LevshaConsidering the F-14 is the epitome of the Shah’s extravagent and reckless spending of the Iranian people’s money, its surprising that they’ve kept it around this long after the Iran-Iraq war ended. I suppose its longevity has to due with Iran having a difficult time procuring other fighters and cost/performance benefits of missiles versus fighters.
Really?
Bearing in mind the F-14’s abilities, it was, and maybe still is, the most cost effective combat aircraft in the Iranians arsenal.:cool:
LevshaThere were rather more Mig-25s built than SR-71s and it was much cheaper to operate. It was also used in several roles unlike the single mission SR-71.
The main purpose of the SR-71 was surely to spy on the USSR the same way its predecessor the U-2 did. In that regard it failed because of the political decision to stop overflights of the USSR. The Mig-25 on the other hand was an interceptor and it operated in that role for many decades successfully.
Was the MiG -25 regarded as a successful interceptor?
Seen as the B-70 was cancelled and the SR-71 would never actually enter Soviet airspace, what was the FOXBAT good for, in the interceptor role?
As a combat aircraft against slower aircraft it was far too expensive to build and operate, and as soon as it entered service the Soviets were already working on its replacement (MiG-31).
On the other hand, the Americans kept the SR-71 in service for something like 25 years in the original role that it was intended for.
The SR-71 was such an exotic and esoteric aircraft that it’s almost impossible to compare it to other aircraft. The only “aircraft” that you can compare it to are the dozens of spy satellites sent into orbit by the USA since 1960. In a way it was the spy satellites that were the “aircraft” that the Habu worked with the most, they both worked with each other, complementing and supplementing each other – but of course, never entirely replacing each other.
No spy satellite was ever able to intercept a bomber, or carry out a strike mission, and the cost of building and operating spy satellites make the SR-71 look like a bargain, yet no one has ever said that they lacked operational flexibility and were unsuccessful – they done the job that they were designed to do and they done it well.
The same could be said for the SR-71
LevshaUSAF should scrap overpriced junk like C-5 and C-17 and buy An-124 and IL-76 MF. 😀
In a way,the US military already makes use of the Il-76 and An-124 when they hire the services of Russian an Ukrainian cargo hauler companies to supplement (not replace) their own C-17s and C-5s etc.
In the same way that Russian airlines are using DC-10s, MD-11s and Boeing 747s to haul cargo.
Levshai remember someone posted a drawing from their site to this site, just can’t remember which or who it was. he posted a Eurofighter Typhoon and had all the latest fighters included from the airwar site.
Are these the web pages you need?
Line drawings here:
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/ef2000.html
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw_fn.html
Photos here:
LevshaThe “not available for export” line doesn’t make sense to me. Iran got the F-4E with Sparrow and the F-14A with Phoenix not much later. Japan got the F-4EJ with Sparrow.
If I do recall, the AWG-9 on Iran’s F-14s were somewhat downgraded in capability in comparison with the USN’s. Not sure on the details, but I should think that the AWG-9’s ECM (or its protection against) capabilities were downgraded or completely removed on the Shah’s Tomcats.
LevshaIt reminds me of an over-ripe banana……. :p
Or a pint of Guinness!;)
LevshaI think they should reopen the F-15 line and make one last version of it, but thats just me 😀
Who said the F-15 production line had shut down?
Korea and Singapore are still ordering F-15SGs and F-15Ks as far as I know.
LevshaAah Rocky, I’ve been prowling this forum for going on 18 months or so, and I must have seen this topic for a thread crop up at least twice, and it’s usually Flogger who starts it… and you don’t want to end up imitating Flogger now do yeah?? :dev2: :dev2:
And I’m going to have to repeat the same question that’s always repeated when this topic is repeated – how do you define the parameters which would single out an aircraft as the “best” air superiority fighter?:confused:
LevshaThere was something called World War 2,and yes the numbers won the war but undermining agility just lead to greater losses in both planes and more importantly pilots.
I still stick with my statement, and notice my wording, I never said that agility was completely irrelevant – but Sens has anyway more or less explained why it doesn’t seem to be the prime factor. You mention the Second World War, but in this war the most widely used combat aircraft were never chosen for their manoeuvrability, you know, all those 2 and 4-engined bombers, the Il-2 Shturmovik and other attack types, obviously agility was sacrificed in these examples, they couldn’t have carried out their role otherwise.
Even with aircraft designed to shoot down other aircraft agility was rarely if ever the design parameter which decided a fighter’s success. One exception that does spring to mind is the Me-110 over the Battle of Britain, were it was indeed completely out-manoeuvred and shot down, but this aircraft later on had better success as a night fighter, shooting down Lancasters.
