Please contribute to Iran's military

[The Avon Lady]

It's easy (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_24/b4038041.htm)!

Operators are standing by, waiting for your call. Giftwrapping at no extra charge.

:nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Yawn. They can fly their outdated tanks. Those F-14's are even A models and presnt little threat to any properly equipped foe. If you were telling me they had F-22's, then you might get a bit of a shock reaction.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

Yawn. They can fly their outdated tanks. Those F-14's are even A models and presnt little threat to any properly equipped foe. If you were telling me they had F-22's, then you might get a bit of a shock reaction.

It's not just F14s. See the section about half way down titled: 2,669 'SENSITIVE MILITARY ITEMS'.

[SUBMAN1]

Yawn. They can fly their outdated tanks. Those F-14's are even A models and presnt little threat to any properly equipped foe. If you were telling me they had F-22's, then you might get a bit of a shock reaction.
It's not just F14s. See the section about half way down titled: 2,669 'SENSITIVE MILITARY ITEMS'.
Yeah, still no big deal. I even talked to the guys at the Museum of Flight (Boeing) and antennaes built in the 1950's and 1960's are considered 'sensitive items'. He had to smuggle one in to complete their YF-12. I won't tell you which one, but if you look at that YF-12, one of the antennaes on that display is still considered classified even though it was built 60 years ago! BS. THere is better civilian equipment developed 20 years ago!

The point is, this is why no one cares that they are selling 'sensitive' items. The reason they are still classified as 'sensitive' is that the military never removed them from the 'sensitive' list back when they should have 50 years ago!

-S

PS. Remember one thing - this is AMerica you are talking about here. In this land, if you really want an F-16, and you have the money, you can have one. Don't forget that. THink how much sensitive items are on an F-16 for example, yet you can buy one and fly one here!

[The Avon Lady]

PS. Remember one thing - this is AMerica you are talking about here. In this land, if you really want an F-16, and you have the money, you can have one. Don't forget that. THink how much sensitive items are on an F-16 for example, yet you can buy one and fly one here!
With cash-back and 0% financing, too? :o

[SUBMAN1]

PS. Remember one thing - this is AMerica you are talking about here. In this land, if you really want an F-16, and you have the money, you can have one. Don't forget that. THink how much sensitive items are on an F-16 for example, yet you can buy one and fly one here! With cash-back and 0% financing, too? :o

Last I saw, it was $10 mill for the plane, half up front, and find your own financing! :D They had an F-18, and an F-111 for sale too.

-S

[Oberon]

Put me down for a squadron. Oh...and I'll have a few B1s, a OHP FFG, and a batallion of M1A2s.

Anyone up for a regime change in Britain? STEED? Skybird? :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

Put me down for a squadron. Oh...and I'll have a few B1s, a OHP FFG, and a batallion of M1A2s.

Anyone up for a regime change in Britain? STEED? Skybird? :lol:

You're going to need a helluva lot more equipment than that! The UK is no slouch when it comes to military hardware!

[Oberon]

Yeah, but most of it is in the Middle East, or a breakers yard. ;)

[fatty]

Put me down for a squadron. Oh...and I'll have a few B1s, a OHP FFG, and a batallion of M1A2s.

Anyone up for a regime change in Britain? STEED? Skybird? :lol:

You're going to need a helluva lot more equipment than that! The UK is no slouch when it comes to military hardware!

Yeah, and article 5 would bring the U.S. and the rest of NATO into it :D

[Chock]

Take My Breath Away might have been the theme song in Top Gun, but these days the F14A is unlikely to take anyone's breath away in a dogfight. And anyone going up against a modern fighter in an F-14A, really is going to be on a Highway to the Danger Zone.

The F-14 looks impressive in Top Gun, but what you don't see in that movie is that all that turning and burning they do (using the afterburners) uses fuel up so fast that the thing basically has to land minutes later, or the pilots would find themselves swimming home. And it would certainly have to use those 'burners a lot to stay in a turn with a modern fighter plane.

Modern fighter jets use far more efficient supercruise technology to enable them to maintain high speeds with much less use of the afterburner. This also means that they have a smaller heat signature, making them far less likely to find a Sidewinder missile flying up their tailpipe. So in most cases, a modern fighter could win a dogfight against an F-14A by simply turning inside it and waiting for it to fall out of the sky with an empty gas tank.

And it can't rely on engaging stuff at long-range either:

The AIM-54 Phoenix missile which the F-14 carries is impressive on paper (100-plus nautical mile range), but we are basically talking about technology from the Vietnam War era here. Right before the US pulled out of Vietnam, the F-14A was on some carriers off the Vietnam coast (it really has been in service that long). This is why it has been retired from US Navy service, and in its last few years it was even relegated to the role of a bomber rather than a fighter - and that's the more modern variants than Iran has too.

The very old technology of the AIM-54 missile can be quite easily spoofed and jammed by even a basically-equipped aircraft and the far more capable gate-stealing capabilities of modern fighter ECM suites would eat the F-14A's radar capabilities for breakfast. The truth is that the F14A would probably have a hard time shooting down a third-world country's training aircraft these days, let alone something like an F-16 or F-22.

