Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 21, 2004 Author Posted December 21, 2004 Oh that sucks. Dragon should make ALL pylons available for weapons use. But a little variety is okay. I would rather have ALL stations enabled for every weapon though..... a fully loaded dragon mudhen would so rock. Do you guys have problems with the falcon canopies like me? BTW a little on and OT but, the latest tf rumor is that 1/72 alternators at the 30$ price point will be jets and helicopters. Small for an F-16, but GREAT for F-22's, sukhois, eagles and of course TOMCATS. A 3d vectoring cobra with the 18K engines and aileron mods would surely rock. It is sad that we never saw it's full potential. At one of the recent airshows, it LOOKED like it could still fly~~ !! Just a blurry canopy but man it was beautiful. I even saw a 70s era janes book with a cobra pic, at farnborough I believe, decked out with TONS of A/G ordinance, comparable to the YF-16. I know it was a day fighter, or meant to be, but could the cobra have succeeded the phantom II as a fighter replacement? It's got similar speed, and tons better manueverability......
David Hingtgen Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 (edited) 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 Edited December 22, 2004 by David Hingtgen
hellohikaru Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 DH I notice that the USAF never really use the triple Maverick launcher for the F-16. This means the Viper normally carry only 2 since the wing tanks are always carried.
David Hingtgen Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 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.
Knight26 Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 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 Oh man is someone going to loose their tail over this one, if it's pilot error, then that pilot's career is over, if Lockheed still hasn't corrected the PIO problem yet then their tails are in for some serious reddening.
trueblueeyes Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 For those who might have an idea, how long can we expect the Raptor flights to be suspended? And thankfully the pilot is okay. (although if it was pilot error he might wish he wasn't)
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 24, 2004 Author Posted December 24, 2004 hikaru is that an old pic or a new one? It would be interesting to see boeings "chin ugly" reemerge. more debate fodder. F/A-22 vs F-15E striker and long range strike. Whos the better striker? F-2 vs whichever block F-16C is the most ground capable whos better at striking? Mitsubishi F-1 vs F-104S which is the better fighter? F-16XL vs F-16A knife fight We alll know the XL was a better multiroler, but could it best the legendary falcon's sustained turns? Sea Vixen vs A-4. strike battle. A-1 vs F4U1 Corsair. prop knife fight. F-16XL vs F-16F total capability. Which is the better plane in general?
David Hingtgen Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 (edited) 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. Edited December 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen
hellohikaru Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 (edited) SDK That is an old pic when Boeing was still running its X-32. The production version was a very different looking aircraft. Notice that the mockup has the conventional configuration. This was the one in AFDS. Still fugly. DH So you got Farzad Bishop's book. Anything about Iranian using Russian missiles and engines on their F-14 ? Edited December 24, 2004 by hellohikaru
hellohikaru Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 A-1 vs F4U1 Corsair. prop knife fight. F/A-22 vs F-15E striker and long range strike. Whos the better striker? At the moment i am not exactly impressed by the Raptor's ability as a striker since any plane including the F-35 can deploy JDAMs. I don't think the weapons bay can hold the oversize PGMs. If stealth is no concern then i vote for the F-15E. F-2 vs whichever block F-16C is the most ground capable whos better at striking? Falcon-Zero has more payload, more range. However it doesn't have as much weaponry choice as the F-16 because it was meant for striking landing ships and close air support. Mitsubishi F-1 vs F-104S which is the better fighter? Definitely the F-104S. Better performance, radar and Sparrow missile. Since you mentioned the 104S version(not the ASA) then the gun is ommited. F-1 has very limited capability in all areas and underpowered too. Sea Vixen vs A-4. strike battle. Sea Vixen is a most peculiar looking aircraft, fugly in some ways too. The pilot seats offset to the left side of the nose, the radar operator on the right. I don't think its much of a striker, more of a night fighter/interceptor instead. No comparison here.
David Hingtgen Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 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.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 Considering that the AWG-9 and the 54 were state of the art toys back then, I really find it surprising that they got the USN spec versions. The Shah must have been a really good friend of the USA.
David Hingtgen Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 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.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 24, 2004 Author Posted December 24, 2004 David please post more info!~ Or scans. Would be nice. VERY INTERESTING to know the high alpha characteristics of the cat. I read in one of the old 70s era books that it CAN be flown to 90 degrees AOA and is relatively stall free as long as a engine flameout on one side does not occur. Relatively stable but hell to fly when in a spin. And GUN kills? wow. Last gun kill on a teen fighter I heard was the wolfpack kill of a MI-8 in desert storm and a F-16A kill on a syrian copter in the early 80s. BTW where did you get that book? Every hungates I go to does not have it and I checked at BNN and they do not have it either. I will look for that and the iranian F-4 book after x mas. Does it say the condition of the few remaining today? I imagine close to 30 are probably still in working condition. I do not think the iranians got very far in reengineering spares for the cats and somehow I think the AA9 was the only thing they made with knowledge compromised with the tomcat. was a russian glasscockpit and AL31F tomcat ever made or is that still a rumor? Funny. they got more success with the cat than we do. BUt then again we haven't been in a war as long, to be fair, and by the time our guys got there, most of the air force was already obliterated.
