into the history of the F-111B and F-14, you'll find that the Phoenix was designed specificality to integrate with the AWG-9 fire control system. The AIM-120 was designed as a replacement/follow-on for the AIM-7. /------------------------------------------------------------\ | George Ruch | | "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" | \------------------------------------------------------------/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Not an expert but my understanding is that most air combat takes place a
lot closer than the max range of the Phoenix. Positive ID and friendly fire in coalition circumstances certainly make it unlikely that anybody could use a missile with a range of 80-100 NM. The origianl mission of the F-14 and Phoenix was one of the few instances when you could expect to engage targets at that kind of range. We can discuss for hours about fit to planes and size of cockpits and radars but the mission of most AF sorties would not permit firing of a missile at anywhere near the max range of the Phoenix. "Sujay Vijayendra" wrote in message ... Anyone know why the AIM-54 Phoenix is carried only by the F-14?? Why hasnt the air-force developed a long range air to air missile like the phoenix? As far as I know, the AIM-120 is about the longest range modern missile they have in their arsenal. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Over the years while I was running exercises for the NATO Southern Region at USAFE Hq, I handled a lot of USAF/USN exercises and the outcome of Eagle-vs-Toms was always the same. The Toms got the long-range intercept credits and the Eagles got lots of video of Toms with pipper-burns. Any idea how it went when the F-14 got F110s? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:31:25 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote:
Great comments Tom (damn, if we keep this up, RAM might become a military aviation newsgroup again instead of a he-said/she-said troll roost!) Some snipping (hopefully without losing context) and responses below: Ed, (As an aside, how does size of the radar or "paletts" for the Phoenix result in a larger cockpit? Gotta say the F-105 cockpit was the biggest single-seat office I ever saw and the F-15 operator station isn't cramped, either.) Then, let us not forget that the AWG-9 is not only a radar: I'm sure you know better than me that it's actually a whole weapons system, _including_ the AWG-9 radar. So, while the cockpits of F-105s and F-15s are certainly not as cramped as that of the MiG-21 (quite on the contrary: that of the F-15 was definitely the largest in a one-seat fighter until the appearance of the Su-27), they are still neither as long nor as wide as that of the F-14. One of the reasons was the need to squeeze all the 30+ "black boxes" (and these also include no less but four large displays put into the cockpit) of the AWG-9A into the airframe: these were distributed ahead, around, and - of course - inside the cockpit. The AWG-9A simply had a much more volumen (and capabillities) than the APG-63, and it needed the second crew-member to operate it. There is the rub, the second crew-man. The Navy had a dedicated RIO cadre and seemed to have a lot less difficulty with the two-man concept than the USAF. The abortive attempt to put pilots in the stick-equipped back seat of F-4s had left a terrible taste in the figurative mouth of the AF and the orientation was strictly for a single seat airplane. Now, given that, I'll have to argue that the state of the ergonomic art at the time was that an effective single seat cockpit could be designed to manage the sensor/weapons suite. Certainly the success of both the Eagle and the Viper seem to confirm this. Only the shock from the appearance of the MiG-25 caused them to let the F-15 become as large as fast as it become, in order to be able to intercept Foxbats. Hardly. The Eagle planform was heavily governed by the size of TabVee shelters. The footprint of the aircraft fits very closely over the footprint of the F-4. Intercept of the Foxbat was clearly a missile matter and not one of aircraft performance. Early detection, long range weapons and good intercept geometry were paramount. The speed of the F-15 both initially and in the end product closely parallels the top speed of the existing front-line fighters--just a bit over M-2. The footprint was of course to fit that of the F-4. But from what I read about the history of F-15's the original idea was rather to get something about the size of the later F-18, and certainly not planned to fly Mach 2.5. These requirements were not the specifications that can be found in the original FX. They were added after the Demodedovo '67, when at some stage calls became known for the FX to become capable of Mach 3, in order to directly match the Foxbat. Only resistance from the group that was running the project kept the dogfighting capability as one of main requirements. Certainly there were mods to the specs and a capability like Foxbat would cause some concern. But, there was also the "high/low" mix debate going on in the bowels of the Pentagon. Some were arguing for high tech sophistication in small "force multiplier" numbers while others were supporting the F-5 simple, agile, low cost, deploy in large numbers concept. Clearly the Eagle went high tech and the results over the ensuing years