What most people have in mind when discussing combat manoeuvrability is one-on-one combat between 2 fighters, Spitfire v Bf-109, f-86 v MiG-15, F-16 v MiG-29 – do we know which aircraft is the more manoeuvrable or agile? I don’t think it ever mattered, it would seem in most cases that these aircraft met, agility was never the decisive factor.
LevshaWake up.. With introduction of stealth agility becomes much more important than in the 90s.
Agility has never been that important in the entire history of aerial combat as far as I can see, certainly not the decisive factor. Far more important have been numbers, training, avionics, intelligence, tactics, weapons and of course location of combat!
LevshaPS – How many other manoeuvres named after their ‘inventor’???
I can think of the Immelman Turn, Derry Turn – and of course Nesterov’s Loop.
Is the Lomcevak (sp?) named after anyone ?
What’s the name of the that particular air intercept flight profile, which involves the interceptor scrambling from the airfield and climbing to its normal intercept cruising altitude using full afterburner, but from then on continuing the intercept at this altitude in dry thrust (non-afterburning)? If I do recall it’s named after someone with a Polish/Slavic surname?:confused:
When you drink a very strong home made distillate containing 75%(or more) of alcohol in the morning, you can say that it is a good way to start a new day with a glass of “lomcovák”.
Sounds like a variation on the Russian expression; ‘drink a hundred grams (of vodka) in the morning – and the rest of the day will be free!’ (100 грамм с утра и весь день свободен). A philosophy I’ve seem in many people… and not just in Russia;)
LevshaNo, i am not saing it is irrilevant, i say that an ureliable missile carried in large number and used, as stated by many sources in visual engagements is a waste of money.
Well then you’re basically touching on a budgetary issue and not a technical one.
Reminds me of the press conference, during the actual war itself, given by “Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf”. When after showing to the press, AH-64 gun camera video footage of the same helicopters attacking Iraqi armoured vehicles, he then turned around and wondered out loud as to why the Apache pilots used their Hellfire missiles to destroy the Iraqi vehicles when they could have used the “cheaper” 30mm cannon instead!
If a cheaper weapon was actually available to use instead, it probably was a waste of money… but who cares?? Just because the Sparrow was used when it didn’t need to be used doesn’t imply that it isn’t a useful weapon in other situations… and it doesn’t mean it’s an unreliable weapon one either – so stop calling it that.
LevshaYou started of by arguing that the Sparrow was unreliable but now you’re just saying that it’s irrelevant, what exactly is your line of argument?
What do you mean by all its kills weren’t BVR? Have you got a source for that, or were those the actual RoEs? Obviously the pilots involved selected to use the AIM-7 instead of the AIM-9 in most of the air combats – and they must have had their reasons for doing so, presumable because the Sparrow ensured a better likelihood of a kill?
And if they fired 2 missiles to every target it means that :
1
they knew the radar missile does not work well
2
for exemple the F15 was so big and expensive because it had to carry ineffective missiles…
Like I said, I don’t know for sure if the USAF pilots actually fire their Sparrows in pairs, but I’m sure someone else on the forum will soon enlighten us.
LevshaSparrow always had fame to be ureliable, even the last version the M war fired (source Jane’s “F14 Tomcat – how to fly and fight”) 71 times in gulf war obtaining only 26 kills.
I have not rates for AIM 120 can you help me?
Hmmm, seems like a pretty good record to me!:cool:
Do you know of any other SARH or other medium range AAM with a better record?:rolleyes:
Besides, if the American pilots fired the Sparrow in pairs at each individual target I guess that would mean that at least 50% of all missiles are doomed to failure anyway, wouldn’t it (although I’m not familiar with actual USAF tactics or procedure in this respect) ?
Most of the coalitions’ air to air kills against Iraqi air force targets were carried out with using the AIM-7 Sparrow,
by the way.
LevshaSomewhat related: south korean F-16s readiness is at 50-60% for months now:[/url]
Hmmm…USAF F-16C Block 30s are 55-60% too. It doesn’t look like anybody is getting preferential treatment.
But are these, in any way, bad statistics, relatively speaking, or are they in fact very good figures for a 4th generation combat aircraft nowadays??:confused: :rolleyes:
What are the readiness levels for the F-14/F-15/F-18/Tornado ADV/Mirage 2000 etc, they’re hardly any better, are they?
I won’t even try enquiring about the MiG-29/MiG-31/Su-27:rolleyes:
Sign In
