David Hingtgen Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 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.
David Hingtgen Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 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.
David Hingtgen Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Ok, I'm really surprised no one's posted a reply yet. 159-3! That's insane. That's as many kills as the F-15 and F-16 COMBINED from every Air Force in the world.
F-ZeroOne Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 David, regards the mystery "CR-601" missile - I believe this may be a Chinese-built copy of either a Silkworm or Exocet anti-shipping missile. As for no replies yet - I guess everyone is still going "wow".
Noyhauser Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 David, regards the mystery "CR-601" missile - I believe this may be a Chinese-built copy of either a Silkworm or Exocet anti-shipping missile.As for no replies yet - I guess everyone is still going "wow". Its an indigenously developed Chinese Anti ship cruise missile- 100KM range, can be launched from medium to heavy bombers or from ground emplacements. Its pretty big... not so good
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 Ok, I'm really surprised no one's posted a reply yet. 159-3! That's insane. That's as many kills as the F-15 and F-16 COMBINED from every Air Force in the world. Hey David. How reliable do you think the numbers and facts in that book are?
David Hingtgen Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 Very. 8 years of fighting between 2 large airforces... This was not "occasional skirmishes when the rules of engagement allowed" like happened in Vietnam, nor "they didn't even have a chance and were gone after 48 hours" in Desert Storm. This was two large forces going at it 24/7 for years.
ewilen Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 I don't follow. I think you may be saying that, given the size of the war, the numbers are plausible. What concerns me (and probably Retracting Head Ter Ter) is how well the numbers are corroborated and whether they may reflect inflated claims by the Iranians.
David Hingtgen Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 Inflated? That's the exact OPPOSITE of what happened. Ayatollah etc hated the idea of "Shah-bought/American" planes doing well, and like 90% of F-14 victories, whether in the air, bombing, etc were "re-attributed" to Ayatollah-bought Soviet SAM's, etc. Anyways--the numbers are extremely consistent with the F-15/16. Did you expect the F-14 to do much worse? Better? Finally---the 159-3 is the "confirmed" kills. Many probables/unknown/unconfirmed. I could type out the full list of sources in the book if you really want, but in summary: I trust it. Maybe too much, but as much as I trust any other book I have. This series as a whole is VERY well researched, and I trust these books more than any other. If US Navy says 18 Crusader kills but that company's book says 19 Crusader kills--then I say 19. Do I "blindly" trust this series? Pretty much, the previous half-dozen books have impressed me a lot. It's not like I can go interview Iranian Tomcat pilots myself like the author did, this is as good as it gets. And it's 1000x better than even recent (2002) books which have a one-sentence sidenote saying "Iranian Tomcats engaged Iraqi forces with some success during the Iran-Iraq war".
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 Did the author go to Iran to interview the pilots or did he interview those that had left Iran? I am guessing the post Khomeini-regime (President Khatami/Khitami? dang can't remember exact spelling) are quite a lot more tolerant. How's the relationship between Iran and Russia now? Any chance of seeing some 30-40k thrust ruskie turbines on these old birds? That would be a hoot!
ewilen Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 Finally---the 159-3 is the "confirmed" kills. Many probables/unknown/unconfirmed. I could type out the full list of sources in the book if you really want... No, of course that isn't necessary. The details may just be too complex to summarize; all I was saying was that it would be nice to know the criteria used for "confirmed". For example, is there corroboration from the Iraqi side? By the way, for those looking for this book, it's readily available at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...g=UTF8&v=glance But if you look at the reviews of an earlier book by the authors, Iran-Iraq War in the Air, it seems that some skepticism is warranted regarding their research methods and conclusions, especially considering that they often present a "revolutionary" viewpoint compared to the common wisdom.