hellohikaru Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 Mi-8 kill was made using a Sidewinder shot not vulcan. Not too sure about the F-16A kill but i heard it was done by a very junior IAF pilot. I think the west tend to over underestimate the Iranian's capability to maintain/refurbish their planes. The already produce their own Cobra and F-5 through reverse engineering. Plus the political cover-up like the Grumman engineers sabotaging all the Iranian Tomcat thing. Don't you think they assign armed guards for such high value assets ?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 24, 2004 Author Posted December 24, 2004 well iran revolutionaries killed off a majority of the IIAF before the IRIAF was established SO that short time were shi* wasn't hitting the fan as much as when the engineers sabotaged stuff and tried fleeing.. A vast number of those they thought were still loyalists to the shah were killed but since the iran iraq war started they realized they were killing off valuable pilots so I think they stopped so they could put the top of the line they still had left into the aircraft to fight off iraq. THe F-16A pilot who scored the gun kill was just a pilot who began transitioning to the F-16. If I am not mistaken, he also became an ace less than a year later with 7 kills.
David Hingtgen Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 (edited) 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. Edited December 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen
hellohikaru Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 Yeah..the paranoid Mullahs repeatedly pudge the ranks of the IIAF. I guess there aren't any more officers of Lieutenant Colonel and above after the purge. Some were released from prison only to die in the war. Sounds abit like what happen to talented pilots in the hands of the Saddam regime.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 26, 2004 Author Posted December 26, 2004 HMmmm. WEIRD!!!! Considering that IRan and Israel diplomatically don't get along well at all. (Ron Arad story for further reference). A TON of Iran's tomcat pilots were killed. Really sad. And if the pilot lacking situation is bad the lack of dedicated RIO's is far worse. From what I heard even during the Shah times there were not a lot of people who knew aboout radar operating in the cat.,
David Hingtgen Posted December 26, 2004 Posted December 26, 2004 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.
hellohikaru Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 ahh...F-8J Crusader. Basically an uprated E with wing drop tanks and the French boundary layer control wing. I heard it was initially plaque with all kinds of problems including carrier suitability. Must have been the best Crusader in a dogfight. DH Are there pics of the IRIAF Tomcats in the blue/sand camoflauge ?
David Hingtgen Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 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.
hellohikaru Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 Something interesting was that during the Yom Kippur War, the Hancock was sailing to Israel to deliver its complement of aircraft to the IAF. But since the tide of war shifted in favor of the israelis, the Hancock returned without delivering its embarked planes. It would have been cool to see Crusaders in IAF markings and camo. Oddly enough i can't find any reference to the F-8J scoring kills. I heard of F-8D and E models getting the kills though. There are even F-8K and L variants which are basically refurbished C and A models respectively. Mostly dealing with the pylons and cockpit gauges and lighting. H was a refurbished D with engine and pylon upgrades.
Apollo Leader Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 It wasn't until I read this thread this evening that I had even heard about that Raptor crash. Considering that the production model of the Raptor has been flying since 1997, I would say they are doing pretty good to have not lost a single aircraft up until now. BTW, one of my Christmas gifts from my sister and brother-in-law, who are at Langley, was this long-sleeved F-22 shirt.
David Hingtgen Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 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.
hellohikaru Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 F-8C kills by VF-24 Renegades F-8H kills by VF-51 Screaming Eagles I am not surprised the F-8D model didn't score since only 2 units flew it, Sundowners and Black Knights. One of the kills was achieved partially with Zunis rockets.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 So does Isreal make their own bootleg/OEM F-14 parts or they got parts from Grumman or are those from their F-15/16 bin? Any info on the book about Russian involvement? I am sure the Soviets would have been pleased as heck to tear an F-14 apart for study. BTW, that Mig-25 kill. Was it a head or tail shot? If an F-14 was going at 2.2 and launched a Phoenix at the tail of a Mig-25 from 67 miles out, I would hazard that the Phoenix wouldn't be able to catch the Foxbat unless the Foxbat pilot wasn't aware of the incoming missile.
David Hingtgen Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 (edited) 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. Edited December 27, 2004 by David Hingtgen
hellohikaru Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 DH What about the IRIAF F-14 deployment of AIM-9 and AIM-7 ?How well are they employed and i am sure they will resort to older AIM-9B and 7D versions as their stocks get depleted. And any word on 20mm attacks ?
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 Yeesh, I better get reading if there's going to be this many Iranian F-14 questions! Go buy the book! I would love to. Been hunting the web for it. In the meantime, thanks for answering all the questions.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 Oh, another thing. I have been asking this question all over but can't get an answer. Has anyone seen the rated thrust of the different jet engines at the various operating altitutes? I keep seeing the figures for the old ww2 warbirds (like 2000 at takeoff, 1200 at 35,000 ft etc etc) but can't seem to find any for the jets.
David Hingtgen Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 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.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 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. Yeah, I would think the thrust loss would be immense. Only reason why I can think of to explain how the SR-71 gets to mach 3.5 with _only_ 2x32k of max rated thrust.
Recommended Posts