The F14A was a prestige purchase for Iran in the 70s, but that's a long time ago in technology terms, unless you still think that a Spectrum ZX-81 computer would kick your Intel Core Duo's hyperthreading ass.

:D Chock

[tycho102]

The F-14 looks impressive in Top Gun, but what you don't see in that movie is that all that turning and burning they do (using the afterburners) uses fuel up so fast that the thing basically has to land minutes later, or the pilots would find themselves swimming home.

You missed the point.

They made all kind of officer-level quota for several years. Even the guys who washed out of flight school were put to use. The Nav spent maybe $20m for marketing if you include fuel, maintenance, and security. Most of that money was spent doing training that they'd have been doing *anyway* -- traps, flight school excursions. Really, the only "extra" the Navy had to cover was security for all the film crew on base and the carrier. Maybe $50,000 if they just picked up a carrier training run (pilots learning to trap on their new plane type) out of Norfolk or something.


The F-14 is done.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The Iran-Iraq War suggests that the F-14 would certainly be a threat (it's AIM-54A as well) to the F-teen series. And Iranian pilots are very experienced. It certainly wouldn't be so easy against USAF/USN jets and crews, but the F-14A can't be written off as "not a threat" so easily.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_205.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_214.shtml

PD

[Takeda Shingen]

Take My Breath Away might have been the theme song in Top Gun, but these days the F14A is unlikely to take anyone's breath away in a dogfight. And anyone going up against a modern fighter in an F-14A, really is going to be on a Highway to the Danger Zone.

Gah! Those are the worst puns that I have ever read on this forum. Ever.

[Rose]

Take My Breath Away might have been the theme song in Top Gun, but these days the F14A is unlikely to take anyone's breath away in a dogfight. And anyone going up against a modern fighter in an F-14A, really is going to be on a Highway to the Danger Zone.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

The Iran-Iraq War suggests that the F-14 would certainly be a threat (it's AIM-54A as well) to the F-teen series. And Iranian pilots are very experienced. It certainly wouldn't be so easy against USAF/USN jets and crews, but the F-14A can't be written off as "not a threat" so easily.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_205.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_214.shtml

PD
I don't think the AIM-54 was ever given to Iran in the first place. Even if it was, its not a very good missile against another fighter. Its a slow turner that was designed to take out the overwhelming numbers of Soviet Bombers before they could get close to a carrier (Soviet Doctrine was to overwhelm NATO carriers with shear numbers of bombers in the hopes that one bomber would get through to take the carrier out). The only AIM-54's ever fired in the middle of hostilities all missed - and they were fired against Iraqi fighters. One was the vulnerable MiG-25, and I forgot what the others were. One of the Aim-54's was even fired from AMRAAM range of 20 miles and still missed.

ANyway, this is why the F-14 / Aim-54 were retired. I'd go as far as saying that this was the final nail in the coffin for the F-14 in that it couldn't even get a kill with it's Pheonix missile. Sure they tried to sell it as a bomber later on, but it did not do so hot in this role and it was only an attempt to keep F-14's around I think by the people that loved them. Limited usefulness these days. Sure, you might get your kill with your Pheonix, but nothing is going to spoof the good old Aim-120 AMRAAM which is far better at killing its likely target - the fighter aircraft.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

The thing that makes the Phoenix a killer is it's speed. You don't know it's coming until it goes active, and by that time it's close and diving at you at Mach 5.

Why don't you think that Iran was ever given the AIM-54 in the first place. I didn't think that had ever been in dispute?

PD

[SUBMAN1]

The thing that makes the Phoenix a killer is it's speed. You don't know it's coming until it goes active, and by that time it's close and diving at you at Mach 5.

Why don't you think that Iran was ever given the AIM-54 in the first place. I didn't think that had ever been in dispute?

PD

Try Mach 3. An AIM-120 AMRAAM travels faster at greater than Mach 4. AIM-54 uses a controlled burn for distance flight and longevity. It also is one of the first missiles to use an advanced trajectory to enable it to reach out and touch you at longer ranges!

-S

[Chock]

I do know that in one well-publicised test, an F-14 fired four AIM-54's at four QF102 Drones, which had been modified to give a signature similar to MiG-21MFs; and on that test it destroyed two, hit and damaged a third, and missed the fourth, and in order to do that, its radar had to 'time-share' painting the four targets, as it could not lock and guide on all four at once. Still an impressive feat, but it nevertheless left it out of ammo with one (possibly two) 'hostiles' coming at it. So unless it could maintain a three to one or better kill ratio, and its enemy had less than that in superior numbers, the chances are it would lose, not including wingmen of course.

The Soviet doctrine of swamping enemies with less capable, but numerically stronger forces, has been shown to work on numerous occasions throughout history (though not always), but one only has to look at the T-34 versus the Panther and Tiger tanks in WW2 battles to see how it could and did work (albeit with horrendous casualties). The Panther was the German response to the T-34, but when the Wehrmacht asked why German designers couldn't make something like the T-34 for them, the response was that: 'they could, but it would never pass their quality control'! Still, that's the Germans for you.