ewilen Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 While looking for reviews of the Cooper & Bishop book, I came across an additional anecdote on the F-18E/F debate... http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cg...t=004225#000005 <<<"Now this is comming from an "C" hornet pilot: The most devastating comment came from a Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and says: “We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them.”">>>6 of my buddies and I saw and read this latest article while on detachement to Eglin AFB for a joint wargame exercise last week. Just to set the record straight on this quote: The person quoted was a LCOL in a USMC FA-18D squadron. His squadron was at a Nellis Red Flag exercise during the summer of 1999, along with VX-9, which was conducting it's OPEVAL of the E/F at the time. One of the pilots with me at Eglin was on that Red Flag det (which occurred one month prior to my arrival at China Lake). He noted the quote, and told me the LCOL's name. He said the guy had friends in the Anti-E/F camp who "asked for some dirt to dish" on the new jet. They were looking for a sound bite, and he gave it to them. That pilot also told me what really happened. He said that the statement is TRUE....except that the Super Hornets were carrying twice the A/G load to the target, not getting shot down, and egressing back to Nellis - all without any in-flight refueling, which the FA-18Ds were doing pre-strike, and on some occasions post-strike as well. So yep, the quote is based in truth...so long as you don't ask too many questions. (The author, "Chunx", is an administrator of SimHQ and purportedly a Navy pilot who has flown both the "baby Hornet" and the Super Hornet.)
Noyhauser Posted December 29, 2004 Posted December 29, 2004 Love that quote. I should go on that board to talk about life cycle costs, and spiral acquisition schemes and the sort. They may get a kick out of listening to the Bureacratic side of the topic. I'd also be VERY wary of iranian claims, Airforce or not. Iran used propaganda to increase the morale of their soldiers which they used human wave attacks against Iraq (to great effect mind you) and they heavily regulated the press. For example at the battle of Susangird the Iranians suffered a terrible defeat, losing 100 tanks (Cheftains and M-60s) several thousand men, and most ominously 150 captured (these were ideologically motivated troops.... capturing Iranian soldiers was rare). The Revolutionary council said instead that they destroyed two Iraqi Brigades and captured 1500 troops... which was utter nonsense. This was a common thread among all battles regardless of service or outcome. Even the army was played up, when they trusted the Revolutionary guard (the army was the most distrusted service in Iran, far more than the Airforce) so I'd be extremely wary about those claims. I'll see what I can dig up on the topic in the next few days.
David Hingtgen Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Here's some "stuff" I'll retype from the book. "It is primarily based on a series of exhaustive interviews with retired and active Iranian F-14 pilots and RIO's, and with several ex-Iraqi Air Force Officers. In addition, the authors have also drawn from official US, Iranian, Saudi, and Soviet documents released to them". As for "morale boosting". From what I've seen, particularly this book, yes they greatly inflated claims. AGAINST THE TOMCAT. F-14 shoots down a MiG-23? Credit is given to troops on the ground with rocket launchers. A MiG-25 is finally brought down at altitude? The amazing crews launching SAM's did it, of course. There's several pages given to exactly how the government tallied everything, and then discredited the F-14, giving credit to ground troops and SAM's, rather than F-14 CAS, strafing, and air-to-air. Finally, much like the other books in the series, dozens of kills are reported turn-for-turn, 1st-hand, by the pilots themselves. Yes, there could be legions of lying Iranian F-14 pilots, but I doubt it. PS--Chunx rocks, listen to him. He IS a pilot, not just "purportedly" (That, or he's got a lot of really good faked pics) This page shows him in a Super Hornet: http://www.simhq.com/_aboutus/chunx.html
ewilen Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Thanks, David. From looking at his comments in SimHQ, Chunx is a strong supporter of the F/A-18E/F, and he has argued that it was the right choice vs. upgrading the Tomcat and/or Intruder. (Here's one choice thread: http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cg...t=007446#000005 ) He also doesn't give much credence to the various writings by Gillcrist & Kress in Flight Journal and elsewhere.
