Re: The F14 vs what we are doing now

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:56:43 GMT, Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
> wrote:

>The History Channel recently had a piece on the F14. I did not realize that
>plane came out of the F111 program. Nor that it could track 24 enemy targets,
>engaging up to 6 at a time (and at long range).
>
>The question is whether we still need an platform that can do long range combat.
>We have dropped the AAAM (AIM-155) which was to be a replacement for the Phoenix
>(AIM-54) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aaam.htm)
>Nor do we have a radar equal to what was on the F14.
>
>Also they commented on how the F14 was a better platform than the F15 (which had
>some real survivability)
>
>Any insights?

The F-14 was probably the first operational system with reliable
track-while-scan capability. (I'm sure the Luftwaffe had something
similar during 1943, but it didn't reach full production....nahhhh.)
The ability to track targets while still searching for others was a
significant advantage. IIRC, they demonstrated the six-target
engagement capability and successfully splashed all six independently
flown drones.

The real threat that the F-14 was designed for was the ASM's of the
Soviet bombers--systems like Kitchen and Kelt. That threat is no
longer very high on the priority list.

Today we've got more force integration with AWACs (or similar) doing
the long range detection and target allocation for the interceptors.
That offloads a requirement for some sensors capability from the
fighter to the larger platform.

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 $$.

As for the F-14 as "a better platform than the F-15"--you would have
to caveat that with some mission parameters. Both aircraft have been
very good and each has some corners of the operational envelope in
which it is superior.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[TV]

The F14 had great legs (fuel/range), and a very powerful radar (good for
very long range detection and burning through ECM). The track/lock while
scan was a major improvement, as were the AIM-54 missiles. However, the 6
missile engagement was more of a publicity student than a reality. It was
only tried once, and only four missile hit. One malfunctioned, and another
targeted a drone that malfunctioned and so it never hit (BTW, the 38 second
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
restrictions that the massive missiles imposed when they were carried.
Granted though, the Pheonix gave a fire-and-forget capability that was
unrivaled for 20 years, and no other AAM can come close to matching its
range (other than the Mig-31 copy of it).

I would say that the Russians took the threat of the F14 very seriously (as
witnessed by their naval bomber/missile developments). So it ultimately did
what it was designed to do by putting fear into the hearts of potential
enemies and protecting US (and allied) forces by sheer intimidation. It
does have a perfect, if limited, combat record (not including questionable
Iranian records).

However, as Ed mentions, comparing it to the F15 is comparing apples to
oranges. For much of its career the F14 had engines with inadequate thrust
and a nasty tendancy to stall, so it was inferior in the dogfight. The
Eagle benefited from better funding, and had some really nifty avionics. As
witnessed by its superior NCTR performance in the Gulf War (i.e., it could
better identify hostile vs. friendly planes at BVR distances). Also, the
Eagle has a kill record of around 100 - 0. So any hypothetical comparison
you make (to the 14, or Su27, or even F22) has to bear in mind that very
impressive, real-life, perfect combat record. The Eagle has certainly done
everything it has been asked to do, and proven that it can beat every A-A
opponent it has faced in war.

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.

That's my two cents with the caveat that this is arm-chair speculation from
an arm-chair flyer.

[Fred J. McCall]

"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

[[email protected]]

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...

[Kevin Brooks]

> 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

The numbers I ran across indicate that the sustained turn rate of the F-15C
is just about the same as that of the F/A-18E, and not that far off from
that of the F/A-18C. All apparently reside in the high teens arena in that
regard.

Brooks

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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.

Brooks

> |
> |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? BTW how does that relate to the Army's
> SLAMRAAM program?
>
> ---
> "If ye love wealth better than liberty ... servitude better than ...
> freedom,
> go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms ... May
> your
> chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our
> countrymen."
> - Samuel Adams
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason.
> Samuel Adams
>
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/samuel_adams.html
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to
> be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the
> setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."
>
> http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/samuel_adams/

[Airborne!]

wrote:
> 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...

BS...The F-15 was designed as a air-superiority fighter and AFAIK
dogfighting was very much considered in the design. remember that Boyd
was in on the design specs. If you doubt it, I'll ask Chuck Myers about
it.
Reed

[Typhoon502]

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.

[Airborne!]

Typhoon502 wrote:
> 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.

Another way of saying the same thing is that the F-14 was developed to
meet the mission that the F-111 failed to fill. This is really the
only way the F-14 is "derived" from the F-111. Saying that this is
equal to being "derived from" is misleading. Usually "derived from" is
when existing plans are modified to meet a slightly differnt mission
such as the YF-17 and the F/A-18.
Reed
>
> SLAMRAAM = surface-launched AMRAAM.

[Yofuri]

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...
>


"VADM Thomas F. Connolly. Serving as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
for Air, ADM Connolly was under the strictest orders from Defense
Secretary Robert McNamara's civilian team to support McNamara's concept
of a single fighter aircraft design for both the Air Force and the Navy.
This was the infamous TFX in its initial stage (subsequently designated
F-111B for the Navy) which arose from a concept of saving money on paper
without any documentation on how that could be accomplished in practice,
while providing income for a Texas based aerospace company to help the
political fortunes of the vice president at the time."


