David Hingtgen

Iranian F-14 stuff: Final air-to-air count: 159-3. Also, 34 probables, 2 Exocets, and 1 "C601", a cruise missile I've never heard of. 40 kills from Phoenix, with 1 instance of "4 planes, 1 missile" and 2 instances of "2 planes, 1 missile". All cruise missile kills with Phoenixes. 15 Sparrow kills, 3 gun kills (mostly if not all helicopoters), and the rest (~100) being Sidewinder kills. Yes, most of these were dogfights. Over a dozen MiG-25's downed, all with Phoenixes. Many occured with the MiG-25 at max speed and max altitude. Losses: 2 of the 3 was a pair ambushed by 4 Mirage F1EQ's carrying some of the very first Matra Super 530D missiles made rushed to Iraq from France. The Matra Super 530D was programmed to home in on the AWG-9 radar emissions and can go over Mach 5. Attacked on 4 sides from the 4 specially-equipped Mirages the 2 Tomcats were destroyed. A constant thread through the book is the attempt to jam the AIM-54 or the AWG-9. Never happened. F-4's could be jammed to the point of not even being able to fire AIM-7's, but F-14's in the same formation would be fine. Once, a lone F-14 was being jammed by 11 different ECM planes simultaneously (a "jamming ambush" to try to protect a strike mission from the F-14) and it only took the AWG-9 like 3 secs to sort it all out, and worked perfectly. New jamming planes came and went, from France, USSR, Egypt, etc--none worked. But by 1988, they had enough info and practice that if they couldn't jam it, they could sure track and home in on it. While F-14's often flew with the AWG-9 in standby mode and simply used AIM-9's in dogfights, the above scenario did work. The other loss was 2 F-14's against 8 Mirages. The F-14 lost took 2 Matra Magics and 1 Super Matra 530D. It still survived to escape on 1 engine, but the engine failed soon after getting back to Iran, and they had to eject. No F-14 was lost to a single missile, it always took several. Russia and stuff: Russia supported Iraq, not Iran. There was no exchanges of anything. The source of the infamous "F-14 given to Russia"? A few were shot down by SAM's, as happens to many an F-15/16/18. One of these was shot down in Iraq, and it was carrying an AIM-54. Iraq boxed it up and sent it to the USSR. It was a very "broken" F-14 with a crushed AIM-54, but they probably learned something from it. Alternate missiles/engines: Nothing really. Only the initial talks with PW for F100's in the late 70's. The HAWK SAM was tested and even fired, but it really didn't work well, only 2 were ever believed fired in comat. 1986 or so. Spare parts: Heh heh. 1985/1986---really running low on parts, but so was the US Navy. You'll find many US F-14's lost in that period too. Stuff always wears out at the same time--whether it's the B-1B, F-15, F-16, or whatever, they always crash in groups. So Iran's late-70's-build F-14's were having problems at the same time US ones were. So availability was low. Down to ~30 operation, only half with working AWG-9's. AIM-54's were beyond shelf life, but some 200 still left. 1985/1986--also, "Irangate". We just loved sending stuff "illegally" to Iran all through the 80's, and of course they always asked for F-14 parts. And they got quite a bit. Also got parts to "revive" nearly every AIM-54, and parts to upgrade a few dozen to AIM-54B standards or thereabouts. It wasn't until the late 80's/90's they really started making their own parts. Also, they could get ANYTHING on the black market. Even flight data computers and the main weapons computer. Cost a lot, but availability wasn't much of a problem--again, training/purges. A lot of F-14 pilots were relegated to RIO or even mechanic, with "Ayatollah-approved" ex-F-4 pilots actually flying the planes. 100 mechanics cannot keep 80 planes working. They just kept the "best" ones working, to the point of 400 mx hours per flight hour. As such, many planes had double-digit kills and thousands of hours in combat. However--once they started, they were really good at making their own parts. Almost indistinguishable from Grumman's. Even converted some AWG-9 parts to solid-state electronics, making them lighter and improving range/power. (And easier to fix, since the more "AWG-9-specific" parts they eliminated, the easier to get parts) CIA even had a few Iranian defections to Israel occur, including 1 F-14, to see just what they'd done. Also--Bombcats! F-14's carrying Mk83's. Not done often, since there was a lot of sky to patrol and only an F-14 could snag a MiG-25, and the F-4's could bomb just as well, but it happened. Finally, missile stuff: Standard load for a lone Tomcat is 2 of each missile type. Standard load for a pair (they only ever sent 1 or 2, never large groups), was for the leader to have 2 AIM-54's, 2 or 3 AIM-7's, and 2 AIM-9's, and the wingman to have 6 AIM-7's and 2 AIM-9's. They never used 6, and rarely used 4 AIM-54's. Weight/drag hurt dogfighting, where they used the Tomcat the most. 2 AIM-54's however, had almost no effect compared to 0, since the forward pallets faired them in so well. Sparrows acquired were AIM-7E-2 and AIM-7E-4. A bit better than US Vietnam-spec, but not much. 20% kill rate. They were allowed AIM-7F's prior to the revolution, but never bought any. So they basically used "F-4" Sparrows they already had and could get. Sidewinders were AIM-9P, which is basically an AIM-9J. They ordered 800 of them along with the Phoenixes, and got them all, so they never ran out.