Noyhauser Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Here's some "stuff" I'll retype from the book."It is primarily based on a series of exhaustive interviews with retired and active Iranian F-14 pilots and RIO's, and with several ex-Iraqi Air Force Officers. In addition, the authors have also drawn from official US, Iranian, Saudi, and Soviet documents released to them". As for "morale boosting". From what I've seen, particularly this book, yes they greatly inflated claims. AGAINST THE TOMCAT. F-14 shoots down a MiG-23? Credit is given to troops on the ground with rocket launchers. A MiG-25 is finally brought down at altitude? The amazing crews launching SAM's did it, of course. There's several pages given to exactly how the government tallied everything, and then discredited the F-14, giving credit to ground troops and SAM's, rather than F-14 CAS, strafing, and air-to-air. Finally, much like the other books in the series, dozens of kills are reported turn-for-turn, 1st-hand, by the pilots themselves. Yes, there could be legions of lying Iranian F-14 pilots, but I doubt it. PS--Chunx rocks, listen to him. He IS a pilot, not just "purportedly" (That, or he's got a lot of really good faked pics) This page shows him in a Super Hornet: http://www.simhq.com/_aboutus/chunx.html No I don't doubt that they did shoot down a lot... but 153-3 is REALLY out there. I don't think the IAF has that sort of numbers... I think the need for independent confirmation is there... and it doesn't exist. They may have inflated their numbers back then and now take it as fact. I'm not doubting the Cat's effectiveness, just that a 50 to 1 kill ratio is stastically, very very very very improbable. Also shooting down a Mig25 at speed isn't that impressive. Remember the Pheonix is intended to shoot down high speed anti ship missiles that don't really make much turns just run in a straight line. A Mig-25 at speed is effectively the same thing, just alot bigger (and not at sea level). It can't really dodge or do much except release Chaff... if it sees it.. Its really a matter of physics for the Pheonix.
David Hingtgen Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Well, the F-15 is currently 105-0, and the F-16 is 70-0.
Noyhauser Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Yeah but Israel is a special case. Its kills there are almost always against lesser number of opponents (they have numbers in the air), with the aid of E-2s control, perfect maintenence, and most importantly excellent training and constant flight experience. I can see the IAF achieving those numbers quite easily. Iran may have some of these things, but really not all of them. Iraq wasn't a pushover like Syria would be. It had training from soviet advisors and their planes were fairly good. 150-3 till ratio just doesn't seem to fit the nature of the battle in the Iran/Iraq war (Iraq almost always having the Technical and planning edge in any battle)
hellohikaru Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Just being nitpicky, Iranian=IIAF/IRIAF Israel=IAF. Anyway the Israelis didn't outnumber the Syrian fighters during the Bekaa Valley. Its not like they have 100 F-15s or anything. But the presence of AWACS, complete neutralisation or suppression of the ADA and overall better weaponry and training gave them the upper hand in the Turkey shots and not numbers. And yes the Iraqis pilots are not that good, at least no better than the post Shah era. Saddam is known to have purge his personnel including pilots.
mikeszekely Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 One of the biggest things that Chunx said that I'd never really thought about is how "user-friendly" the cockpit and HOTAS are. With little or no flight experience ourselves, we're used to just looking at the numbers... numbers that gave the F-14D or Tomcat 21 the edge over the Super Hornet in every case except maintainance. But if the Super Hornet is easier to fly, has a radar that's easier to read, etc, that can offset a lot of fighter's shortcomings. Well, I'm still not sure if I would agree that the Super Hornet really is the bird to replace the Tomcat... but Chunx' opinion is definately something to consider. And in any case, we do see perfectly eye-to-eye on one thing: if money weren't the object that it is in today's military, I also would have liked to see the VG wing F-22N replace the Tomcat.
David Hingtgen Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Either of the ATF's would have rocked, though I don't recall much (if anything) about Naval YF-23's... But since it had F-18 landing gear and a huge wing to start with, that's a big "navalisation" problem already dealt with. Re: ergonomics. Find "from the pilot's seat" views of the F-4 cockpit. Would make anyone claustrophobic, and you almost need a periscope to see out front. (or just go first person in AC5) F-4 is NOT user friendly, I'd suspect F-4 to F-14 is about the same as F-14 to F-18F, "comfort/useability" wise.
mikeszekely Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Either of the ATF's would have rocked, though I don't recall much (if anything) about Naval YF-23's... But since it had F-18 landing gear and a huge wing to start with, that's a big "navalisation" problem already dealt with.Re: ergonomics. Find "from the pilot's seat" views of the F-4 cockpit. Would make anyone claustrophobic, and you almost need a periscope to see out front. (or just go first person in AC5) F-4 is NOT user friendly, I'd suspect F-4 to F-14 is about the same as F-14 to F-18F, "comfort/useability" wise. Not a lot you can do about where the cockpit's place on a plane, I suppose, but couldn't they have at least come up with a new FCS and a new layout for the HOTAS and insturments that would have improved the F-14D or Tomcat 21's flyability? The F-22 (as oppossed to the YF-22) seems to have a good cockpit placement far enough forward and up high enought that I think Raptor pilots ought to have a good view. Not sure about the HOTAS, cockpit layout, or FCS, though, having never been in or flown one myself. Without starting a debate over whether or not the YF-22 should have rightfully beaten out the YF-23 to be the Airforce's new fighter, the YF-23 strikes me as being too large to make a good naval plane. The F-22 seems to have a slightly narrower fuselage, and while a joint like the F/A-18's or F-35C's to fold up the wings would have helped with the YF-23's massive wings, the F-22N's VG wing seems like a better idea. I just can't image how a VG wing would have worked on a YF-23 without more drastic changes than the F-22 would have had to have gone through. Again, that's just my thought. IMHO, in a perfect world, the USAF could have found a use for both the F-22 and the YF-23, they'd buy a lot more of both than they seem to be planning to buy, and they'd be getting them into service a lot faster (by the time the 22 actually does enter service, they'll need a replacement for it!), and the Navy would have got the VG F-22 to replace the Tomcat.
