A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cat peeking out of the bag?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 23rd 04, 04:10 AM
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ISTR the 54 had a continuous rod warhead. Dodging a Mach 4 missile
coming down at you from high above seems sort of problematical -
unless it's leaving a smoke trail how do you see it coming? Sure, you
got some radar warning - you hope - but the main defense seems to be
a) the wetware controlling the launch sequence screwed up and b)
system reliability. Employed within proper parameters with a weapons
system maintained within specs - even the Hughes radar Falcon could
hit the target. Glad I'm retired, since similar systems to the 54 are
becoming all too prevalent. W(Way)BVR takes a lot of fun out of the
game.
Walt BJ
  #12  
Old October 24th 04, 11:26 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"José Herculano" wrote:

Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
power.


Iranian sources claim that only 12 were sabotaged, and those were later
fixed with parts out of that Iran-Contra deal.

Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile
targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise missile
or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to hit with
a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm.


Well, most of the kills were against MiGs... true it seems they were not
maneuvering much, but most BVR kills are like that.


snip

As with virtually everything else, Tamas is full of it. The AIM-54 was tested
against maneuvering fighter targets during its development and nailed a QF-86
drone pulling 6g (the missile pulled 16g to get it), as well as having several
successful tests against multiple fighter-sized targets (BQM-34, QT-33 or QF-9
drones, the latter augmented to MiG-21 RCS). Fighters weren't the primary
target it was designed around, but it's certainly capable of killing them,
especially with a BVR 'bolt from the blue' with a missile coming down from
above.

Guy


  #13  
Old October 24th 04, 03:27 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jose- So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving
the
Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a
more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not? BRBR

Don't think that is the issue, that of giving the thumbs down vs a 'thumbs up'.
The design is old, the tooling is essentially gone, the chance for a modern
Tomcat was lost in the 80s when Reagan was POTUS and $$ was everywhere.

The AIM-54 and F-14 are a matched set. Lose one, lose the other. Altho a good
missile in the correct envelope, it was designed to knock down Soviet Bombers.
Considering today's and future 'threats', I think the AIM-120 and a follow-on
are a better, cheaper and more compatible to more A/C, solution.

The F-14B, C, strike Tomcat would have been great and 'may' have precluded the
development of the F-18F, but it wasn't and it didn't. The F-14 is history, the
same way the F-8 was when I got my wings(1974), the same way the F-4 was when I
entered my Department HD tour.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #14  
Old October 24th 04, 03:33 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tamas- Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
retiring all Tomcats. BRBR

It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2 F-14
squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue.

It is an old design, never modified to it's full capabilities with available
technology. Analog, push rod type flight controls, tube type avionics, ****poor
engines in the majority of the A/C(TF-30).

BUT it had nothing to do with it being a varible geometry A/C...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #15  
Old October 24th 04, 06:49 PM
Laura O''Leary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Laura O''Leary" wrote in message news:...
Well, the bigger issues are requirements and cost. The requirement for a
fighter to be able to engage and destroy a target at the long range of the
Phoenix just isn't there anymore. The ROE is too restrictive to allow for
the engagement of targets at that range. The cold war days of protecting
the fleet from the big bad Soviet bombers are long gone. As for the cost,
the F-14 is the highest in maintenance man-hours per flight in carrier
aircraft. (The EA-6B is the next highest in maint man-hours and will
follow the Tomcat into the Super Hornet world). Besides the maintenance
man-hours, the availability and mission capability ratings of the Toms
isn't nearly as good as the Super Hornet. While the Tomcat does do a
fantastic job filling the role of a pseudo-medium range bomber, the recent
trend is to deliver smaller war heads to reduce collateral damage. But,
the days of going out and carrying in excess of twenty 500-pound dumb
bombs have already passed. The joint battlespace doesn't require the CV to
deliver that type and quantity anymore. The Air Force has to fill the
role of heavy bombers which would carry numerous PGMs and the Navy has the
Super Hornet to attempt to fill the pseudo-medium bomber which would also
use PGMs. In summary, the Tomcat is a great aircraft whose day has
unfortunately passed, but current requirements and fiscal responsibilities
make the Tomcat no longer viable.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air
F-14 kills, with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills.


Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
power.

Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile
targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise
missile or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to
hit with a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm.

Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
retiring all Tomcats. The MiG-23 has long hit the scapyard most places.
Remaining F-111 has been deported to a place where planes normally fly
upside-down. The Tornado flies only because anything else is better than
an F-104.





  #16  
Old October 25th 04, 01:49 AM
KingPin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

tube type avionics



Presumably this refers to the TWT's in the radar
system, the EW/ECM systems and not the C3 equipment ?
(the Tomcat was certainly not Korean War vintage!)

TWT's are "tubes" that are encased in steel (think
of microwave oven magnetrons). That was the only
technology at the time that could handle the power
levels required for the radar packages being used.

The other technology for VHF / UHF radios (NAV and
air to air, air to ground, etc), were solid state
designs with NO tubes.

Also the FGC's were undeniably solid state, NON tube
technology.

To be specific, references of "tubes" are as a
circuit switching or amplification device - not
as a display device (ie. a PFD, or MFD).


  #17  
Old October 25th 04, 11:26 AM
Rob van Riel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rob" wrote in message ...
he said 'during the 1st Gulf War' not the Iran-Iraq war.


To many people, that is exactly the same thing:
1st gulf war = Iran-Iraq
2nd gulf war = kicking Saddam out of Kuwait
3rd gulf war = Bush vs Hussein - the feud continues

Rob
  #18  
Old October 25th 04, 02:37 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

KingPin- Presumably this refers to the TWT's in the radar
system, the EW/ECM systems and not the C3 equipment ?
(the Tomcat was certainly not Korean War vintage!) BRBR

The (h)AWG-9 was old technology that was prevelent in early radars seen on the
F-4(AWG-10), never really modified when available technology was present.

Poor reliability, many MH to maintain.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #19  
Old October 25th 04, 06:40 PM
rottenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"José Herculano" wrote in message .. .
I've just finished reading the following book about the F-14 in Iranian
hands:

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

It is a well written account which is claimed to be based upon extensive
research and talks with Iranian, and some Iraqi, aircrew.

With the caveat of the usual inflation of kills when talking with "those who
where there", particularly in what concerns BVR kills, the book is
consistent with the many leaked details that have been emerging for several
years.

For those less attentive to the complexities of the Middle East politics and
operations, it can be a bit of an eye opener, but there are plenty of people
around, from the "air-warrior" community, that have claimed in print and on
the net that they had interesting times they cannot speak openly about.

To cut the introduction short, and getting to the theme I'd like to see
discussed...

It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills,
with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded claims are higher
than that, but let's stay cautious.

The Iraqis have sure lost quite a lot of aircraft during the long Iraq-Iran
war, with quite a few MiG-21/23/25, Mirage F1, Su-22 and other assorted
types being credited to the Tomcats by both sides. It has been often relayed
as a fact that, during the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqis were very unwilling to
go anywhere near the USN F-14s and their tell-tale AWG-9 signature, while
not being so shy towards the Eagles. Reports have come out - both recent and
old - of Iraqi pilots saying that the F-14s were the Iranian aircraft they
most feared...

So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving the
Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a
more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not?

_____________
José Herculano


I've yet to ever hear anybody diss the F-14 based on its performance.
Instead, much of what I've heard comes down to the supposed advantage
of CVW's based on SH given (again supposed) advantages in maintenance.
Instead of pilots, we'll need to hear from plane captains on that
score. I've yet to hear this discussed, but it may also have
something to do with the more complicated state of our ROE which
obviates the need for or precludes the resort to missile shots from as
far away as those of the Phoenix.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.