support that position. While the F-5 is everyman's sports car, if you want to go to war for real, take the F-15. Ed, hell, you've been the you know better than anybody here how much attention was the USAF paying to air-combat being a part of the syllabus for its pilots in the late 1960s - and also most of the early 1970s. The interest was actually 0. Even such immensely important projects like "dogfight Sparrow", Combat Tree and the AIM-9J were only half-heartedly done.... I'd have to debate the priorities a bit. The speed with which the AF brought ECM pods, ARMs, RWR and Weasels to the table makes me think that a lot of stuff was on the front burner. Ditto for PGM development. The air/air stuff was coming quickly, but arguably might have taken a back seat to the air/mud because (despite the losses to MiGs) there was less of a threat from aircraft than SAMs and flak. AIM-7E-2, the "dogfight Sparrow" was available in '72 when I checked out in the F-4 and guys had been flying the AIM-7E with interlocks out for several years already. Tree was deployed for Linebacker and J-birds were on most of the air/air tasked F-4s. Also, first production run TCTO-566 LES/TISEO airplanes were showing up in the summer of '72, so there was some emphasis. Also, if you don't mind, but if the long-range weapons were one of the matters considered "paramount", then the F-15 armed with AIM-7Es (F was still a distant future at the time) was definitely an underdog compared to both, the YF-12 and the F-14. Actually, until the APG-63 was improved the F-14 could fire even AIM-9s from a longer range than the F-15... But, of course, the YF-12 and F-14 were both interceptors and certainly no one will consider the -12 to be a dog-fighter. The F-14 was optimized for fleet air defense. It was designed for the interceptor role. The F-15 was designed as a tactical fighter for air superiority. There is a considerable difference in the detail of the two missions. It shouldn't be construed as a question of service rivalry. Besides, while the final result of the F-14 became a plane "optimized for fleet air defense" - this was foremost so by purpose, i.e. how the USN intended to use it and how it trained its Tomcat crews, not by design. Originally, the F-14 was designed as a dogfighter, and - despite all the explanations around - even the F-14A with its nifty TF-30s was superior in maneuver to the F-15 at anything but high-subsonic speeds. "anything but high-subsonic speeds" is ruling out where all reasonable dog-fighting is done! If you aren't doing it at "high-subsonic" speed, you're going to die in short order. The Tom, just like the F-4B and J before was typically tasked to take off, proceed to a CAP and orbit 120 miles from the boat waiting to be directed by an E-2C to a threat inbound. With the Phoenix added to the weapons suite, the air defense gained the capability to defend against anti-shipping missiles like Kelt and Kitchen. Certainly the Tom had a good close in combat capability. I remember the first encounter I had with one in the Med. I was running against America at very low altitude and watched the Tom come in against me from eleven o'clock. As always I was fast and had just told my WSO that he was no threat and was going to overshoot big-time when the wings came forward, went all white with condensation and the bat-turned into my six. I was impressed! Over the years while I was running exercises for the NATO Southern Region at USAFE Hq, I handled a lot of USAF/USN exercises and the outcome of Eagle-vs-Toms was always the same. The Toms got the long-range intercept credits and the Eagles got lots of video of Toms with pipper-burns. (From discussions with pilots that flew both planes, however, it appears that the F-14 was not as easy to fly successfully in the dogfight as the F-15 (even if the weapons system of the original F-15A had quite some problems with the man-machine interface, when compared to the F-14), and this, as well as different subsequent upgrades in the Eagle cockpit is what then "made" the F-15 being "accepted as a better dogfighter".) Tactics were esssential to getting the F-15 success rate up. I was aware of a distinct difference during the period I was in USAFE Hq between the Bitburg and Soesterburg units. Bit was very tentative in their employment while the 32nd TFS was aggressive and creative in their tactics. Ditto a couple of years later when I got quite a bit of DACT with the Eagles while I was flogging an AT-38 at Holloman. While an Eagle 1-v-1 would always best the Talon (or for that matter, an Aggressor F-5E), when we went 2-v-2, the 49th Wing's restrictive tactics made it easy for an experienced pair of Talons to get regular kills. (Barring, of course, BVR Sparrow credits.) Sorry, but no. The F-16 (actually the lightweight fighter competition) was to build a replacement for the F-4 fleet. The F-15 air superiority fighter did the air/air mission and from its inception the F-16/F-17 programs were designed for ground attack. The "complex avionics" of the CCIP conventional weapons release system were incorporated in the first production A models. The CCIP was included in the original weapons system, no dispute. But that was not what I was talking about. As first, eiher the USAF never completed separation testing for the Mk.82/83/84s on F-16s, or it never revealed the results of this to quite a few