The F14 vs what we are doing now

wrote in message
oups.com...
i have less than 300 hrs in the hornet, and my comments about beating
the eagle
in bfm are from my experience only. on my squadron the eagle is
generally regarded
as a poor turning platform and i tend to agree. you need to remember
sustained turn
performance is but one measure of fighter capability.

The F-18, with the latest software, can point its nose with alacrity. Of
course, the energy state is zip-point-xxxx. A turkey or eagle attempting to
grovel in such a fight will lose, and rather quickly. OTOH, by taking the
fight vertical and ever-aft, the higher energy fighters can slowly gain the
advantage. It's a fight that takes patience and skill.

Anchor-out engagements tend to create targets for the unseen bogey. The
Bug's greatest vulnerability exists in the disengagement. There's not much
it can outrun ... so you'd better hope you're the last man standing.

Did you get your wings at NQI or NMM?

R / John

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

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
erformance 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

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?

---------
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

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

Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:

:On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:14:13 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:
:
:|"Typhoon502" wrote in message
roups.com...
:| The only heritage that the F-111B really passed along to the F-14
:|was
:| the AWG-9 radar and the design spec to carry Phoenix. The airframes
:| have no commonality, other than they're both swing-wing and
:| twin-engine. For some of the F-14 run, it used the same engines as
:|the
:| F-111 but that diverged as well.
:|
:| SLAMRAAM = surface-launched AMRAAM.
:|
:|The warning tone one's ECM suite gives as one is targeted with this
:|system is, of course... wait for it... "the SLAMaRAAMa ding-dong."
:
:is the SLAMRAAM the same thing as the AIM-120? And is it an Army program?

It's not "the same thing", since one is a missile and the other is a
complete system. The missile is the same.

:And is it an Army program?
:http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raam.htm#CLAWS

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...E=Feb+27,+2004

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

"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

"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:14:13 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:

|"Typhoon502" wrote in message
oups.com...
| The only heritage that the F-111B really passed along to the F-14
|was
| the AWG-9 radar and the design spec to carry Phoenix. The airframes
| have no commonality, other than they're both swing-wing and
| twin-engine. For some of the F-14 run, it used the same engines as
|the
| F-111 but that diverged as well.
|
| SLAMRAAM = surface-launched AMRAAM.
|
|The warning tone one's ECM suite gives as one is targeted with this
|system is, of course... wait for it... "the SLAMaRAAMa ding-dong."

is the SLAMRAAM the same thing as the AIM-120?

It uses the AIM-120 as its missile component. But SLAMRAAM and CLAWS are
more than just a missile--you have to have the required fire control system,
radar, etc., included in the whole program. You can't just take a handy
AIM-120 out in a field, set it up on a jury-rugged launcher, and call it an
air defense system.

And is it an Army program?

Yes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raam.htm#CLAWS

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

Brooks

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