Well, my books etc don't have quite the info I thought. Will have to check some places online and more books. Right now, no good numbers. Real rough numbers for the RR Olympus (Concorde): 30400lbs dry at sea level, 11000lbs dry at 60,000ft M 2.04. As I said, huge loss. A thing to remember---turbojets/low-bypass turbofans lose less at high speed/alt. This is a tradeoff for being worse at low speed/alt. Everything's a compromise. That's part of the reason the SR-71 can go so fast--the engine is optimized to work at M3.2 at 80,000ft or so. Sure, it's "only" 35,000lbs at sea level---but that probably leads to like 30,000lbs (pure guess) at M3.2/80000ft due to being so incredibly optimized to work under those conditions.

Thrust ratings for anything other than "sea level static" is very hard to come by, but I do have a few. Pretty sure I can get J79 and F100 comparison, as well as RR Olympus. The thrust loss is HUGE, btw. Numbers to be posted later.

Yeesh, I better get reading if there's going to be this many Iranian F-14 questions! Go buy the book! Anyways--the MiG-25 kill I was describing (there were several, the Phoenix works quite well at long-range high-alt interception, since that's what it was made for) was tail-on. 1st Phoenix missed, MiG-25 slowed down a bit thinking he was safe and got hit by the 2nd Phoenix. MiG-25's may be able to hit 2.8+, but only for very brief periods. Few planes guzzle gas faster than the Foxbat.

Ack, sorry. I basically repeated what I'd just read last night about F-8J's (which is wrong). You're right, no J got a kill except if you count the "ejected when he saw it was an F-8" one. Sigh, must not read 5 mins before going to bed... (that particular book is by far the best for construction/variants, but not so good obviously about combat operations) I hate it when I read something that contradicts another book, then I have to go over all the books and see which one's right... Kills by type (from the best by far book for F-8 kills): F-8C: 5 F-8E: 11 F-8H: 2 F-8J: 1 (ejection) All others 0. Just IMHO, the C model is the best-looking of all.

Blue/sand? Not that I recall. Some blue/grey. I'll have another look. F-8J accounted for like 2/3 of all MiG kills. The F-8H is often considered even better (lighter, more power), there were just so few of them. Kind of like the F-14D---certainly the best, but so rare we never really got to see what it could do in combat.

That was a big part--cost. They had to get it from other 3rd-party dealers who got it from Israel, since they weren't allowed to buy directly from Israel. But everyone knew there was only 1 eventual buyer for anything from Israel that'd be useful for the F-14... I actually stopped reading about the IRIAF F-14's this weekend, re-read some F-8 stuff. Going to order an F-8J kit soon. Will start up Iran-reading again.