"Following years of work and millions spent, it was apparent to
the Navy that the F-111B would never fly from a carrier. A Navy team had
been working surreptitiously on an alternative that would be equipped
with the same weapon system, but no one on the McNamara team would
listen to professional opinion. Finally, in a showdown with Congress on
the budget, following hours of testimony from Secretary of the Navy Paul
Ignatius about how great the F-111B design was, Sen. Stennis asked ADM
Connolly his personal opinion about the aircraft design, assuming it was
equipped with more powerful engines. ADM Connolly leaned forward and
said in the strongest terms that 'There is not enough thrust in all of
Christendom to make a carrier fighter out of this aircraft.'"


"Sen. Stennis took money from the budget for the F-111B on the
spot and authorized what was to become the F-14 or 'Tomcat' which serves
in the fleet today. In his words, ADM Connolly thought he was going to
be fired and thinks Sen. Stennis saved him from that -- but he lost any
chance for his fourth star. Throughout, he was supported in his end run
around the Navy secretary since the chief of naval operations, ADM Tom
Moorer, had authorized such candor prior to the hearings."

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/AtkinsonToStewiePartIV.html

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

"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?FuseAction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_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

[Jukka O. Kauppinen]

> 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

[John Carrier]

> 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

[Peter Skelton]

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

[Andrew Chaplin]

"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.)

[[email protected]]

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.

[Dave Deep]

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
>

[David E. Powell]

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.

[John Carrier]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

: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.

Which squadron?

:you need to remember
:sustained turn
:performance is but one measure of fighter capability.

And not exactly a great one these days, either, since if you end up in
a knife fight you've probably already screwed up.

--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."

-- Winston Churchill

[~Nins~]

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?

[DDAY]

---------
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

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

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/military/systems/munitions/slamraam.htm#CLAWS

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=148607&TICK=RTNB2&STORY=/www/story/03-30-2004/0002137854&EDATE=Feb+27,+2004

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

[Fred J. McCall]

"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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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/military/systems/munitions/slamraam.htm#CLAWS

Everything you asked is already answered in that article you cited.

Brooks

[Harry Andreas]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> 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.

Do everything in your power to get AESA radars on your F/A-18's.
They are a true force multiplier.

And yes, I know it's only currently offered on the E/F aircraft, but that
will change soon.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> 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.

Damn right.

SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
>
> Damn right.
>
> SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
> As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
> the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.

Why the loss of performance?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Yeff]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:49:43 -0500, Andrew Chaplin wrote:

> Why the loss of performance?

It doesn't start off with the speed of a launching aircraft.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:49:43 -0500, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>
> > Why the loss of performance?
>
> It doesn't start off with the speed of a launching aircraft.

That's what I thought it would be. So one needs something like a boost
stage if one is to have anything like the same envelope?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:49:43 -0500, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>>
>> > Why the loss of performance?
>>
>> It doesn't start off with the speed of a launching aircraft.
>
> That's what I thought it would be. So one needs something like a boost
> stage if one is to have anything like the same envelope?

Why bother? The Army is looking for a lightweight SHORAD system here, not a
near-competitor against the Patriot. I'd guess that the range envelope
unboosted is plenty big enough to take advantage of the available radar
track, which being groundbound like the missile launcher will in most cases
not have the advantage of tremendous line-of-sight ranges like what an
airborne platform has, especially when opposing the threats that the system
is supposed to be focusing on (UAV's, helos, cruise missiles). Note that
this is not the first AIM-120 based SAM system; Norway already bought
NASAMS, and the USMC is well on the way to fielding CLAWS, IIRC. And
somebody has already been operating one of the above here in the US--there
were photos in the media last year showing what looked like CLAWS or NASAMS
sitting near one of the high value targets around Washington, DC, which the
DoD folks were rather tight-lipped about when asked.

Brooks

> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
>
>

[B]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> 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.
>

Raytheon are just going lend them to the army then?

[Peter Skelton]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:29:07 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin"
> wrote:

>"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:49:43 -0500, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>>
>> > Why the loss of performance?
>>
>> It doesn't start off with the speed of a launching aircraft.
>
>That's what I thought it would be. So one needs something like a boost
>stage if one is to have anything like the same envelope?

Yes, but it's energy, not speed, that matters. Altitude, as well
as speed, is important

Peter Skelton

[Fred J. McCall]

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article . com>,
wrote:
:
:> neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver.
:
:Do everything in your power to get AESA radars on your F/A-18's.
:They are a true force multiplier.
:
:And yes, I know it's only currently offered on the E/F aircraft, but that
:will change soon.

Canada tends to be funding limited (their government won't give them
enough money). They're just now (slowly) getting A+ upgrades, I
think.

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.

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

[Fred J. McCall]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:

:"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
:>
:> Damn right.
:>
:> SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
:> As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
:> the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
:
:Why the loss of performance?

Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.

Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Another dumb**** heard from ... and then not heard from....

B > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> 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.
:>
:
:Raytheon are just going lend them to the army then?
:

[B]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> 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.
>



assuming you are fighting on his ground.

[Kevin Brooks]

"B" > wrote in message ...
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>>
>> :"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> :>
>> :> Damn right.
>> :>
>> :> SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
>> :> As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
>> :> the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
>> :
>> :Why the loss of performance?
>>
>> Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
>> the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
>> what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.
>>
>> Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)
>>
>
> Altitude is probably more important.