Nied Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Just got back from visiting family during Christmas and I came back with my own copy of of the Osprey book on Iranian Tomcats. I haven't been going through sequentially like David has, I've just been jumping around. Here's a few of my thoughts: If they had made the F-14 AMRAAM capable back in the '90s the Pheonix would have been withdrawn from serice years ago. As far as i can tell the Iranians used the Pheonix as a big heavy and very expensive AMRAAM. An AMRAAM armed tomcat would have been able to go into combat armed with six missiles rather than the two Pheonix's like the Iranians were using. If the Iranians are ever sucessful in integrating the R-77 "amraamski" with their planes they'll be really tough opponents. I'm even more impressed with the Iranian aviation industry. To be able to keep as big of a hangar queen like the tomcat flying for all those years through a grueling war with no steady supply of spare parts is simply increadable. THe book is dubious on the likely hood of integrating Russian components into the F-14 but if any one is capable of doing it it's the Iranians. I still find some of the claims in the book a little hard to beilieve. Alot of the quotes from the Pilots sound a little boastful, as though they had something to prove. Of course they did have something to prove, both their own countrymen and the rest of the world press doubted they were even flying their planes let alone doing as well as they were. Nonetheless they sound like they were overcompensating so I taking the book with a (very small) grain of salt.
hellohikaru Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 (edited) The Tomcat's cockpit is actually very roomy. One pilot commented that the tub is so big that they can use it to take cover from enemy fire or simply run around in. And a new frameless canopy would have been easy to change. Same for the glass cockpit and HOTAS(Though F-14 already had a good HOTAS). And the kill ratio is believable IMO given the time period over which the conflict was waged. The Iraqis provided tons of targets and the F-14 were mostly deployed in a defensive role. Edited December 30, 2004 by hellohikaru
Nightbat Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 (edited) Can anyone Identify this aircraft? (looks like a B1-b/SR-71 Photosoup to me) Edited December 30, 2004 by Nightbat®
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 30, 2004 Author Posted December 30, 2004 Looks like an SR-71 with canopy covering applied, and a M-21 drone mounted on the spine. Must be from a NASA display or museum. In regards to the tomcat IRIAF kills, I think most of them are pretty much credible, I am not surprised. It was the best that the IRIAF had during that time and if I were at war I would sure use the best of my forces and not hold back. The tomcat was a big boost in performance in comparison to the IRIAF's F-5's, F-4D/E's. Though they did outnumber a lot of the tomcats. The tomcats were the best of the IRIAF. While I do not think they truly got up to 150+ kills, I think the number is rather close and is stil over 100. THe losses seem about right. All of those pilots WERE US trained you know, and they were taught how to dogfight. THe IRIAF, when it was the IIAF was the 5th most largest AF in the world and arguably one of the best in the mid east. And the Ayatollah knew he would need the pilots he inevtiably set off to kill, so I am sure a lot of the frontline pilots sent to die were eventually sent back to the frontline instead of to their deathbeds. Iran needed all the help they could get and ended realizing they were killing off valuable assets, if not their own people. David, does it say if ANY tomcats remain at all in flight service with the IRIAF? like usable service?
F-ZeroOne Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 The one thing it isn't is a SR-71. I'm sure David will be having fits about now but a real SR-71 has much, much bigger engines - nearly as wide, if not wider, then the main fuselage "tube" (I'm not counting the "chines"), among many other things; a SR-71 also has triple landing gear wheel sets under each wing, not what appears to be the single wheels shown here. My guess is that its a prop from a TV or low-to-mid budget SF series, possibly a Japanese one?