Only half-way through book. So far, the IRIAF F-14's are 33-0. I bought it at a local hobby shop. I also know Amazon.com carries this series, that's where I got the second USN F-4 book. The very first F-14 kill ever was a gun kill. It was an IRIAF F-14 against a Mi-25. (Tomcats universally seem to like shooting helicopters). Found 1 definite "1 Phoenix for 2 planes" kill, 1 likely (2nd MiG was either hit by the first or second Phoenix, they were close together but they didn't see the 2nd Phoenix ever explode), and the infamous "3 confirmed with a 4th damaged" "super-kill". And from what I see, "damaged" planes tend to crash more often than make it back. "Closest" Phoenix kill is 5 miles so far, longest 67 miles. (MiG-25 that was, F-14 was going Mach 2.2 to nail it) Who needs AMRAAM's with numbers like that? And you don't get max-range AIM-54 kills from an F-14 going near its max speed from "poorly maintained" or "downgraded" equipment. (Remember, the AIM-54 "100+" mile range is only if the target is heading towards you--chasing after a fleeing MiG-25 cuts the range big time) Some "support" stuff so far: Israel main source of technical/electrical "knowledge" and some parts. F-14-specific parts acquired through black market (how else would you get them?) Back-engineering some parts, trying to develop their own for replacements. 60 operational F-14's at a time is the goal, 40-45 usually achieved. Number 1 problem is lack of PILOTS, not parts/support. Many pre-revolution pilots jailed or killed (for being loyal to the Shah), so when the Iran-Iraq war happened, any Iranian who knew how to fly F-14's wasn't available. Some released from jail, but it was a slow process, and they had to re-learn a lot.

That's all part of the story, including how (pretty directly) the Shah saved Grumman and the F-14 program. (Man, if you think the F-22 is constantly targeted for reductions/"cancel it because it costs too much", the F-14 was in just as much trouble). Iran wanted F-14's before the F-14 was even being tested, and literally helped fund Grumman and development. Or as one pilot put it "You don't spend 2 billion dollars for sub-standard equipment". There was no point in getting down-graded F-14's when they could have gotten full-spec F-15's. They wanted a long-range heavy interceptor, and nothing less than a fully-capable F-14 would do. However, the Navy couldn't go tell congress the equipment was JUST as good. Here's the difference: The Iranian AWG-9 jumps frequencies slightly slower than the US version and takes 1/100 of a second longer to process/display threats. It is thus like .001% more susceptible to ECM jamming. Grumman could quite truthfully tell Congress the Iranians had "less capable" radars. They just never specified what "less" was. And it's not much at all. In all other aspects, it's identical. It is 99.999999% as good, not "50%" like most places surmise, etc. It can track just as many targets at just as long a range and guide just as many missiles just as well as a US one.

I've only just started reading it tonight, but some stuff is so interesting I'm posting now. (hellohikaru, I'm only up to about 1980, USSR not involved yet) 1. AWG-9 radar NOT downgraded from USN spec 2. AIM-54A NOT downgraded from USN spec 3. Only 16 AIM-54's sabotaged by Grumman, the other couple hundred were fine. (And the 16 were later repaired) 4. Pilots soon learned they could do 75-degree alpha instantaneous turns and get Sidewinder/gun kills, only F-18/22 can meet/beat that. 5. They used AIM-54's down to 4 miles range! They never wanted/needed Sparrows, preferring to use AIM-54's at long and medium range. 6. Most of the info in most any other book/report/TV show about Iranian F-14'as is based off pure rumor/guess from the 1970's (which is why they all agree with each other word for word---I learned long ago that if 5 books all agree perfectly, they're all just copying from the same source which could easily be wrong--if one's a bit different or even totally disagrees--it means THAT author actually did some research and interviews) , and even the USN and many F-14 pilots wouldn't believe any reports from exiled IIAF pilots etc, preferring to think Iran had little more than a few rusty unflyable Tomcats with defective missiles.