I doubt that. Altitude alone yields increased range only in a look
down/shoot down scenario (yeah, decreased drag alone due to increased
altitude will have some effect regardless of the aspect of engagement, but
it will not be significant); OTOH, adding that 600 knots to the missile at
launch is imparting a heck of a lot of energy--you know, that whole
vee-squared part of the kinetic energy equation?

Brooks
>

[B]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "B" > wrote in message ...
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>>>
>>> :"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> :>
>>> :> Damn right.
>>> :>
>>> :> SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
>>> :> As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
>>> :> the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
>>> :
>>> :Why the loss of performance?
>>>
>>> Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
>>> the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
>>> what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.
>>>
>>> Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)
>>>
>> Altitude is probably more important.
>
> I doubt that. Altitude alone yields increased range only in a look
> down/shoot down scenario (yeah, decreased drag alone due to increased
> altitude will have some effect regardless of the aspect of engagement, but
> it will not be significant); OTOH, adding that 600 knots to the missile at
> launch is imparting a heck of a lot of energy--you know, that whole
> vee-squared part of the kinetic energy equation?
>
> Brooks
>
>

Wait until you see this (check my figures please).

AIM-120 (150kg) at 10,000m
Ug=150kg x 10km x g
=150,0000 x 10,000 x 9.8
=14.7x10^9 J

AIM-120 at 600knots (300m/s)
=150,000 x 300^2
=13x10^9 J

Much closer than I thought. Of course it's a complex problem but the raw
figures are interesting.

[[email protected]]

hey, good to see guys are still chatting away - i'm currently flying
with 416 squadron in cold lake- no flying for me but we did do a 4 v
unk DCA mission in
our new sim - i think it ended up being 4 v 12 mig 29 which was pretty
cool. the sim is great for bvr work and the idea is eventually to
network outside of the
existing 4 ship capability to sims on other bases in Canada and the US
for lfe type stuff. Our Hornet is basically upgraded between an A+ and
a C, in that
we had no need for the EPE engine in that we didn't incorporate the
airframe weight additions that the C model did. All I can say is that I
can't imagine ever
fighting in the legacy model - we kept some for NORAD work and the
capability difference is huge. your comments about getting into the
booth are pretty
true - guys tend to view a mission as a failure of red air gets inside
of decision range or abort range for sure (bogeys excepted of course).

Part 1 of the upgrade is complete for about 1.5 years. it consists of
OFP 19C, APG-73 radar, AN/APX-111 combined IFF interrogator/txpdr
(awesome
piece of kit) , GPS, AIM-120C5 (nice!). the jets are just starting to
go away now for part 2 which is colour DDIs/ digital moving map, JDAM,
Link-16 (huge
jump in capability there) and JHMCS. We are also picking up new flir
pods ( I heard today most likely litening 2 and most definitely not
ATFLIR, which
according to our marine exchange pilot, sucks. We were also on track to
get ASRAAM as our high off boresite missile but I think that is on the
back burner
for now.

[David E. Powell]

Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:29:07 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:49:43 -0500, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why the loss of performance?
> >>
> >> It doesn't start off with the speed of a launching aircraft.
> >
> >That's what I thought it would be. So one needs something like a boost
> >stage if one is to have anything like the same envelope?
>
> Yes, but it's energy, not speed, that matters. Altitude, as well
> as speed, is important

Yes, a missile launched higher should have better range... a plane
launching an AMRAAM at an altitude of 30,000 feet at a target at 30,000
feet or less should have more range than a ground launch at a target up
at 30,000 feet....

Also there is the ability to use look down radar in a plane, maybe
longer detection range? Depending on terrain and so on I guess....

> Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:04:51 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"B" > wrote in message ...
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>>>
>>> :"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> :>
>>> :> Damn right.
>>> :>
>>> :> SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
>>> :> As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
>>> :> the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
>>> :
>>> :Why the loss of performance?
>>>
>>> Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
>>> the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
>>> what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.
>>>
>>> Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)
>>>
>>
>> Altitude is probably more important.
>
>I doubt that. Altitude alone yields increased range only in a look
>down/shoot down scenario (yeah, decreased drag alone due to increased
>altitude will have some effect regardless of the aspect of engagement, but
>it will not be significant); OTOH, adding that 600 knots to the missile at
>launch is imparting a heck of a lot of energy--you know, that whole
>vee-squared part of the kinetic energy equation?
>
600 mph is about 880 fps 880 squared is 774,400

30,000 feet x 30 = 900,000

They're about equal on the back of my envelope

Peter Skelton

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Andrew Chaplin
> writes
>"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:49:43 -0500, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> > Why the loss of performance?
>>
>> It doesn't start off with the speed of a launching aircraft.
>
>That's what I thought it would be. So one needs something like a boost
>stage if one is to have anything like the same envelope?