Coota0 Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 There is also a vertical stabilizer in the wrong place, it seems, and are those more air intakes above the cockpit?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 30, 2004 Author Posted December 30, 2004 COBRA NIGHT RAVEN!! LOL. IF its for a new series thats pretty sweet looking. IN france there is a new movie or series being filmed based ona comic strip of 2 french air force pilots who flie mirages. Sounds interesting.
F-ZeroOne Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 (edited) Whats really bugging me is that it reminds me of something - not a SR-71 - from somewhere. Did we ever see the human spaceships in the film "Enemy Mine"? Edit: or maybe it was Stargate SG-1? Edited December 30, 2004 by F-ZeroOne
ewilen Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 In earlier threads it's been noted that McCain said the F/A-22 might have be cut due to Iraq war expenses; now the Pentagon (i.e. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) are on the verge of saying exactly that: end F/A-22 production after about 160 planes. The Air Force is apparently pushing back, and they have allies in Congress (due in large part to the way production is spread around the country), so it may not stick. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/10529582.htm http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-b...iness-headlines http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7201567 (possibly the best article) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec29.html As I've said before, I think this is the right move, as opposed to the Air Force's desire to cut F-35 production in order to save the F/A-22. But if that's the alternative, the politics are complicated--the F-35 surely has as big a political constituency as the Raptor, and it's built by the same prime contractor (and many of the same subcontractors). Add this to the increasing unpopularity of Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz due to the difficulties in Iraq, and it's hard to see who will ultimately exert leadership.
David Hingtgen Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Let's see: 1. I'd love to hear more from Nied on his opinions on the book. 2. I don't know WHAT Honda was trying to do with that ad. Probably easier to start from scratch than modify an SR-71 pic. (I vote for "scratchbuilt" since even the gear doors, landing lights, and oleo brace aren't SR-71) 3. 160 F-22's is F-ing worthless. With the requirements for testing/training ones at Edwards and Nellis and Tyndall, that comes out to about ONE OPERATIONAL WING. Langley, and nobody else. What's the point? Nobody will 'fear' the USAF's one wing of F-22's. Certainly not India and their 140 Su-30MKI's on order. Can't have air superiority with one wing of F-22's, and some 30-year-old F-15's. Not when there's Super Flankers, Gripens, Eurofighters, and Rafale's all over.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 30, 2004 Author Posted December 30, 2004 If I were in a position to make a decision, I would can the JSF program entirely, order up to 400 F-22's, give it a strike capability(much like LANTIRN to tomcats), and order more advanced falcons, as well as turn some F-15C's into SEAD aircraft. I think the F-22 is a far more valuable fighter and has a lot of potential in comparison to the F-35. F-1117's can take care of the day 1 bombings. F-22 can be armed with extenal pylons on days afterwards and carry a vast multitude of bombs while having 8 A/A weapons internally. Id say that would make a very nice bomber. Heck add in a second seat for a dedicated WSO. The F-22 is a BIG fighter after all, and it's got a lot of room for weaponry externally for A/G. Although I would also look into the YF-23 RFB and see how that turns out. But can the FB-22. Anyone think the F-22 story is sounding a LOT like the F-14D situation 14 years ago? Next thing you know we get a F-16 falcon block 70 with legnthenewd fueselage and more drag and politicians saying "it's an adequate fighter and does the job well unlike the raptor who's cold war era mission is long gone....". LOL Ewilen, you bring up a goodpoint. I wonder what has more priority for lockheed though, the top air dominance fighter in the western hemisphere, or the limited payload internationally suppported JSF?
Noyhauser Posted December 30, 2004 Posted December 30, 2004 Thats the thing about rummy, say what you want on his strategic analysis, his view on programs is very spot on. In some way he would have been a better Sec Defence during the Clinton years. He sees threat perceptions and he goes with it. He rightly nixed the crusader and the Commanche... the F-22 is likely next. Also remember the the 22 is going to require a costly avionics upgrade for its next batch, because they ran out of 286 chips to equip the original avionics suite. They were going to adapt the JSF's avionics for the 22 but then you are going to have to test it and redesign the hardware/software. So if there was any time to cut the program, it is now.
Recommended Posts