Delta wings bleed tremendous energy/speed. F-16XL would have poor sustained turn performance. Look at an F-14 in a turning fight: wings forward cause more drag, but it's much less of an effect than the massive energy bleed that wings back would cause (where's it's quasi-delta). PS--I just got the "Iranian F-14's in Combat" book today, I'll see what interesting things I find inside.

For all their fame, Mavericks aren't used much on F-16's. The vast majority of Mavericks are fired by A-10's. I've only ever seen test F-16's use triple-launchers for them.

An IDS painted up as an ADV. With bombs no less. Not at all surprised, Armour is king of "we'll use one mold and paint it up as EVERY version no matter how different". Love their TF30-powered F-14B's...

That's unlikely, since even at 1/10 scale you usually can't have accurate, working gear. Yeesh, the F-18's is so complex most people can't figure out how it works in 1/1 scale. Asking for working gear is pretty much the same as asking for working triple-slotted fowler flaps on a 747. Making several dozen small moving parts in a 1-inch long part is not going to happen. Now, you could have working gear on say a P-51, but not any plane which actually twists/folds its gear--which is about half of all WW2 planes, and about 99% of all post-WW2 planes. And even if you do have working gear, getting working gear DOORS is even harder, since they tend to be interlinked to both each other, as well as the gear struts...

F-22 crashed at Nellis yesterday afternoon just after takeoff, first F-22 crash ever. (YF-22 is not an F-22, so its crash doesn't count) edit: date added

Ack, mis-thought/typed in the above post. YF-17 has poor *roll* rate. Not poor turn rate. Its continuous turn should be notably better than the F-18, but the 17 should have worse instantaneous. YF-17 vs F-18: 17 has much better acceleration/speed and I presume climb. Also much lighter. Roll rate is poor though (as modern fighters go). Instantaneous turn IS alpha, more or less. Better alpha=better inst. turns. Continuous turn is thrust/weight ratio however. Very high correlations. Bleeding speed/energy of course is also bad for continuous turn. I don't think anything will beat the F-16 in a continuous turn, low drag and great power. Though the advantage isn't much, as the F-18 gets its better roll rate mainly from a stiffer wing and bigger ailerons (brute force), not really "aerodynamics". You could probably get a YF-17 to have the 18's roll rate with simple mods, and not lose anything in the cont. turn. (F-18's wing is very similar, it's just all the drag hurts it, while the 17 and 16 are so sleek) Of course, I always hoped you could put the F-20/Gripen engine in the YF-17 (the YF-17 only had YJ101's, 14,000lbs, and it could still supercruise--imagine if it had 18K). Anyways: Dragon AIM-7's have a small post on their fins. But they don't fit F-15/16/18's.... All other DW missiles have holes, and the posts are in the pylons. But the AIM-7's have posts... I always presumed the F-15 would have very small holes in the corners, to carry the AIM-7's on the fuselage, as that's the only thing that'd make sense. Dragon F-18's cannot carry anything on the fuselage corners.

She looks 1,000x better than the "redesigned" KOS-MOS in Ep2 IMHO. (I hate the new "realistic" designs, especially since it seems half the cast (Jr, chaos, etc) still retain the anime look---completely clashes)

Which kit, which parts? Because if you actually intend to "use" the clear parts (paint from behind, etc) I doubt there's anything that can strip off paint without etching/melting the clear parts. If you plan to use them like an opaque piece and paint them on the outside, then you should be okay. Clear parts do behave differently, many thinners/cleaners/strippers will literally liquify them, even if they leave normal plastic perfectly fine.

YF-17 has superior alpha/instantaneous turn compared to the YF-16 I think. Turn rate suffers though, always did. One of the few areas the F-18 beats the YF-17: sustained turns and roll. I'll give the Shornet the victory over the F-16E. F-16E's heavy and draggy, engine power boost isn't enough IMHO.