In a war of attrition, simpler equipment is often a wiser choice, for example the MiG-25 and the MiG-31. Both of which the US and NATO were keen to get a close look at during the cold war. Eventually they did, when Viktor Belenko defected in a Soviet MiG-25 to Japan. Western designers were staggered to find that it was made mainly from stainless steel, rather than titanium or some other fancy metal, and had vacuum tubes in its avionics as opposed to transistors and microchips. Thus they began to dismiss it as a threat, however they did kind of skip over the point that even with all that old and simple technology in it, it was still a Mach-2.8-capable interceptor, which is what had got them all worked up in the first place, so much for military intelligence eh?

So I guess sometimes its perhaps foolish to underestimate a potential enemy, and I'm not suggesting that the F14s of Iran could be completely dismissed as no threat at all (providing they can be maintained in an airworthy state), but I do think that they are not a huge threat to a more modern aeroplane - especially one assisted by a vastly superior AWACs datalink system.

Anyway, let's hope we never find out.

:D Chock

[SUBMAN1]

By the way - a drone is much different than a pilot who not only can see the threat, but also has a huge interest in self preservation! Any pilot well versed in missile avoidance could probably defeat an AIM-54 with decent success.

By the way, the MiG-25 in question had two AIM-54's fired at it. One at less than 20 nm, and the other at 40 nm when it was clear the first missed. They both ended up missing. THere was a second engagement that I remember, which also missed.

-S

PS. THe F-14's radar can engage 6 targets simultanously, and track 24.

[PeriscopeDepth]

By the way - a drone is much different than a pilot who not only can see the threat, but also has a huge interest in self preservation! Any pilot well versed in missile avoidance could probably defeat an AIM-54 with decent success.

By the way, the MiG-25 in question had two AIM-54's fired at it. One at less than 20 nm, and the other at 40 nm when it was clear the first missed. They both ended up missing. THere was a second engagement that I remember, which also missed.

-S

PS. THe F-14's radar can engage 6 targets simultanously, and track 24.

AMRAAM's would have missed as well. IIRC the Foxbat was balls to the wall away from the Tomcats. Even modern long range missiles don't have that kind of endurance to keep up with a max e-pole target. And they learned that from the Iran Iraq War. See F-14 on RWR, go other way on burner.

PD

[moose1am]

The movable wings on the F14 fighter gave it the dual ability to have lots of life with the wings out and lots of speed with the wings swung back. The automatic manipulation of the F14's wings gave it better handling close to stall speeds in a dog fight. Today we use fixed wings but the body of the modern F22 rapors helps with lift at slow turning speeds and the new F22's have vectored thrusters which help control the planes stall parameter at slower speeds and higher angle of attack attitudes.

Beside the F14A has the first generation engines that never were powerful enough to push the F14 around. They were bad performing engines that killed a lot of good F14 pilots. And the electronics of these Iranian F14A is .... well older than Moses. Transistors and resistors have a shelf life when the PNP materials are no longer going to function as designed. They rot over time and materials go bad. So the electrons in those electronics will misbehave and foil Iran's plan to use those planes. And the more the train in them the faster they go bad. So they sit there and don't fly them and don't get the flight time necessary to remain proficient. Not to mention the physical G forces that those planes can deal to a pilot in a 6 G turn.

The F14A's were not a good plane. Only with the addition of newer more powerful engines did this plane start to perform right in the 1980's.

Iran will definitely not be controlling it's air space if the USA goes to war with Iran in the Middle East.



The Iran-Iraq War suggests that the F-14 would certainly be a threat (it's AIM-54A as well) to the F-teen series. And Iranian pilots are very experienced. It certainly wouldn't be so easy against USAF/USN jets and crews, but the F-14A can't be written off as "not a threat" so easily.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_205.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_214.shtml

PD
I don't think the AIM-54 was ever given to Iran in the first place. Even if it was, its not a very good missile against another fighter. Its a slow turner that was designed to take out the overwhelming numbers of Soviet Bombers before they could get close to a carrier (Soviet Doctrine was to overwhelm NATO carriers with shear numbers of bombers in the hopes that one bomber would get through to take the carrier out). The only AIM-54's ever fired in the middle of hostilities all missed - and they were fired against Iraqi fighters. One was the vulnerable MiG-25, and I forgot what the others were. One of the Aim-54's was even fired from AMRAAM range of 20 miles and still missed.

ANyway, this is why the F-14 / Aim-54 were retired. I'd go as far as saying that this was the final nail in the coffin for the F-14 in that it couldn't even get a kill with it's Pheonix missile. Sure they tried to sell it as a bomber later on, but it did not do so hot in this role and it was only an attempt to keep F-14's around I think by the people that loved them. Limited usefulness these days. Sure, you might get your kill with your Pheonix, but nothing is going to spoof the good old Aim-120 AMRAAM which is far better at killing its likely target - the fighter aircraft.

-S

[moose1am]

The USA's Phoenix Aim 54 missile's cost 1 million dollars apiece. They were designed to shoot down Soviet Backfire Bombers. At the end of WWII an American B29 bomber landed in Russian Territory and the Russians copied the design before ever returning the bomber to the US Air Force if they did that. They may have just kept the plane. They reverse engineers the B29's design and developed the Backfire Bomber which was capable of carrying cruise missiles. The Aim 54 was also designed to shoot down low flying cruise missile. It was not designed to take out small maneuverable jet fighters. Those jets were to be shot down with the AAARM medium range missles that were fire and forget not radar guided by the plane doing the shooting. The F14's carried three different types of missiles. They also carried the short range Fire and Forget Heat Seeking Sidewinders.

To avoid a Aim54 you first have to know it's there and where it's going. You just fly perpendicular to that missile's flight path an turn into the missile as it closes on you. There is no way that Aim 54 Horse of a missile can match your planes turn radius. It will pass right behind your plane if this maneuver is performed correctly and timed right.



I do know that in one well-publicized test, an F-14 fired four AIM-54's at four QF102 Drones, which had been modified to give a signature similar to MiG-21MFs; and on that test it destroyed two, hit and damaged a third, and missed the fourth, and in order to do that, its radar had to 'time-share' painting the four targets, as it could not lock and guide on all four at once. Still an impressive feat, but it nevertheless left it out of ammo with one (possibly two) 'hostiles' coming at it. So unless it could maintain a three to one or better kill ratio, and its enemy had less than that in superior numbers, the chances are it would lose, not including wingmen of course.

The Soviet doctrine of swamping enemies with less capable, but numerically stronger forces, has been shown to work on numerous occasions throughout history (though not always), but one only has to look at the T-34 versus the Panther and Tiger tanks in WW2 battles to see how it could and did work (albeit with horrendous casualties). The Panther was the German response to the T-34, but when the Wehrmacht asked why German designers couldn't make something like the T-34 for them, the response was that: 'they could, but it would never pass their quality control'! Still, that's the Germans for you.

In a war of attrition, simpler equipment is often a wiser choice, for example the MiG-25 and the MiG-31. Both of which the US and NATO were keen to get a close look at during the cold war. Eventually they did, when Viktor Belenko defected in a Soviet MiG-25 to Japan. Western designers were staggered to find that it was made mainly from stainless steel, rather than titanium or some other fancy metal, and had vacuum tubes in its avionics as opposed to transistors and microchips. Thus they began to dismiss it as a threat, however they did kind of skip over the point that even with all that old and simple technology in it, it was still a Mach-2.8-capable interceptor, which is what had got them all worked up in the first place, so much for military intelligence eh?

So I guess sometimes its perhaps foolish to underestimate a potential enemy, and I'm not suggesting that the F14s of Iran could be completely dismissed as no threat at all (providing they can be maintained in an airworthy state), but I do think that they are not a huge threat to a more modern aeroplane - especially one assisted by a vastly superior AWACs datalink system.

Anyway, let's hope we never find out.

:D Chock

[SUBMAN1]

AMRAAM's would have missed as well. IIRC the Foxbat was balls to the wall away from the Tomcats. Even modern long range missiles don't have that kind of endurance to keep up with a max e-pole target. And they learned that from the Iran Iraq War. See F-14 on RWR, go other way on burner.

PD
I'd have to disagree with you that balls to the wall on the MiG-25 had anything to do with it. The Pheonix missed long before its 100 nm range and we all know the MiG-25 is not a real turner, and defintely can't do it without bleeding major speed. That thing is a straight line aircraft. The second pheonix was fired at 40 nm when it became clear the first one missed. Even the Phoenix should have full power available at 40 nm and the rocket motor should still be functioning properly. Basically the MiG-25 outmanuvered it.

Basically, a crappy poor manuverbility MiG-25 (The same aircraft in the same engagement no less) defeated a million $ missile. Not once, but twice. Nice.

-S

[moose1am]

Future air wars will be fought with real time human controlled drone planes that can out turn a human occupied airplane. These new Radio controlled airplanes will be flown over enemy territory by an US operator sitting in a air conditioned war room back in the States or on some foreign soil US air base.

Right now the USA's biggest concern should be preventing Russia or China or anyone else for that matter taking out our GPS satellites in fixed orbits. We should be developing space based weapons that will defend or gps satellites. This program hopefully is covertly under way right now. Hopefully it's a secrete program that's been in development for a long time and is fully functional now. Because we need to keep a close eye on China and Russia if we want to preserve our way of life and keep the oil flowing to the USA from the Middle East.



By the way - a drone is much different than a pilot who not only can see the threat, but also has a huge interest in self preservation! Any pilot well versed in missile avoidance could probably defeat an AIM-54 with decent success.

By the way, the MiG-25 in question had two AIM-54's fired at it. One at less than 20 nm, and the other at 40 nm when it was clear the first missed. They both ended up missing. There was a second engagement that I remember, which also missed.

-S

PS. The F-14's radar can engage 6 targets simultaneously, and track 24.