Very much so - you get a big difference in energy between lighting the
motor off at co-altitude and 450kt initial airspeed, compared to stopped
and on the ground. Also, with ground launch you're doing all your
accelerating in dense air, which means more drag and so you get less
velocity for your efforts, compared to launching from 20kft (and you
certainly have a better chance of having an altitude advantage, at least
since the Buccaneers retired :) )

As an example, in open source figures for a good-case target (fast
inbound head-on) you tend to see twenty-odd miles listed as AIM-7
Sparrow range, but maybe eight for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"B" > wrote in message ...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>> "B" > wrote in message ...
>>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> :"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> :>
>>>> :> Damn right.
>>>> :>
>>>> :> SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
>>>> :> As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
>>>> :> the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
>>>> :
>>>> :Why the loss of performance?
>>>>
>>>> Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
>>>> the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
>>>> what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.
>>>>
>>>> Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)
>>>>
>>> Altitude is probably more important.
>>
>> I doubt that. Altitude alone yields increased range only in a look
>> down/shoot down scenario (yeah, decreased drag alone due to increased
>> altitude will have some effect regardless of the aspect of engagement,
>> but it will not be significant); OTOH, adding that 600 knots to the
>> missile at launch is imparting a heck of a lot of energy--you know, that
>> whole vee-squared part of the kinetic energy equation?
>>
>> Brooks
>>
>>
>
> Wait until you see this (check my figures please).
>
> AIM-120 (150kg) at 10,000m
> Ug=150kg x 10km x g
> =150,0000 x 10,000 x 9.8
> =14.7x10^9 J
>
> AIM-120 at 600knots (300m/s)
> =150,000 x 300^2
> =13x10^9 J
>
> Much closer than I thought. Of course it's a complex problem but the raw
> figures are interesting.

A bigger difference than I would have thought, but a key factor to
consider--the land based system is not intended to be going after high
flyers; that would probably remain the territory for the Patriots (which do
habitually see a number of batteries get sent forwards into the
division-level sectors, they don't all remain back at corps and theater
level). As described, this is supposed to be an anti-helo, anti-UAV, and
anti-cruise missile system, so again, the altitude issue is probably not as
great as one would think. And shouldn't that KE equation use *one-half the
mass* times velocity squared? Which would make the result half of what you
calculated?

Brooks

>
>
>

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

> :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.

My glitch. I meant four, not six.


> 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).

Yeah, but there's ways to train without taking the full load of missiles,
right? They run an op that assumes that there are six. Did anybody train
for that?



D

[Fred J. McCall]

"DDAY" > wrote:

:In article >, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>
:> 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).
:
:Yeah, but there's ways to train without taking the full load of missiles,
:right? They run an op that assumes that there are six. Did anybody train
:for that?

How would that be different than any other training?

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[Paul Michael Brown]

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.

[mike Williamson]

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.org/issues/2004/oct/Air_Force_Rethinks.htm

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

Mike Williamson
EC-130H Compass Call

[John C]

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
...
> "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

[DDAY]

---------
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

[Jason H]

"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?

[150flivver]

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.

[Fred J. McCall]

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

:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> "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.
:
:Does 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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

>
>

[DDAY]

----------
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

[[email protected]]

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 ?

[Typhoon502]

None of those really solves the problem of cost and difficulty of
maintenance, though. The only thing a Super Bug really gives up is a
long-range missile, but Phoenix was aging and an extended-range AIM-120
variant could probably be cobbled together in short order if it was
really called for. On the other hand, it should be easier to keep more
Super Bugs in the air over an extended period of time with less
manpower exerted per airframe to make that happen, and if the internal
fuel tankage isn't what the Tomcat could muster, the Super Bug can at
least carry more external fuel stores without sacrificing missile
capability (five tanks, two Sidewinders, and six AMRAAMs with two on
the fuselage and four on dual-rails under the outer wing pylons).
Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.

[jcdata@***gmail.com]

You have just listed one helluva DRAGGY and heavy profile in which you
negate the PROS of having more fuel you'll kill the range in a hurry.
Asking to a loiter with that loadout is going to make things worse.
You're tactical maneuverability is gone with all that stuff on the
wings.

Anyhow, I don't think you mount two AIM120s on the other pylon where
the wing fold is located.

[Harry Andreas]

In article . com>,
"Typhoon502" > wrote:

> None of those really solves the problem of cost and difficulty of
> maintenance, though. The only thing a Super Bug really gives up is a
> long-range missile, but Phoenix was aging and an extended-range AIM-120
> variant could probably be cobbled together in short order if it was
> really called for. On the other hand, it should be easier to keep more
> Super Bugs in the air over an extended period of time with less
> manpower exerted per airframe to make that happen, and if the internal
> fuel tankage isn't what the Tomcat could muster, the Super Bug can at
> least carry more external fuel stores without sacrificing missile
> capability (five tanks, two Sidewinders, and six AMRAAMs with two on
> the fuselage and four on dual-rails under the outer wing pylons).

> Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.

That's a misleading statement.

There is no inherent reason that F-14's could not carry and shoot AIM-120.
It's just that the Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
The F-14 has a long range missile. Why spend money integrating a new
missile on an airframe that's going to go out of service soon?

