Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-14 Tomcat.... What should have been!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • xerxes
    replied
    Originally posted by citanon View Post
    Just goes to show: it pays to be rich. =)

    Also, 30% greater range is coming to 5th gen US combat aircraft:
    Looks great .. but complexity also means more spare parts, more overhauls etc.
    Bottom line: more cost to taxpayers ... while more profit to GE shareholders

    Leave a comment:


  • xerxes
    replied
    Not sure how many, but most definitely their numbers are in the single digit.

    Overall, the footages released by Kremlin looks to be nice show of Russian military might, its capability ...
    I got to say this, the pictures of Tu-160 White Swan flanked by Su-30MK looks majestic

    I wonder which of their hardware is being targeted as potential export sales by their marketing team
    Possibly the Tu-22M Backfires ..
    Last edited by xerxes; 23 Nov 15,, 04:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by xerxes View Post
    saw this earlier
    some of them still in service: a pair Iranian tomcat escorting a Russian bear over Syria (i presume) at about 1:30 of the vid

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/new...-as-1743807778
    That's probably all two of the airframes that are still airworthy; if the US Navy had trouble keeping those things in the air towards the end, I can only imagine how hard it is for the Iranians, with no spares to be had. I'm guessing they cannibalized the other 77 airframes they had to keep those two flying.

    Leave a comment:


  • xerxes
    replied
    saw this earlier
    some of them still in service: a pair Iranian tomcat escorting a Russian bear over Syria (i presume) at about 1:30 of the vid

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/new...-as-1743807778

    Leave a comment:


  • bfng3569
    replied
    I cam across this by accident... but it seemed fairly interesting.

    A historical perspective of the evolution of the Grumman F-14 Tomcat design presented by former Northrop Grumman VP Mike Ciminera. Produced by Betty Wheaton and Jarel Wheaton for Peninsula Seniors

    about an hour long.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I think the Tomcat may have had some of the best nose art out there.
    Love the bloodshot eyes in the AIM-54

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    I think the Tomcat may have had some of the best nose art out there.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	189054.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	184.9 KB
ID:	1467598

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post

    Russia operates 930 T-90As. Even with almost 3000 T-80s operated by Russia, the number is still smaller than the much more expensive M1. How interesting... Cheaper doesn't mean more....
    Just goes to show: it pays to be rich. =)

    Also, 30% greater range is coming to 5th gen US combat aircraft:

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by citanon View Post
    Along those lines:

    http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-...combat#gallery

    Notice in this simulation the F35s always had the initiative to engage or disengage. Through a combination of information sharing or information denial, they could move themselves into advantageous positions relative to the Su35s and chose to either fight or not fight. The Su35s did not have this luxury.

    The simulation was done first with meteors then with AMRAAMs to achieve the exact same results.
    I found another caveat for this set up:

    Western fighter pilots can expect to encounter the Su-35S in significant numbers. (Sukhoi)
    There are currently 34 Su-35S in service.

    There are at least 115 F-35s built as of November 2014.

    That's like how M1 Abrams detractors always say Russian tanks are almost as good, but much cheaper and could be fielded in large numbers. But the reality is there are over 10,000 M1s built and US army operates almost 5500 of them while the Marines operate another 400.

    Russia operates 930 T-90As. Even with almost 3000 T-80s operated by Russia, the number is still smaller than the much more expensive M1. How interesting... Cheaper doesn't mean more....
    Last edited by gunnut; 11 Sep 15,, 21:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    I'll give you a much more recent example.

    Instantaneous communication does wonders for morale.
    Excellent example...I would've loved to have seen the looks on the faces of those Northern Alliance soldiers who called for air support, within the time it took to have a cigarette, saw Taliban positions being flattened from the air.

    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    What is this obsession with "dog fight?"

    Why maneuver the air frame with a human pilot inside when we can launch an all aspect AIM-9X and let it do the turning for us?
    "Dog fight" is familiar and therefore trusted.

    The new way of doing things, in warfare as probably no other endeavor, is always greeting with skepticism, sometimes bitterly so.

    One of my favorite examples:
    Apparently, even after Krupp's new cast steel cannon thoroughly crushed Napoleon III's armies and enabled the birth of the Second Reich....there were still diehards in the Prussian military that pined and schemed for the return of the old school bronze cannon.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    What is this obsession with "dog fight?"

    Why maneuver the air frame with a human pilot inside when we can launch an all aspect AIM-9X and let it do the turning for us?

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Well I suppose you could snap a few selfies...

    But I was thinking this type of scenario: Let's say some light cavalry scouts far from friendly lines spot enemy infantry. Rather than having to gallop back to allied forces to deliver their report, which of course is only received by local commanders under further riders are sent out to advise the higher-ups even further back, the scouts simply pull out their smart phones and use the txt/email function to instantaneously report back to all units [brigade, division, corps, headquarters etc] of enemy movements, backed up by photographic proof of their sighting, confirming that such-and-such French corps is on the move ("Notice the various brigade standards").

    Thus, whilst your enemy can only transmit his scouting reports as fast as the fastest horse, your commanders have instant actionable information. They know what you know within seconds or minutes of your sighting, rather than hours (if ever). No, it's probably not as simple and cut-and-dried as that, and Yes, they have to actually use that information, but they're certainly in a better position with that information than without it.

    Consider how much of a revolution in military affairs the telegraph was...information technology in its infancy.
    I'll give you a much more recent example.

    When US forces went into Afghanistan, initially with special ops rallying the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban on the ground, our guys told the Afghan fighters that we would supply air cover. They were hesitant. Many of them have fought for and against the Soviets during the 1980s. Soviets also flew air to ground missions. But the difference was time scale. Soviet commanders and allies would request air support and a bombing run would come days later. Our special ops guys demonstrated that they could call down bombs on target inside 15 minutes from B-52s orbiting overhead almost 24/7. The Afghan fighters were impressed and fought with more determination.

    Instantaneous communication does wonders for morale.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tankersteve
    replied
    http://warisboring.com/articles/grou...eid=c684da70eb

    Not sure if this has been mentioned previously - the destruction of the remaining US Tomcats. The video is a bit disheartening...

    Tankersteve

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    There's a guy named Gums over at f-16.net who flew in the early model Vipers. From his recollection the Viper's early control laws were a bit wonky as well. It took additional development work after the plane entered service to achieve the maneuverability beloved by pilots today.

    It seems that any modern fighter will go thorough these cycles of development, but the F35, being the first fighter of the internet age, has become a celebrity program with its own cottage industry of muckraking bloggers driving site traffic with exposes of development details, or intheir words, major problems.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    Fairly certain that's the one...certainly it talks about the same thing I was remembering.

    What drives me just a little batty is the disingenuous language used in virtually every article I've read, that describes the two combatants in the F-16 vs F-35 test:

    The F-16D is typically called a "70s-era fighter" or something to that effect. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that said Viper didn't roll off the General Dynamics production line, circa 1975. Especially since the Delta didn't enter production until 1984. Another prediction is the "guts" of that Viper weren't from 1975 or 1984 either. In other words, what Block was this F-16D?

    The F-35 is typically described as if it's a front-line active duty fighter that's passed IOC and into squadron service, fully operational in every way...like its Viper foe.

    Bit of a disconnect there I'd say.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X