[SUBMAN1]

Future air wars will be fought with real time human controlled drone planes that can out turn a human occupied airplane. These new Radio controlled airplanes will be flown over enemy territory by an US operator sitting in a air conditioned war room back in the States or on some foreign soil US air base.

Right now the USA's biggest concern should be preventing Russia or China or anyone else for that matter taking out our GPS satellites in fixed orbits. We should be developing space based weapons that will defend or gps satellites. This program hopefully is covertly under way right now. Hopefully it's a secrete program that's been in development for a long time and is fully functional now. Because we need to keep a close eye on China and Russia if we want to preserve our way of life and keep the oil flowing to the USA from the Middle East.

You forget about laser ring gyro's which should give close to the accuracy of a GPS system in the event of failure. This is why the F-16 for example spends about 6 to 8 minutes sitting on the ground to align these gyro's prior to takeoff. GPS guided bombs also include them incase the signal is lost after bomb release.

Last but not least, to get a rough position, you only need 3 sats to triangulate your position. It would take a lot of effort to knock all of them out without some US nukes visiting your back door in response.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

AMRAAM's would have missed as well. IIRC the Foxbat was balls to the wall away from the Tomcats. Even modern long range missiles don't have that kind of endurance to keep up with a max e-pole target. And they learned that from the Iran Iraq War. See F-14 on RWR, go other way on burner.

PD
I'd have to disagree with you that balls to the wall on the MiG-25 had anything to do with it. The Pheonix missed long before its 100 nm range and we all know the MiG-25 is not a real turner, and defintely can't do it without bleeding major speed. That thing is a straight line aircraft. The second pheonix was fired at 40 nm when it became clear the first one missed. Even the Phoenix should have full power available at 40 nm and the rocket motor should still be functioning properly. Basically the MiG-25 outmanuvered it.

Basically, a crappy poor manuverbility MiG-25 (The same aircraft in the same engagement no less) defeated a million $ missile. Not once, but twice. Nice.

-S
The MiG-25 was the fastest combat aircraft on the planet still in service until the F-22 IIRC. It dragged the missiles in burner, which is REALLY effective. Maneuverability had nothing to do with it, it's pure kinematics. It's how I beat most ARH shots in the modern flight sims I play. :)

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

And here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-2708-start-30.html

An F-16 pilot says they could drag Phoenix missiles from as close as 12 miles in without being hit in simulated combat. Which makes me believe the success of the Tomcat in the Iran Iraq War was mostly due to the enemy's poor RWR equipment/training. I'll bet the Foxbat's engaged at 20 miles were locked before they were fired upon. And if an F-16 can drag a Phoenix from 12 miles, a Foxbat shouldn't have problems doing the same at even closer (or as you say 20nm). And every source I've ever seen says the Foxbats were running away in that engagement, not maneuvering.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

The MiG-25 was the fastest combat aircraft on the planet still in service until the F-22 IIRC. It dragged the missiles in burner, which is REALLY effective. Maneuverability had nothing to do with it, it's pure kinematics. It's how I beat most ARH shots in the modern flight sims I play. :)

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

PD
If you like your sims, fire up Falcon AF and put an F-14 against the MiG-25. It will show you what I am talking about. The MiG is not getting away from the missile, but can only avoid it. Make sure they are Ace pilots.

Now put an F-14 on you in the F-16 and test. Think putting the AIM-54 on the perpendicular and draw a half cone in the sky prior to impact. The AIM-54 will always miss. Try it with an AIM-120 and the story changes - you are dead meat! :p The only problem is, if the F-14 is at medium range or less, he always follows up with another shot, so don't find yourself low and slow - make use of that afterburner and prepare for missile #2! If the F-14 clocks in to 10 to 15 nm, he may let loose an Aim-120 - make sure you send back the favor becuase if you don't, he will guide that thing in to the point where the missile goes terminal for little chance of escape. If your missile is inbound to him, he has to break his lock to avoid it, giving you a margin of error to get away from the inbound AIM-120.

Basically, I fear the Pheonix for its ability to reach our and touch you and it will still have its kenetic energy from extreme ranges because that thing has a controlled burn on the rocket motor. This means you can be at 40 nm from the launch point and the missile will still have 100% kenetic energy and a burning rocket motor to home in on you even at 75+ nm. Using a a dragging method on the Aim-54 is not going to help you much if the missile still has a burn on the motor - it is smaller and lighter and has more thrust to weight than your aircraft so nothing you can do is going to stop it.

However, forcing its hand through exploiting its desire for lead pursuit is how it is defeated. A bomber has no chance since it is slow and lumbering, but any fighter aircraft has a very high likelyhood of avoidance through making this very heavy missile (Its archilles heel) into radical vector changes. Giving it a nice narrow line to follow (The result of parallel flight paths) is the best method for getting killed by this thing since not even a MiG-25 can outrun it - it would be out of fuel practically before doing so, and the engines in that thing burn up at Mach 2.8.