The changes that would be needed were largely software and flight test.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[[email protected]]

Typhoon502 wrote:
> None of those really solves the problem of cost and difficulty of
> maintenance, though. The only thing a Super Bug really gives up is a
> long-range missile, but Phoenix was aging and an extended-range AIM-120
> variant could probably be cobbled together in short order if it was
> really called for. On the other hand, it should be easier to keep more
> Super Bugs in the air over an extended period of time with less
> manpower exerted per airframe to make that happen, and if the internal
> fuel tankage isn't what the Tomcat could muster, the Super Bug can at
> least carry more external fuel stores without sacrificing missile
> capability (five tanks, two Sidewinders, and six AMRAAMs with two on
> the fuselage and four on dual-rails under the outer wing pylons).
> Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.


but the ASF-14 would've been a new plane, able to carry the
AAAM (Phoenix replacement) AMRAAMs, ASRAAMs, would have had thrust
vectoring for more manuverability. And if they really wanted to
compete, could've added canards for extra agility. the "Tomcat II" as
I shall call it, even without canards, would've been able to hold its
own against knife-fighters such as the Fulcrum (Mig-29) and its
advanced decentands (Mig-33 Super Fulcrum?) with the ASF-14 having
thrust-vectoring +ASRAAM --- it would actually manuver much better than
the Super Hornet.

of course, I am thinking about a continuing of the Reagan-build-up to
crush the Soviets and defend 20-24 Super Carriers (we reached 15 or
16 with Reagan) against waves of Tu-160 Blackjacks (almost a clone of
the original B-1A) hauling super-sonic cruise anti-ship
carrier-obliterating missiles that could devastate our battle-groups by
possibily overwelming the Aegis systems.

ASF-14 with ATF-engines + the VERY long range AAAM (longer the
Phoenix) could've dealt with ANY air threat, including Soviet bombers
from a few thousand miles away before they got within anti-ship
cruise-missile range of the battle group. and deal with more
manuverable targets at the same time. so unlike original F-14 family
that dates back to the 1960s/1960s, we have a multi-role air-to-air
FIGHTER.

ok i'm getting carried away here but......

[John Carrier]

>> Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.
>
> That's a misleading statement.
>
> There is no inherent reason that F-14's could not carry and shoot AIM-120.
> It's just that the Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
> The F-14 has a long range missile. Why spend money integrating a new
> missile on an airframe that's going to go out of service soon?
>
> The changes that would be needed were largely software and flight test.

Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior weapon
than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to fight
the good fight.

R / John

[Typhoon502]

John Carrier wrote:
> >> Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.
> >
> > That's a misleading statement.
> >
> > There is no inherent reason that F-14's could not carry and shoot AIM-120.
> > It's just that the Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
> > The F-14 has a long range missile. Why spend money integrating a new
> > missile on an airframe that's going to go out of service soon?
> >
> > The changes that would be needed were largely software and flight test.
>
> Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior weapon
> than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
> range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
> aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to fight
> the good fight.

Maybe the changes were small in scale, but if the service is unwilling
to do the integration, then that still means the F-14 was wholly
incapable of using the DOD's best AAM; the fact that the Navy didn't
incorporate AMRAAM while they were doing the Bombcat work is what's
surprising. I read once a discussion or article about the F-14 and the
Super Hornet and how Grumman kept coming back to the Pentagon with
modernized Tomcats, and kept getting shown the door. At what point did
the Pentagon (or the Navy specifically...it's been a while since I
recalled the particulars) really decide that they didn't want the
Tomcats around? Was it cost & complexity that turned them against the
F-14 in favor of the Super Bug?

[Jeff Crowell]

> John Carrier wrote:
>> Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior
>> weapon
>> than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
>> range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
>> aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to fight
>> the good fight.


Typhoon502 wrote:
> Maybe the changes were small in scale, but if the service is unwilling
> to do the integration, then that still means the F-14 was wholly
> incapable of using the DOD's best AAM;

But could easily have been modded to use it... what don't you understand
about that? In hindsight, probably a good choice anyway, as the capability
was not needed--or at least, not particularly missed.


> the fact that the Navy didn't
> incorporate AMRAAM while they were doing the Bombcat work is what's
> surprising.

I can't help suspect political pressure to keep the Bug looking good.
I always thought the Bombcat thing was at least partly a sop to the fighter
guys who didn't have so much to do, as well as a way for the Navy to get
more iron on the target without buying more airframes.


> I read once a discussion or article about the F-14 and the
> Super Hornet and how Grumman kept coming back to the Pentagon with
> modernized Tomcats, and kept getting shown the door. At what point did
> the Pentagon (or the Navy specifically...it's been a while since I
> recalled the particulars) really decide that they didn't want the
> Tomcats around? Was it cost & complexity that turned them against the
> F-14 in favor of the Super Bug?

Maintenance man-hours per flight hour.


Jeff

[Pete Granzeau]

On 11 Apr 2006 13:14:38 -0700, wrote:
>ASF-14 with ATF-engines + the VERY long range AAAM (longer the
>Phoenix) could've dealt with ANY air threat, including Soviet bombers
>from a few thousand miles away before they got within anti-ship
>cruise-missile range of the battle group. and deal with more
>manuverable targets at the same time. so unlike original F-14 family
>that dates back to the 1960s/1960s, we have a multi-role air-to-air
>FIGHTER.
>
>ok i'm getting carried away here but......

You are also ignoring the real reason the F-14 was phased out:
Maintenance costs.

