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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
wrote in message oups.com... 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. The F-18, with the latest software, can point its nose with alacrity. Of course, the energy state is zip-point-xxxx. A turkey or eagle attempting to grovel in such a fight will lose, and rather quickly. OTOH, by taking the fight vertical and ever-aft, the higher energy fighters can slowly gain the advantage. It's a fight that takes patience and skill. Anchor-out engagements tend to create targets for the unseen bogey. The Bug's greatest vulnerability exists in the disengagement. There's not much it can outrun ... so you'd better hope you're the last man standing. Did you get your wings at NQI or NMM? R / John |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver. And your point about
energy is absolutely true- It's fairly easy to bleed down to zero knots pointing the nose and most of our guys try to stay away from that - the hornet is still a decent vertical fighter - I haven't been all that impressed with the Eagles vertical capability, can't speak for the tomcat as I'm sure I'll never get a chance to fight one. Your comments about hornet bleed rate and energy addition are also true, one of the hugest shortcomings. As for the anchoring comment, I agree - I'd rather have the extra mach and altitude to put on an AMRAAM shot than unlimited alpha anyday - that's where the eagle shines and I imagine the tomcat as well. I'd have to say that the jet I have been most impressed with are the newer block bigmouth Vipers for manoeuverablity- truly eye watering t/w. John Carrier wrote: wrote in message oups.com... 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. The F-18, with the latest software, can point its nose with alacrity. Of course, the energy state is zip-point-xxxx. A turkey or eagle attempting to grovel in such a fight will lose, and rather quickly. OTOH, by taking the fight vertical and ever-aft, the higher energy fighters can slowly gain the advantage. It's a fight that takes patience and skill. Anchor-out engagements tend to create targets for the unseen bogey. The Bug's greatest vulnerability exists in the disengagement. There's not much it can outrun ... so you'd better hope you're the last man standing. Did you get your wings at NQI or NMM? R / John |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
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... Ah, Yeffy, glad to see you're still about the forest. ;-) How are you, fella? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
---------
In article , "TV" wrote: The F14 had great legs (fuel/range), Is this true? I've heard it was a gas guzzler and had to top off soon after launch. test cost $154,000 per second!!). The Tomcat couldn't carry 6 missiles and still normally land back on a carrier. With even 4 Pheonixes reducing fuel levels at landing to critical when doing carrier ops. So typically they only carried two. And even then, pilots lamented the drag/weight An interesting question is if they would have ignored these restrictions during a real war. If they were really concerned about mass cruise missile attacks on the carriers, would they have launched F-14s with a full load of AIM-54's? I imagine that this question could be answered by whether or not they ever trained for it in the 1970s and 1980s. My suspicion is that they never trained for carrying more than six AIM-54s. Does anybody know? D |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
:On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:32:34 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: :|: :|: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"? : :From what I saw on the Global Security web site, it looks like the Army's :SLANRAAM is based on the AIM-120 If that was the question, then yes, it's the same missile. Oh, just by the way, it's not "the Army's SLAMRAAM", since SLAMRAAM is a trademark of the Raytheon Company. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
:On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:14:13 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin" wrote: : :|"Typhoon502" wrote in message roups.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." : :is the SLAMRAAM the same thing as the AIM-120? And is it an Army program? It's not "the same thing", since one is a missile and the other is a complete system. The missile is the same. :And is it an Army program? :http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raam.htm#CLAWS http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...E=Feb+27,+2004 -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
"DDAY" wrote:
:--------- :In article , "TV" :wrote: : : The F14 had great legs (fuel/range), : :Is this true? I've heard it was a gas guzzler and had to top off soon after :launch. Nope. The F-14 in normal operations probably WOULD do that, just so that it had full tanks at the beginning of the mission, but that's pretty normal for everyone. Hit the rally point and tank. : test cost $154,000 per second!!). The Tomcat couldn't carry 6 missiles and : still normally land back on a carrier. With even 4 Pheonixes reducing fuel : levels at landing to critical when doing carrier ops. So typically they : only carried two. And even then, pilots lamented the drag/weight : :An interesting question is if they would have ignored these restrictions :during a real war. If they were really concerned about mass cruise missile :attacks on the carriers, would they have launched F-14s with a full load of :AIM-54's? More likely would be to launch with 4 Phoenix in the tunnel and Sparrows for when you got closer. However, if you expect to shoot them off it really doesn't matter how many you launch with, since they won't be there anymore when you trap. :I imagine that this question could be answered by whether or not they ever :trained for it in the 1970s and 1980s. My suspicion is that they never :trained for carrying more than six AIM-54s. Well, I'd hope so, since the airplane couldn't carry more than 6 AIM-54s, which WAS a full load. I doubt they'd train for 6 going off a boat, since they'd have to jettison two of them to get back onto the boat (and NAVAIR probably would get a bit hacked at folks throwing million dollar missiles in the drink for TRAINING). -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:14:13 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin" wrote: |"Typhoon502" wrote in message oups.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." is the SLAMRAAM the same thing as the AIM-120? It uses the AIM-120 as its missile component. But SLAMRAAM and CLAWS are more than just a missile--you have to have the required fire control system, radar, etc., included in the whole program. You can't just take a handy AIM-120 out in a field, set it up on a jury-rugged launcher, and call it an air defense system. And is it an Army program? Yes. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raam.htm#CLAWS Everything you asked is already answered in that article you cited. Brooks |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The F14 vs what we are doing now
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|