:rolleyes: as i said to u before in another thread, if u having nothing to say, then dont post. it cant be that hard can it? :confused:

also i have no idea why u keep asking for ‘detailed missions’, well in what feild do u want? be more spacific, cos im not going to just list everything the S34 can do for the simple reason that there are just too many of them.

😡

Flying round the clock, day or night in the worst weather is an invaluable capability. Take-off in that is no problem for a Tomcat and a SH, but landing back is. Tomcat pilots can achive this exceptional capability in high risk training and it takes a long long time to achive this. No problem for the SH.
Flying CAP for a carrier-group you have your pairs ready on station every time and replace it every time in time!!!!
“as useful in real life as a fridge on the north pole” 😮
Seems to me, you not even grasp the importance of that capability. :rolleyes:

“Tomcat pilots can achive this exceptional capability in high risk training and it takes a long long time to achive this. No problem for the SH.”

im sorry, buts LOL! thats just about the dumbest thing i’ve heard all year. :rolleyes:

so according to u, any tom **** and harry with some flight experience can now just climb into an SH cocpit and land the thing on a carrier at night in bad wether conditions? lets see u do it then. :diablo:

the SH’s autolanding system will be lucky to land the plane onto the carrier during the best of conditions, trying doing it under the circumstances u described and soon the USN wont have any carriers left. :rolleyes:

night landing in bad conditions is about the most difficult thing any pilot can do, and no computer can do it better yet. go talk to carrier pilots and 9 out of 10 of them will tell u that carrier landing at night is the most difficult part of their mission (even pilots who flown in iran), as soon as a computer can do that, then there is little point in having a human onboard at all.

The MiG-29 example shows for the not informed, that in a close dogfight nothing is left to choose between Tomcat and SH. That is, what the USN find out again with the real thing to bolster its decision. No more and no less!!!!!
Your answer shows, you really have no idea and I am not surprised about that. 🙂

hows about u post a link that can back up what u are claiming before i waste any more time going over the same thing again and again? :rolleyes:

how anyone can claim the superbug is anywhere near as good as the tomcat in a dogfight is beyond me. the bloodly F18E can only pull 6~7 Gs for crying out loud! :rolleyes:

The USN did not exspect MiG-29s attacking their battle carrier groups out in the Sea really, so no problem there. Near ideal IFF conditions there, so BVR is the first choice. Both Tomcat and SH are equipped with AIM-120 then. Here the better radar (ASEA) and avionik-suite kicks in. Still not hard to understand. To fend of bomber, fighter-bomber and stand-off-missiles from a carrier-group you have to use AIM-120 or to risk blowing yourself out of air. 🙂

what are u on about? F14s’ radar has enourmous range as they need to use the pheonix, and they can also use the AMRAAM so what’s this about not using stand-off?

The number of aircraft on board an carrier is limited. As you stated yourself, the SH can do different missions and all successfull including that of CAP, the former domain of Tomcat. Without Phoenix the F-14 is less capable in AD-role than SH. Like it or not. 🙂

yeah the superbug can do much more then the tomcat, that was never the issue if u didnt know. :rolleyes: the F14’s radar has at least the same range as that of the F18E’s, even without the pheonix, its got the AMRAAM, which puts the two about on par at BVR, move into WVR and the tomcat will rip the superbug to pieces. plus the tomcat’s got long range, greater speed and great G loading to name a few.

the F18E is a jack of all trates and is a better multi-role ac compaired to the F14, but its not as good as the F14 in AA combat. i am getting sick of having to keep saying this now. so listen up, as i will not repeat this any more.

Less than 10 Su-34 around, it is hard to find high-value targets to justify its existence at all. You still refuse, to describe such mission in detail. 🙁
SUKHOI is starting a less costly upgrade of Su-24, rarely flown and a lot of flying-hours left to use-up therefore. 🙂

are u still talking about F18 V F14 or have u finally decided to move back on topic? :rolleyes:

and what bloody detailed missions do u want me to decribe here? :rolleyes:

painting mixed with a photo. the sae and ball of smoke att he bottom of the picture are real, the top bit is a pretty good picture.

impressive accuracy in some areas but a little off in others. not bad though.

:diablo:

It is the other way around. We live in 2004 and looking forward. The SH is the successor of F-14.
Better radar, better avionik, better flight-system, better rcs, better AOA….. automatic landing system 🙂
“to bring its avionics up to” :rolleyes:
“but the airframe was too old” :rolleyes:
“the F14 was” 🙂 No question about that. 🙂
“u are just grasping at straws now.” :confused:
By the way GAF MiG-29 flew against both on their last trips to USA. The results 2002 showed, the USN decision was right. In the “telephon box” both (F-14/F-18) lost. 🙂

again, blindly shouting out slogens without first finding out if it is relevent to the situation at hand.

the superbug is not just a replacement for the F14, its supposed to replace pretty much everything on US carriers expect the tankers, AWACS, helos and transports. as such, its designers had to worry more then just AA performances so sacrafices had to be made, and most ppl will agree with me that the superbug is a far worse dogfighter the the basic F18A, which in turn was inferior to the F14 in AA.

as for the radar and avionics, well they are newer, and better in terms of multi-role, but not AA. and that automatic landing function u flaunt is about as useful in real life as a fridge on the north pole. :diablo:

also, i have no idea why u brought in german Mig29s, cos this is just about F14 v F18E. a mig29 can whip the a$$es of both the F86 and F18 (if ur sources are correct), does that mean the F18 is about as good as an F86 in AA combat? :rolleyes:

ps, if u want to want a point, make it properly. merely highlighting something and adding unclear phrases and smilies after them dont really help u to comunicate what u are trying to say.

I never thought before, that some people took “James Bond movies” for real. 😡

here’s a hint, if u have nothing intelegent to say, then dont post. is it that too difficult for u? :rolleyes:

Due to the size of Russia aircraft like the Su-24 are used for roles like performing bombing missions in Chechnia… you don’t want airbases too close to a war zone so its range is used to keep it clear of an area that is inside Russia. The Su-34 will perform similar roles and can be used to overfly friendly former republics of the SU to engage targets in places like Afganistan.

Also strategic bombers are not only not going to go away any time soon but they are being upgraded so they can actually be used… they are all being converted to use conventional weapons… suggests to me that they want to be able to use them to replace the many light day only fighterbombers they had in the past.

With GPS/GLONASS guided bombs like KAB-500S-E an aircraft like the Tu-22M3 or Tu-95 or Tu-160 could fly very long missions over a small area… just circling waiting for a call for the engagement of a target of opportunity. The range of these aircraft aiding in combat persistance, in particular the Bears flying well above SAM range could loiter for quite some time and be every bit as effective as a small fighter bomber doing the same job with the added loiter time and huge bomb load meaning on station times would be much longer. (An Su-34 could spend quite a long time over target too, but its warload would be much lower than a Bear or Backfire).

very good points! but again we must look back to the situation at hand.

sure, big bombers are better for all the reasons u stated and more, but they are somewhat overkill considering what russia is up against.

the war in Chechnia is a garrila war, the chechens have long abandoned massed attacks because its suicide. right now the problem russian froces face in chechnia is not about not having the firepower to kill the enemy, but rather not knowing where to put all that firepower to use.

what good is a bomb bay filled with dozens of bombs going to do u when u are only likely to drop one or two of them per mission (and thats a very succcesful mission).

also, its not really like russian ground troops really need CAS, if they can find the enemy, they usually have the numbers and firepower to kill that enemy. russian ground forces only face problems when chechens start showing up en mass far from where they expect them to be (as tragically demonstrated on too many occasions now). the problem with that is u cant put CAS ac where u dont expect to be attacked, and russia (well anyone but the US really) certainly dont have the reasources needed to keep armed CAS ac flying over the whole of russia 24/7.

the current trend in military development is moving away from pure bombing tonnage to precision. so the extra bomb load of the heavy bombers are redender even more redundent if u are going to use thigs like KAB-500S-E etc.

russia doesnt have the luxery of having redundency these days, they need to try and make every $ count, and frankly, i feel strategic bombers are just a waste of money especially when u have something like the Su34 that u can use to replace BOTH tactical ac like the Su24 and stratgegic ac like the Tu22 (well at least in the roles where they are used the most).

also, by retiring the bulk of the strategic bomber force, the russias free up most of their tanker force, which can then be used to support tactical ac more to further boost their effectiveness.

that doesnt mean that russia should just scarp all its bombers, it should mothball the vast majority and only keep a few operational just in case something unexpected happens.

:diablo:
Not up to date. Without not, when compared to A/F-18E/F. 😉
“U.S. Navy Retires AIM-54 Phoenix Missile” from missile section. 🙂

:rolleyes: vage and splitting hairs. u are just grasping at straws now.

the F18E only have better well rounded avionics, meaning its a better multi/swing-role ac. in terms of pure AA, the F14 is still well in front, even without the Phoenix. also the F14 could have been upgraded with state-of-the-art radar and avionics without much trouble, to bring its avionics up to the superbug’s level, but the airframe was too old, so there was no point. but that still doesnt change one bit the fact that the F14 was and still is the best fighter in the USN.