[John Carrier]

"Jeff Crowell" > wrote in message
...
>> John Carrier wrote:
>>> Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior
>>> weapon
>>> than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
>>> range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
>>> aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to
>>> fight
>>> the good fight.
>
>
> Typhoon502 wrote:
>> Maybe the changes were small in scale, but if the service is unwilling
>> to do the integration, then that still means the F-14 was wholly
>> incapable of using the DOD's best AAM;
>
> But could easily have been modded to use it... what don't you understand
> about that? In hindsight, probably a good choice anyway, as the
> capability
> was not needed--or at least, not particularly missed.
>
>
>> the fact that the Navy didn't
>> incorporate AMRAAM while they were doing the Bombcat work is what's
>> surprising.
>
> I can't help suspect political pressure to keep the Bug looking good.
> I always thought the Bombcat thing was at least partly a sop to the
> fighter
> guys who didn't have so much to do, as well as a way for the Navy to get
> more iron on the target without buying more airframes.
>
>
>> I read once a discussion or article about the F-14 and the
>> Super Hornet and how Grumman kept coming back to the Pentagon with
>> modernized Tomcats, and kept getting shown the door. At what point did
>> the Pentagon (or the Navy specifically...it's been a while since I
>> recalled the particulars) really decide that they didn't want the
>> Tomcats around? Was it cost & complexity that turned them against the
>> F-14 in favor of the Super Bug?

Three reasons for the lack of funding for F-14 mods. The F-14 community (an
attitude problem), The F-18 mafia within NAVAIR and the Pentagon, and
Grumman's arrogance. By the time the Bug was validating its incredible
maintainability rep in the late eighties, the writing was on the wall for
the Tom. It's maintainability (lack thereof ... you should have seen what
it was like to keep Block 75's up 'n flying) doomed the jet.

R / John

[W.A. Baker]

In article >, John Carrier
> wrote:

[...]
> By the time the Bug was validating its incredible
> maintainability rep in the late eighties, the writing was on the wall for
> the Tom. It's maintainability (lack thereof ... you should have seen what
> it was like to keep Block 75's up 'n flying) doomed the jet.

John, what percentage of that maintenance load was specific to keeping
the Tom's mission-capable in the fleet air-defense role? I'm thinking
mainly of the avionics for the Sparrows and Phoenixes. Would there
have been a significant savings in maintenance man-hours if the Toms
had been explicitly transitioned into being "cold nose" bomb trucks
dedicated purely to the strike mission?

It's an idle hypothetical now that the Toms are gone from the flight
decks. But I've always wondered if there was an economical option,
around the time the call was made to retire the A-6's, for handing the
the D's over to the strike community for use solely as strike bombers.

[Thomas Schoene]

W.A. Baker wrote:
> In article >, John Carrier
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>By the time the Bug was validating its incredible
>>maintainability rep in the late eighties, the writing was on the wall for
>>the Tom. It's maintainability (lack thereof ... you should have seen what
>>it was like to keep Block 75's up 'n flying) doomed the jet.
>
>
> John, what percentage of that maintenance load was specific to keeping
> the Tom's mission-capable in the fleet air-defense role? I'm thinking
> mainly of the avionics for the Sparrows and Phoenixes. Would there
> have been a significant savings in maintenance man-hours if the Toms
> had been explicitly transitioned into being "cold nose" bomb trucks
> dedicated purely to the strike mission?

Strike and cold-nose (i.e., no radar) aren't compatible options anymore.
You need radar ground-mapping modes at a minimum, and realistically
also some air-to-air modes for self-defense. At that point, there's not
a huge amount of unique Sparrow or Phoenix support left in the system.
But you have to ADD distinctive strike capabilities, such as a laser
designator and FLIR (e.g. LANTIRN) to match the A-6's TRAM sensor turret.

OTOH, a ground-up redesign of the F-14 like the Super Hornet (ASF-14,
roughly) might have allowed significant savings.

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

[Typhoon502]

Thomas Schoene wrote:
> Strike and cold-nose (i.e., no radar) aren't compatible options anymore.
> You need radar ground-mapping modes at a minimum, and realistically
> also some air-to-air modes for self-defense. At that point, there's not
> a huge amount of unique Sparrow or Phoenix support left in the system.
> But you have to ADD distinctive strike capabilities, such as a laser
> designator and FLIR (e.g. LANTIRN) to match the A-6's TRAM sensor turret.
>
> OTOH, a ground-up redesign of the F-14 like the Super Hornet (ASF-14,
> roughly) might have allowed significant savings.

How much of the maintenance issues were related to the swing wing?
Theoretically, do you think a redesign of that scale would have
retained the swinger or was it an outdated solution?

[Harry Andreas]

In article . com>,
"Typhoon502" > wrote:

> John Carrier wrote:
> > >> Tomcats couldn't even shoot AIM-120.
> > >
> > > That's a misleading statement.
> > >
> > > There is no inherent reason that F-14's could not carry and shoot AIM-120.
> > > It's just that the Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
> > > The F-14 has a long range missile. Why spend money integrating a new
> > > missile on an airframe that's going to go out of service soon?
> > >
> > > The changes that would be needed were largely software and flight test.
> >
> > Yep. Chump change and the aircraft could have had a vastly superior weapon
> > than Sparrow for a decade. Also better than Phoenix out to AAMRAM's max
> > range as well. In hindsight it didn't matter ... largely because the
> > aircraft was underutilized in Desert Storm, its last opportunity to fight
> > the good fight.
>
> Maybe the changes were small in scale, but if the service is unwilling
> to do the integration, then that still means the F-14 was wholly
> incapable of using the DOD's best AAM; the fact that the Navy didn't
> incorporate AMRAAM while they were doing the Bombcat work is what's
> surprising. I read once a discussion or article about the F-14 and the
> Super Hornet and how Grumman kept coming back to the Pentagon with
> modernized Tomcats, and kept getting shown the door. At what point did
> the Pentagon (or the Navy specifically...it's been a while since I
> recalled the particulars) really decide that they didn't want the
> Tomcats around? Was it cost & complexity that turned them against the
> F-14 in favor of the Super Bug?