of its foreign customers. Don't know what was the reason, but I've heard several Israelis and the Dutch complaining they had to complete the job (and this as late as the late-1980s). Don't know what their problem was, but with the Mk 80 series LD/GP bombs being the primary conventional munition and with the expressed preference in the period for "smart system/dumb bomb" technology, I can't see that being possible. In fact, Osirik was 1981 and the Israeli seemed to do OK with Mk-84 dumb bombs coming off cleanly! As second, what I meant with "complex avionics" was certainly not the CCIP-mode: that's something even the F-14A has got almost 20 years before any kind of "Bombcat" thinking became known within the USN. "Complex avionics", IMHO, is such stuff like APG-66-modes enabling the support of AIM-7s, and then especially the LANTRIN, HARM-compatibility etc... No question there, that AIM-7 capability and the LANTIRN suite were complex capability enhancements. Bear in mind, Ed, that most of the youngsters today run around thinking the F-16 was originally designed as what such versions like Block 40/50/60 are today - which was definitely not something ever dreamed about in the early 1970s. Gotta agree 100%. Of course, I also can't imagine running around with everything you say and do being recorded on video from start to shutdown....coulda been embarrassing! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, but no. The F-16 (actually the lightweight fighter competition)
was to build a replacement for the F-4 fleet. The F-15 air superiority fighter did the air/air mission and from its inception the F-16/F-17 programs were designed for ground attack. The "complex avionics" of the CCIP conventional weapons release system were incorporated in the first production A models. I'll disagree on this point. The F-16/17 were designed to provide a cheaper alternative and augment the expensive F-14/15 (Remember this buzz phrase: "hi lo mix?"). They were originally designed as less complex air superiority aircraft ... simple dogfighters ... with lesser radar and (any?) BVR capability. The mud missions were designed in later. R / John |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:15:34 -0600, "John Carrier"
wrote: Sorry, but no. The F-16 (actually the lightweight fighter competition) was to build a replacement for the F-4 fleet. The F-15 air superiority fighter did the air/air mission and from its inception the F-16/F-17 programs were designed for ground attack. The "complex avionics" of the CCIP conventional weapons release system were incorporated in the first production A models. I'll disagree on this point. The F-16/17 were designed to provide a cheaper alternative and augment the expensive F-14/15 (Remember this buzz phrase: "hi lo mix?"). They were originally designed as less complex air superiority aircraft ... simple dogfighters ... with lesser radar and (any?) BVR capability. The mud missions were designed in later. Was suppose to have Sidewinders and gun only. I remember somebody wanted a BVR missile on it so they tested one of the early ones with two Sparrows mounted between the main gear IIRC (It was SOMEWHERE on the belly and there aren't that many places they'd fit :-) ) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:13:11 -0400, "Paul F Austin" wrote:
"Tom Cooper" wrote The AIM-47 also utilized dual-mode SARH/IR terminal homing, and it has been speculated that a 200kT nuclear warhead would have been fitted to production weapons at some point in the development process. This ultimately turned out to be both false and unnecessary, as on one occasion an AIM-47 trials round skewered the vertical tail of a QB-47 target drone. With such accuracy nobody needed nukes. Optical nuke? With a P1T0 tube?? Al Minyard |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Ferrin wrote in
: (It was SOMEWHERE on the belly and there aren't that many places they'd fit :-) ) They were actually mounted *on* the main undercarriage doors! Must've been excellent fun loading them. . . -- Regards Drewe "Better the pride that resides In a citizen of the world Than the pride that divides When a colourful rag is unfurled" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:36:50 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote: Over the years while I was running exercises for the NATO Southern Region at USAFE Hq, I handled a lot of USAF/USN exercises and the outcome of Eagle-vs-Toms was always the same. The Toms got the long-range intercept credits and the Eagles got lots of video of Toms with pipper-burns. Any idea how it went when the F-14 got F110s? To be honest, no. Certainly improved thrust (and less stalling/roll-back) should translate into better ratios. I was out of the business by the time the new engines came on line. Of course, that also means F-15C models with better performance as well and AIM-120 for longer range shots from the AF side. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 8 | October 7th 03 10:54 PM |
How did the Iranians get the Phoenix to work? | Ragnar | Military Aviation | 22 | October 2nd 03 02:49 AM |
IPC in a Simulator? Phoenix area.. | Anonymous | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 28th 03 11:31 PM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Rafael's AIM-AIR IR Missile Countermeasure | JT | Military Aviation | 8 | July 13th 03 03:41 AM |