Could we (US) build the F-14 again in an emergency...

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
taschoene		#11	[-]
Posts: 4220 ( 9-May-2008 20:20:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Gunnersmate04 wrote: at the airplane graveyard then, do other Countries (besides IRAN) have any F-14's still in inventory that may need a part or something? Seems a waste to keep them in storage, or perhaps parking them under the desert sun is probably not that expensive on second thought... GUNNER No, Iran was the only export customer. We've been scrappnig and shredding F-14s to make sure that none of their parts make it to Iran. If there are any intact, there won't be soon. They've even gone so far as to take back airframes that were sold out to the civilian world (the guys who made JAG had one--non-flyable, of course)
seasick	Could we (US) build the F2F again in an emergency	#12	[-]
Posts: 4646 ( 9-May-2008 21:20:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Defense reutilization sold parts for F-14 to a company that resolt them to Iran. The remaining F-14 fighters in storage were destroyed and the stocks of sensitive, and ordinary parts for them were ground up. The USN and the Iranian air force were the only operators of the F-14. How hard would it be to take the F/A-18F design and turn it into a pure fighter? Last Edited By: seasick 18-Jun-2008 06:08:27. Edited 1 times.
wabpilot		#13	[-]
Posts: 2043 (10-May-2008 00:08:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Desertfox wrote: Really? The KA-6 could carry way more fuel than a SH with a buddy system, and the F-14 has a much better payload to range ratio than the SH. How many SH are actually making the bomb drop? 1 or 2? Yes, really. As I said, our doctrines were different during the F-14 era. When we had the F-4B and F-4J long range attack missions were common. But, with the F-14, we lost a lot of range due to our commitment to keeping so many aircraft to deal defend the fleet. As I said, a very different doctrine. The F-14 was mainly a defensive aircraft for most of its life. From 1996 on as it began replacing the A-6 in the medium attack mission, its range started to be utilized. However, from about 1990 on, we then were dependent on the USAF and our own F-18s for air superiority over land as the F-14 lacked the capability to separate non-cooperative threat from allied aircraft. It did not really matter how much payload the F-14 had, it was not the right kind of payload for escorting our own strikes. As far as F-18Es and Fs carrying bombs and fuel, they do right well. And, given that under many circumstances they do not have to pickle off their bomb loads to defend themselves, we can put far more F-18s over the target. (Don't even start me on the maintenance inefficiencies of the F-14. In short it took a 16 plane F-14 squadron to do the work of 12.) I don't have anything against the JSF, it can do the job its required to do, the SH OTOH... Sure the F-14 was very expensive to operate, but in terms of performance the ASF-14/ST-21 was way better than the SH. It had better speed (no draggy pylons), Last time I checked, the F-14 used stores ejector racks for carrying bombs and 'winders. Only the AIM-54s and AIM-7s went in the recessed bays in the tunnel. If you carry bombs or extra fuel, they go on MSERs. or better payload/range combinations, Only under a very limited set of circumstances or where the USAF or our own F-18s had established air superiority. and more room for growth. If you mean the designed and built in attack capability, they yes, the F-14 had a lot of room to grow. But, if you mean physical space for additional electronics, then the answer is no. The F-14 was full to the gills. Anything added meant something had to come out. What we were able to do was make use of the built in capabilities that were under-utilized early in the F-14s life. Sure the SH has better electronics, but electronics don't care what airframe you stick them in. Not only are they better, but the airframe is better too. Meaning the F-18 will put those electronics to work more often than the F-14 will.
wabpilot		#14	[-]
Posts: 2044 (10-May-2008 00:21:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Gunnersmate04 wrote: It was my understanding the plane was designed around the missile, is that true? Essentialy the "Turkey" was designed to carry and fire the PHOENIX. Is the missile carried by anything else? Or is the missile now replaced by something better? Sorry if these are stupid questions, I was surface fleet and don't know my birds. GUNNER The story of the F-14s development is long and complicated. Especially complicated by the McNamara years at the DOD. But, you have the short version quite right, the F-14 was designed to carry and fire the AIM-54. As such, its computer systems were optimised for that one mission. Thankfully, the good folks at Grumman thought it wise to build in a capability to do some other things like bombing. Otherwise, I suspect the F-14s would have been retired by 1996. No other aircraft carried the AIM-54 although, in theory the naval version of the F-111 was slotted for the AIM-54. In terms of replacement, the AIM-120 is it. In many ways the AIM-120 is a better missile, though it lacks the ability to be launched silently. I think the D version will get silent launch. The Frogs and have that with the Matra MICA IR and I think the rest of the Euros use a version of the Meteor that has silent launch capability. None of these missiles, MICA IR, Meteor or AIM-120 has the range of the AIM-54, but I seriously doubt that our politicians will sign off on rules of engagement that allow the use of ranges beyond what MICA, Meteor and AMRAAM have.