Once the F/A-18 demonstrated it's avionics reliability in a production
configuration, the F-14 was doomed.
I do have some insight into this as I worked both the F-18's APG-65 radar
and the F-14's APG-71 radar (on the D). I also participated in several
Tomcat upgrade proposals from the radar side, so I'm pretty familiar with
both sides of the arguement.
The F-14D was a great preforming aircraft, but even after the radar upgrade
it was still a maintenance hog on other systems, about 4X per flight hour
greater than the F/A-18.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "W.A. Baker"
> wrote:

> In article >, John Carrier
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
> > By the time the Bug was validating its incredible
> > maintainability rep in the late eighties, the writing was on the wall for
> > the Tom. It's maintainability (lack thereof ... you should have seen what
> > it was like to keep Block 75's up 'n flying) doomed the jet.
>
> John, what percentage of that maintenance load was specific to keeping
> the Tom's mission-capable in the fleet air-defense role? I'm thinking
> mainly of the avionics for the Sparrows and Phoenixes. Would there
> have been a significant savings in maintenance man-hours if the Toms
> had been explicitly transitioned into being "cold nose" bomb trucks
> dedicated purely to the strike mission?
>
> It's an idle hypothetical now that the Toms are gone from the flight
> decks. But I've always wondered if there was an economical option,
> around the time the call was made to retire the A-6's, for handing the
> the D's over to the strike community for use solely as strike bombers.

After the D upgrade the radar was not a maintenance factor.

I don't have visibility into all the other systems on the a/c but the new
radar was on par with the systems in the F/A-18 and F-15 in terms of
reliability and maintenance hours.

Besides, by that point the writing was on the wall that strike was going to
be heavily focused on PGMs, so why "fix" an aircraft to use dumb iron
when the tide is running the other way? That's just spending scarce
money on a dead end.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Fred J. McCall]

"Typhoon502" > wrote:

:Thomas Schoene wrote:
:> Strike and cold-nose (i.e., no radar) aren't compatible options anymore.
:> You need radar ground-mapping modes at a minimum, and realistically
:> also some air-to-air modes for self-defense. At that point, there's not
:> a huge amount of unique Sparrow or Phoenix support left in the system.
:> But you have to ADD distinctive strike capabilities, such as a laser
:> designator and FLIR (e.g. LANTIRN) to match the A-6's TRAM sensor turret.
:>
:> OTOH, a ground-up redesign of the F-14 like the Super Hornet (ASF-14,
:> roughly) might have allowed significant savings.
:
:How much of the maintenance issues were related to the swing wing?

Very few.

:Theoretically, do you think a redesign of that scale would have
:retained the swinger or was it an outdated solution?

The alternative would be a redesign much more extreme than what was
done with the Super Bug, since the alternative to achieve everything
the swing wing brought to the table would be aerodynamically unstable
flight.

There actually were early Tomcat designs with fixed wings that looked
a lot like those on the F-15. They went with the swing wing instead.

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

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

In article >, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

> "Typhoon502" > wrote:
>
> :Thomas Schoene wrote:
> :> Strike and cold-nose (i.e., no radar) aren't compatible options anymore.
> :> You need radar ground-mapping modes at a minimum, and realistically
> :> also some air-to-air modes for self-defense. At that point, there's not
> :> a huge amount of unique Sparrow or Phoenix support left in the system.
> :> But you have to ADD distinctive strike capabilities, such as a laser
> :> designator and FLIR (e.g. LANTIRN) to match the A-6's TRAM sensor turret.
> :>
> :> OTOH, a ground-up redesign of the F-14 like the Super Hornet (ASF-14,
> :> roughly) might have allowed significant savings.
> :
> :How much of the maintenance issues were related to the swing wing?
>
> Very few.
>
> :Theoretically, do you think a redesign of that scale would have
> :retained the swinger or was it an outdated solution?
>
> The alternative would be a redesign much more extreme than what was
> done with the Super Bug, since the alternative to achieve everything
> the swing wing brought to the table would be aerodynamically unstable
> flight.
>
> There actually were early Tomcat designs with fixed wings that looked
> a lot like those on the F-15. They went with the swing wing instead.

Fred, was the flight control computing needed to support unstable
designs available at the time of design of the F-14? Do I hear you
saying that once decent flight control systems were available, the
swing wing lost its justification?

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
> wrote:

> In article >, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
>
> > "Typhoon502" > wrote:
> >
> > :Thomas Schoene wrote:
> > :> Strike and cold-nose (i.e., no radar) aren't compatible options anymore.
> > :> You need radar ground-mapping modes at a minimum, and realistically
> > :> also some air-to-air modes for self-defense. At that point, there's not
> > :> a huge amount of unique Sparrow or Phoenix support left in the system.
> > :> But you have to ADD distinctive strike capabilities, such as a laser
> > :> designator and FLIR (e.g. LANTIRN) to match the A-6's TRAM sensor turret.
> > :>
> > :> OTOH, a ground-up redesign of the F-14 like the Super Hornet (ASF-14,
> > :> roughly) might have allowed significant savings.
> > :
> > :How much of the maintenance issues were related to the swing wing?
> >
> > Very few.
> >
> > :Theoretically, do you think a redesign of that scale would have
> > :retained the swinger or was it an outdated solution?
> >
> > The alternative would be a redesign much more extreme than what was
> > done with the Super Bug, since the alternative to achieve everything
> > the swing wing brought to the table would be aerodynamically unstable
> > flight.
> >
> > There actually were early Tomcat designs with fixed wings that looked
> > a lot like those on the F-15. They went with the swing wing instead.
>
> Fred, was the flight control computing needed to support unstable
> designs available at the time of design of the F-14? Do I hear you
> saying that once decent flight control systems were available, the
> swing wing lost its justification?

not Fred, but...