-S

PS. The F-22 is not as fast as an F-15 from what I have read. It can out-accelerate an F-15 when the F-15 is in full afterburner and the F-22 is still in military power (imagine that?), but at around Mach 2, some sort of shockwave forms around the inlets of that thing (Due to the stealth design of the inlets) preventing it from going any faster. Then again, it is classified, so this may not be true. This still makes the MiG-25 the fastest combat aircraft that is known in operation (though I bet Aurora or Switchblade is much faster). Being this fast is not a big deal though because an F-15 can not go quite as fast, but it has many times the range at speed as the Russians found out - The MiG-25 can go a little faster, but runs out of gas very quickly - this allowed the F-15's in Egypt to catch up and still shoot them down after the fact - as shown in Egypt. The F-15 stopped all MiG-25 recon flights over the deserts and effectively put the MiG-25 out of action as a useful recon plane.

PPS. The MiG-25 was a waste of Russian expenditure anyway. It was designed as an interceptor to the XB-70 - soemthign the US never made. That is why it was so short ranged - it was designed to shoot down only one plane that the US never ended up making and then it would return to base immediately.

[Heibges]

I believe the F-15 was also built to fight a plane that the Soviet's never built?

[fatty]

I believe the F-15 was also built to fight a plane that the Soviet's never built?

You could say that 75% of the equipment in the U.S. military was meant to fight a war that never happened :p

[SUBMAN1]

I believe the F-15 was also built to fight a plane that the Soviet's never built?

Well now, that depends. The F-15 was built to shoot down the mythical super MiG-25. The problem was, the MiG-25 wasn't so 'Super' as originally thought! So no, the Soviets actually built the plane the F-15 was designed for, but the F-15 was sort of over-built to take on a better plane than the one it ended up having to deal with.

I guess thats a double edged sword on the F-15's part - The fact that is was so good back then means that it is still a viable aircraft today!

-S

[Lagger123987]

I love F-14s too bad they're goin to be in airshows only now.

[Tchocky]

Mig-25 may be fast, but it doesn't accelerate very quickly. If I remember correctly, a Soviet air manual ranked the MiG-23 as both faster and quicker than F-15 and F-16 at low level.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I believe the F-15 was also built to fight a plane that the Soviet's never built?
You could say that 75% of the equipment in the U.S. military was meant to fight a war that never happened :p

They still build to Cold War specs. JSF anyone?

PD

[SUBMAN1]

I believe the F-15 was also built to fight a plane that the Soviet's never built?
You could say that 75% of the equipment in the U.S. military was meant to fight a war that never happened :p
They still build to Cold War specs. JSF anyone?

PD
They have to. It is not an option. History has always shown what happens to rich countries that fail to protect themselves, and with the US being the richest country the world has ever known throughout all history, actually richer than all past empires put together, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out what would be its fate without its techie weapon systems. AMerica builds those weapons not to fight, but as a deterrant - something it definitely needed in the cold war.

F-35 is now needed as a cheap alternative to F-22. We also need F-22 as well. This is due to Russia building more sophisticated aircraft than anything fielded by the Americans - THe thrust vectoring SU-30 is an example - a much better plane than anything in the US inventory. China now flies SU-30, as well as India.

Our pilots borrowed India's SU-30 and went up against our pilots in our own F-15's and F-16's. The guys in the SU-30's kicked the butt of our pilots in F-15's and F-16's each and every engagement. So to say we don't need F-35 and F-22 is not reality.

One more thing Russia is doing is making SAM systems that are not only cheap, but extremely effective and near impossible to evade by our current generations of fighters. These systems are also being sold to Rogue states and the US will eventually have to deal with them sooner or later. This is why Stealth capability is no longer not an option for the future of fighter aircraft. All aircraft must have Stealth capability - period. You need to give the plane in the sky a fighting chance to survive, and that window is quickly closing on AMericas antiquated aircraft.

Does anyone realize we are flying the 'oldest' airforce in the entire history of the United States Airforce? Most of our aircraft or fast becoming antiquated junk heeps barely able to do the job they are being asked to do in the face of ever increasing enemy technology. Their only saving grace is the excellent training of US pilots who make up in tactics for the failings of their aircraft. On top of this, the US has only had to go up against typically older generations of ex Soviet fighters. THis will not be the case forever. Two examples where the US will face newer generation of aircraft are Taiwan and Korea - both loom as a flash points.

F-35 and F-22 is a must to survive these future fights. We can do it with the F-15's and F-16's as well, but expect horror and shock from the public as you get very close to a 1 to 1 kill ratio between US pilots and their enemy.

Basically the public won't stomach that since they can't even stomach the 3000 dead in Iraq let alone high combat loses in the air in some future conflict! Remember Vietnam? THey had over 50,000 US dead dead in half the time that we have been in Iraq. The American public has grown soft, so we cannot tolerate high loss ratios in the air, and besides, an unfair fight with these new aircraft is exactly what we want - deterrance.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Mig-25 may be fast, but it doesn't accelerate very quickly. If I remember correctly, a Soviet air manual ranked the MiG-23 as both faster and quicker than F-15 and F-16 at low level.