taschoene		#15	[-]
Posts: 4226 (12-May-2008 01:48:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What you mean by AMRAAM lacking the ability to be launched silently? In normal mode, the AMRAAM seeker isn't active at launch; the missile follows commands from its inertial navigation system, as updated via datalink, until it reaches the target area. Then and only then does it go active and emit signals of its own. Whiel the normal source of information to the intertial guidance woudl be radar on the launch aircraftm AMRAAM can reportedly be launched based on datalink or IRST information and potentially even on on ESM information (at least from the ALR-94 in the F-22). There is an active-off-the-rail dogfight mode, but it's not the most commonly used option.
wabpilot		#16	[-]
Posts: 2045 (12-May-2008 06:49:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	taschoene wrote: What you mean by AMRAAM lacking the ability to be launched silently? In normal mode, the AMRAAM seeker isn't active at launch; the missile follows commands from its inertial navigation system, as updated via datalink, until it reaches the target area. Then and only then does it go active and emit signals of its own. Whiel the normal source of information to the intertial guidance woudl be radar on the launch aircraftm AMRAAM can reportedly be launched based on datalink or IRST information and potentially even on on ESM information (at least from the ALR-94 in the F-22). There is an active-off-the-rail dogfight mode, but it's not the most commonly used option. Keep in mind, the AMRAAM was joining the fleet shortly after I left. But, my understanding is for the AMRAAM to launch on inertial guidance requires the launching aircraft to illuminate the target. Thus, the launching aircraft is not silent, though shortly after, the missile can use data link or inertial guidance. Further, my understanding of the system needs to be updated by radar data from some source. On the AIM-54, we could use the IRST or TCS for data to launch. Lastly, it is my understanding from some folks at Landivisiau that the MICA IR was like our old AIM-54 and could get a sufficient position fix from their FSO, allowing for a silent launch.
Gunnersmate04	Sold parts to IRAN???	#17	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 139 (12-May-2008 20:41:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Are you serious? Why wasn't this on the national news? were the IRANIANS able to get their F-14's airborne again? GUNNER
taschoene		#18	[-]
Posts: 4227 (12-May-2008 23:43:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It was in the news, briefly. But honestly, it isn't exactly a huge deal. There has been a fairly steady trickle of parts for ages, from a wide variety of sources. Heck, among the things Iran got in the whole Iran-Contra boondoggle was F-14 spares from Israel. Iran has had at least some operational F-14s pretty much continuously since they got them, though there was a huge dip in availability after the revolution. Estimates of operational numbers vary wildly over time. I've seen figures as high as 60 during the Iran-Iraq War and as low as 10 in the 1990s. A figure of 20-35 seems to be about average.
taschoene		#19	[-]
Posts: 4228 (12-May-2008 23:53:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Wabpilot: I'd guess the issue was probably more the lack of any other sensor in the F/A-18 to provide target indication, not an AMRAAM shortcoming. The original Hornet FLIR pod was strictly air-to-ground, so it was useless for cueing AMRAAM. Supposedly the ATFLIR in the Super Hornets can do air-to-air target acquisition, so it should allow silent launch just like the TCS/IRST in the Tomcat.
Obi Wan Russell		#20	[-]
Posts: 210 (13-May-2008 11:24:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Gunnersmate04 wrote: Are you serious? Why wasn't this on the national news? were the IRANIANS able to get their F-14's airborne again? GUNNER According to Air Forces Monthly magazine the Iranian Air Force currently has 44 fully operational refurbished F-14As serving with four sqns, and has an engineering plant working on rebuilding and refurbishing more of the airframes for service. Many of the parts required to reurn these aircraft to service are revese engineered and produced locally. Don't underestimate the Iranian aerospace industry (which recieved a degree of Soviet assistance in the 80s, partly in return for the 'gift' of a complete F-14A with Phoenix missiles) which has also reverse engineerd helicopters and missiles.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Could we (US) build the F-14 again in an emergency...

Quick Reply