The design period of the F-14 was mid 60's, long before there was enough
computing power to support unstable FBW designs. IIRC it was actually
before the very idea.

The swing wing idea has more to do with top speed/approach speed
than with manuevering and stability.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Fred J. McCall]

"Howard C. Berkowitz" > wrote:

:In article >, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:> "Typhoon502" > wrote:
:>
:> :Thomas Schoene wrote:
:> :> Strike and cold-nose (i.e., no radar) aren't compatible options anymore.
:> :> You need radar ground-mapping modes at a minimum, and realistically
:> :> also some air-to-air modes for self-defense. At that point, there's not
:> :> a huge amount of unique Sparrow or Phoenix support left in the system.
:> :> But you have to ADD distinctive strike capabilities, such as a laser
:> :> designator and FLIR (e.g. LANTIRN) to match the A-6's TRAM sensor turret.
:> :>
:> :> OTOH, a ground-up redesign of the F-14 like the Super Hornet (ASF-14,
:> :> roughly) might have allowed significant savings.
:> :
:> :How much of the maintenance issues were related to the swing wing?
:>
:> Very few.
:>
:> :Theoretically, do you think a redesign of that scale would have
:> :retained the swinger or was it an outdated solution?
:>
:> The alternative would be a redesign much more extreme than what was
:> done with the Super Bug, since the alternative to achieve everything
:> the swing wing brought to the table would be aerodynamically unstable
:> flight.
:>
:> There actually were early Tomcat designs with fixed wings that looked
:> a lot like those on the F-15. They went with the swing wing instead.
:
:Fred, was the flight control computing needed to support unstable
:designs available at the time of design of the F-14? Do I hear you
:saying that once decent flight control systems were available, the
:swing wing lost its justification?

It probably could have been done then, but I suspect that the Navy
would have viewed the technology of going to 'fly-by-wire' as being
too risky to put on such a high-cost fighter. The swing-wing,
meanwhile, had been one of the parts (along with the AWG-9 weapon
system) of the F-111 program that had worked as advertised, despite
some initial problems with the F-111 pivot bearing during design.

The F-16 wasn't done that much later, but it started out as a
'technology demonstrator' program with an option to go to a real
aircraft. Without the experience gained in the technology
demonstrator phase, folks inside USAF procurement at the time have
stated that there is no way they would have risked 'fly-by-wire' on
the operational aircraft.

Without fly-by-wire, relaxed stability is pretty much a non-starter.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[Fred J. McCall]

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article >, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
> wrote:
:
:> In article >, Fred J. McCall
:> > wrote:
:>
:> > "Typhoon502" > wrote:
:> >
:> > :Thomas Schoene wrote:
:> > :> Strike and cold-nose (i.e., no radar) aren't compatible options anymore.
:> > :> You need radar ground-mapping modes at a minimum, and realistically
:> > :> also some air-to-air modes for self-defense. At that point, there's not
:> > :> a huge amount of unique Sparrow or Phoenix support left in the system.
:> > :> But you have to ADD distinctive strike capabilities, such as a laser
:> > :> designator and FLIR (e.g. LANTIRN) to match the A-6's TRAM sensor turret.
:> > :>
:> > :> OTOH, a ground-up redesign of the F-14 like the Super Hornet (ASF-14,
:> > :> roughly) might have allowed significant savings.
:> > :
:> > :How much of the maintenance issues were related to the swing wing?
:> >
:> > Very few.
:> >
:> > :Theoretically, do you think a redesign of that scale would have
:> > :retained the swinger or was it an outdated solution?
:> >
:> > The alternative would be a redesign much more extreme than what was
:> > done with the Super Bug, since the alternative to achieve everything
:> > the swing wing brought to the table would be aerodynamically unstable
:> > flight.
:> >
:> > There actually were early Tomcat designs with fixed wings that looked
:> > a lot like those on the F-15. They went with the swing wing instead.
:>
:> Fred, was the flight control computing needed to support unstable
:> designs available at the time of design of the F-14? Do I hear you
:> saying that once decent flight control systems were available, the
:> swing wing lost its justification?
:
:not Fred, but...
:
:The design period of the F-14 was mid 60's, long before there was enough
:computing power to support unstable FBW designs. IIRC it was actually
:before the very idea.
:
:The swing wing idea has more to do with top speed/approach speed
:than with manuevering and stability.

The F-16 technology demonstrator stuff actually started in the
mid-1960s as well. The difference was that the F-14 was one of the
most capable and expensive fighter aircraft being developed and the
F-16 was a technology demonstrator program. You will decline risks
doing the former that you might decide are acceptable doing the
latter.

The Air Force would not have bought the F-16 if there hadn't been the
preceding technology demonstrator phase to prove out the fly-by-wire
stuff.

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