MiG-23 accelerates fast, but I don't think that fast. Sure you aren't confusing it with MiG-31?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Temptin' me to start a JSF thread Subman... :ping:

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Temptin' me to start a JSF thread Subman... :ping:

PD

Maybe you should! I'd rather have more F22's and less F35's, but I'll take F-35's if thats all we can afford right now! F-35's are a much better plane than pretty much anything short of an F-22, so if the choice is no extra F-22's and a bunch of cheaper F-35's - I'll take em!

-S

[TLAM Strike]

Well I just read "Black Aces High" about a F-14A squadron in the Kosovo war and as it turned out it could do things the newer F/A-18 Hornets couldn't. Its FLIR (the TARPS system I think its called) system could locate targets and twice the distance. Now I doubt Iran has any TARPS pods laying around but the point is don't count out an old aircraft simply because its old, the F-14A did pretty damn good againt the folks who shot down the F-117. :yep:

As for having or not having AIM-54 missiles I'm sure Iran could retorfit any of those long range suckers Russia sold them like the AA-9 or AA-6. Heck with its payload it would make a damn good bomber.

As for the JSF the F/A-35 and P-8 are proably the biggest mistakes the USN has made since canning Diesel Boats. :down:

[Officerpuppy]

Cant we all just get along?:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Well I just read "Black Aces High" about a F-14A squadron in the Kosovo war and as it turned out it could do things the newer F/A-18 Hornets couldn't. Its FLIR (the TARPS system I think its called) system could locate targets and twice the distance. Now I doubt Iran has any TARPS pods laying around but the point is don't count out an old aircraft simply because its old, the F-14A did pretty damn good againt the folks who shot down the F-117. :yep:

As for having or not having AIM-54 missiles I'm sure Iran could retorfit any of those long range suckers Russia sold them like the AA-9 or AA-6. Heck with its payload it would make a damn good bomber.

As for the JSF the F/A-35 and P-8 are proably the biggest mistakes the USN has made since canning Diesel Boats. :down:

I'd have to disagree with you. The version of F/A-18C model that is being replaced is no where in the same league as the F-35. The F-35 beats it in every single catagory, especially range, stealth, and combat effectiveness. The F-35 also incorporates many of the F-22 technologies as well. F/A-18E basically replaced the F-14, and its got a built in FLIR that is many generations newer and much more finely detailed than its F-14 counterpart. The F/A-18C is being retired so the F-14 seems to have lost its last advantage when compared to the F/A-18E. Last but not least, the F/A-18E can carry a much larger payload than the F-14, adn only requires 20% of the maintenance. The F-14 required many ground hours in maintenance to keep it flying for every single flight hour. Its a resource pig.

The upgrades the Navy is doing is the best thing they can do in my opnion. ALl these antiquated aircraft need to be retired since they have outlived their usefullness.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Here is the internal FLIR used by the F/A-18E:

The AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) is a multi-sensor, electro-optical targeting pod incorporating infrared (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Infrared), low-light television (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Television) camera, laser (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Laser) rangefinder/target designator, and laser spot tracker developed and manufactured by Raytheon (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Raytheon). It is used to provide navigation and targeting for military aircraft (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Military_aircraft) in adverse weather and using precision-guided weapons such as laser-guided bombs (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb). It is intended to replace the earlier AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/AN/AAS-38) pod in US Navy (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/US_Navy) service.
ATFLIR is 72 in (183 cm) long, weighs 420 lb (191 kg), and has a slant range of 30 mi (48 km), said to be useful at altitude of up to 50,000 ft (15,240 m). It has fewer parts than many previous systems, which is intended to improve serviceability (although early examples, in service with VFA-115 'Eagles' (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/VFA-115) in 2003 (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/2003) experienced problems). Crews indicate that it offers much greater target resolution and image accuracy than previous systems.
ATFLIR presently is used only by the US Navy (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/US_Navy) on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet), although it is compatible with the earlier F/A-18C/D. It is normally carried on one of the fuselage stations otherwise used for AIM-120 AMRAAM (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM) missiles. Current plans call for a total of 574 pods. As of Jan. 2006, Raytheon has delivered 100 pods.

[SUBMAN1]

This is rather interesting to hear on F-35:

Directed-energy weapons

Directed-energy weapons (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../wiki/Directed-energy_weapon) may be installed in conventional takeoff F-35 Lightning IIs, whose lack of a direct lift fan frees up about 100 ft³ (2.8 m³) of space with access to a drive shaft capable of delivering more than 27,000 hp (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../wiki/Horsepower) (20 MW (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../wiki/Megawatt)).[39] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_note-32)[40] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_note-33) Some concepts, including solid state lasers (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../wiki/Laser#Solid-state_lasers) and high-power microwave (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../wiki/Microwave) beams, may be nearing operational status.
More info:
Frida Berrigan, "Now You See, Now You Don't. The Pentagon's blinding lasers," (http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/24/news1.shtml) In These Times, September 27, 2002: "Lockheed Martin (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin) and Raytheon (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Raytheon), who together had $20.3 billion in Pentagon contracts in 2001, are collaborating on development of directed energy weapons--powerful 100-kilowatt infrared lasers for use on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter."
THe whole article:
Now You See, Now You Don’t
The Pentagon’s blinding lasers.
By Frida Berrigan

U.S. weapons manufacturers are hard at work developing futuristic precision weapons that promise to keep Americans even further out of harm’s way: lasers.

Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, who together had $20.3 billion in Pentagon contracts in 2001, are collaborating on development of “directed energy weapons”—powerful 100-kilowatt infrared lasers for use on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The JSF program, worth an estimated $200 billion, is Lockheed Martin’s crowning accomplishment. If all goes well, the Pentagon will soon order as many as 3,000 F-35s, making it the largest acquisition program in history. This $40 million fighter plane will be ubiquitous in the U.S. military and throughout the world. England, Norway, Italy, Singapore, Turkey, Israel and others have already expressed serious interest as well.

The JSF laser system could be used to destroy communication lines, power grids, or fuel dumps, or to zero in on part of a vehicle, like the engine. The weapons, which are scheduled to be ready for testing in 2010, would be covert, powerful and untraceable. “There’s no huge explosion associated with its employment, there are no pieces and parts left behind that someone can analyze to say, ‘this came from the United States,’ ” explains an unnamed Lockheed Martin official quoted in Aviation Week and Space Technology in July. “The damage is localized, and it is hard to tell where it came from and when it happened. It is all pretty mysterious.”

So mysterious, in fact, that engineers are only beginning to consider what the lasers will do to people. According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, military planners in Israel are not pursuing directed-energy weapons because of concerns they “might result in new, unanticipated types of collateral damage.” For example, the weapons could disrupt electricity at civilian sites or affect pacemakers.

They could also blind and injure people in the vicinity. As Gordon Hengst of the Air Force Research Laboratory in New Mexico, where the research on the lasers is being conducted, points out: “The reflected energy typically will cover large amounts of real estate and space, since the energy is spreading in many directions.”

He adds that if the target is moving, the possibility of refraction is greater. According to New Scientist magazine, the human eye is very vulnerable to light from lasers: “Safety guidelines warn against staring into beams of only a few milliwatts. … The unpredictable reflections scattered from a 100-kilowatt laser could be devastating.”

Weapons manufacturers concede that blinding and other injuries could occur, but say the benefits outweigh the concerns. “As with all weapons, there is potential for inflicting collateral damage,” says Tom Burris, a Lockheed scientist.

And surprisingly enough, despite the fact that the United States signed the Geneva Convention’s Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons in 1991, these weapons are exempt. The convention prohibits “laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision.” [Emphasis added.] But a small phrase is a loophole big enough for a fighter plane to fly through. Stephen Goose of Human Rights Watch explains, “That protocol was purposely drafted to avoid capturing other types of laser weapons systems.”

Laser weapons blind, whether or not they are “specifically designed” to do so as their “sole combat function.” They are also the wave of the future, says Mike Booen of Raytheon: “We want to replace high explosives [like bombs and missiles] with directed energy weapons.” The Pentagon has been investing accordingly.

Laser weapons seem like the answer to Washington’s prayers for an antiseptic warfare that plays well on television and will not offend the American public with civilian deaths or U.S. casualties. But that’s easier said than done. The Afghan war, which is costing U.S. taxpayers $2.5 billion a month and relies on high-tech weapons and sophisticated communications equipment, has produced deadly errors with macabre regularity. With laser weapons, we can only expect more of the same. http://www.inthesetimes.com/global/end.gif


http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/24/news1.shtml

[Oberon]

:o :o :o :o :o

DEW on an F-35...

My respect for these little fighters just went up a notch. :up:

[SUBMAN1]

:o :o :o :o :o

DEW on an F-35...

My respect for these little fighters just went up a notch. :up:

Carefull though - this may be the CIA's wet dream, and undetectable aircraft with an undectable weapon that can't be traced back to the people that pulled the trigger, but now when something happens in the world and something is detroyed unexplained, where are the worlds eyes going to look? At the country that can do this is where. So even though this will strike fear into those that would do harm to the US of A or even the UK, it is also a double edged sword! Just remember that.

-S

[Oberon]

:o :o :o :o :o

DEW on an F-35...

My respect for these little fighters just went up a notch. :up:

Carefull though - this may be the CIA's wet dream, and undetectable aircraft with an undectable weapon that can't be traced back to the people that pulled the trigger, but now when something happens in the world and something is detroyed unexplained, where are the worlds eyes going to look? At the country that can do this is where. So even though this will strike fear into those that would do harm to the US of A or even the UK, it is also a double edged sword! Just remember that.

-S

Oh yes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. To be able to do things without consequences leads humanity down a dangerous path.

[U-533]

I can donate a few rounds of 30.06 or 50cals...

Just march the bastards in front of my weapon...

Free rides to Paradise your 72 Virgins are waiting now!

[The Avon Lady]

House OKs Ban on F-14 Part Sales to Iran (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PMR7LG1&show_article=1&cat=0).