We could always bring up the internal gun argument again... (sorry, sorry) Anyways---question for the next few posts: What's the JSF's current/projected non-JDAM PGM capability? JDAM's are decent, but still inferior to laser-guided etc. Would it rely on other planes to designate for it? The main thing about the F-16 Block 60 is having every sensor/designator type that exists built-in. F-35 seems to lack a lot of stuff. Is is effectively JDAM-only? That's not accurate enough for "CNN war", where if you're off by 2 inches it'll be on the news... PS---despite the fact that I argue about planes a lot, I do value discussion like this a lot. I learn more from arguments like this than books and magazines it seems. And sometimes I will make a point just to refresh my memory as to why it's (and I) am wrong...

*Internal* payload. A JSF using its many external hardpoints is non-stealthy, and thus has little reason to exist. Internal payload is like 2,700lbs. (Assuming 2x1,000lb JDAM +2 AMRAAM) Why even have JSF's on a carrier if you're going to use them for non-stealth attacks?

I've always interpreted that shot as them looking at the Milky Way.

Hase decals often don't like many decal solutions. Try HOT water for them. They seem to react to water temp more than any solution. (Of course, every decal sheet always varies, even if it's the "same" sheet) Also, mixing Sol and Set (IMHO) is a bad idea. Don't apply one after the other unless the other was put on long enough ago that the area is bone dry. Of course, I always advocate the method of going SLOW and using ONLY Set. Sol is like the "nuclear bomb" for decals. Yeah, it'll get the job done, but the odds of ruining something are much higher as well. Set can take 15 mins to really work, most people only give it like 1 min to affect the decal before deciding to put Sol on.

With JDAM's, every plane's equally good at them. A B-52, F-16, and a P-51, would all have the same accuracy. There is (IMHO) little point in having large numbers of F-35's to replace F-16's, when the F-22 will do the same, but better/faster/and more of them. We certainly need F-35's to replace the Harrier, but I've long said that's the only thing it can and should replace. Since the Harrier can't carry much, very far, at all fast. F-35's are needed in small numbers to replace/supplement Baby Hornets, ONLY for reasons of "there's no stealth Navy plane" but their payload is so small compared to a Super Hornet, and smaller than a Baby Hornet. And there are many important weapons (notably the HARM, SLAM, SLAM-ER, and Harpoon) that won't fit internally. Put them externally on a JSF, and it's lost it's only reason for being on a carrier--stealth. Basically--I'm all for SOME F-35's. But sure as heck not for thousands of them replacing every F-16 and Baby Hornet.. Finally, kind of reiterating: F-16 vs F-35 speed. My point is that instead of buying F-35's, buy F-22's. Fast enough, with bigger payload. Ok, post-finally: Most front-line USAF F-16's are pretty much either night-attack, or SEAD. F-22's can't hold HARM's inside, nor have any sort of LANTIRN system etc AFAIK. We still need F-16's for those roles---which is 90% of what F-16's do. F-22/35 can't "replace" those planes if they're not filling those roles. Of course, I think there'll be a "more sensors" more attack-dedicated F-22 someday (all internal changes, not an FB-22), but not for a while.

I've never seen anything other than 1.5 for the JSF. And even if we go with the "high" of 1.8, that's still damn slow, especially considering what a massively powerful engine it has. Most powerful fighter jet engine ever, and one of the slowest planes in decades. A clean F-35 has a fairly useless payload/existence IMHO. Since it's not really supposed to fight, (F-22's will do that), you're spending a lot of money to deliver 2 small/medium JDAM's at a time, stealthily. Heck, F-117's can already do that, as can the F-22... We really need more F-22's... (never thought I'd say that). Like the F-35, but superior in every way. (except cost, and "really really expensive" is pretty close to "really really really expensive)