Please contribute to Iran's military

[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.

Chock

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Chock

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Chock

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.

Chock

[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.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Rose]

Originally Posted by 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.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: