firebarNo it wasn’t. The F-12 was supposed to be ADC’s new interceptor to deal with incoming Soviet bombers. The projected supersonic bomber threat didn’t materialize. Ergo, no need for the F-12.
Of course that there is always a need for super fast interceptor.
Even if the attacking aircraft is not very fast, you should have an interceptor which is as fast as possible.
See 9.11 incident.
What’s a Tu-20? I think you mean Tu-95…
The TU-20 is a military designation, and TU-95 is designation of Tupolev company.
firebarAnybody who knows how to read will as it’s documented in just about every book on the aircraft. :rolleyes:
Yes,yes, that is an official explanation of XB-70 no.1 failure to exceed 2,5 Mach, but the fact is that N.American never attempted to remedy this defect regarding skin separation.
The other unsolved problem was engine unstarts.
firebarYou still won’t admit that the YF-12 succeeding in all of its flight and firing trials?
I said earlier. The YF-12 succeeded to hit targets only at about 30 miles.
The tests never demonstrated anything even close to 120 miles max range of AIM-47.
firebarExcuse me?
As far as I know, the first two planes who hit WTC were in many ways a sneak attack.
No fighters were launched to intrecept them…be it MiG-25s or F-16s…
The first attack was a sneak one. True. But second could have been prevented with faster interceptor. There was enough time between these two hits.
The attack on Pentagon also could have been prevented had the americans had a MiG-25 type fast interceptor with long range weapons.
With F-16s , the USAF could only watch in horror what had happened.
firebarYou’re aware that no fewer than 13 F-14 squadrons were outfitted to drop bombs?
“During the proceeding years the F-14s took on a new, more effective role as a fighter-bomber. In Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia, the Tomcats delivered laser-guided bombs while other aircraft painted the targets with lasers. The Navy was credited with 30 percent of the kills against forces in Kosovo as a result of the bombing performance of the Tomcat. The F-14 also demonstrated its ground attack capabilities in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2002, VF-14 led the first long-range tactical air strike, flying more than 1,700 miles round trip to Mazar-e Sharif, destroying Taliban aircraft on the ground. “
All that is true, but it is like hanging bombs on F-106. It can be done but it will never turn it into effective bomber machine.
Concerning bomb hanging F-14D, it was Grummans last hope to save F-14 in production.
On paper , it was better bomber than F-18, but reality is different.
firebarThe F-14 Tomcat’s retirement was directly connected with the limited production run of the definitive F-14D. Only 37 newbuilt and 18 converted F-14Ds were produced. The original plan had been to built at least 300 F-14Ds with a production run terminating sometime after 1998!
Needless to say, it is impossible to provide 10 or 11 squadrons from an original fleet of 55 airframes. It should be equally apparent that the TF-30 engined F-14As were well overdue for retirement, and the reengined F-14Bs were converted in far too few numbers, and were limited by their early 70s avionics. The F-14D simply couldn’t continue in service in such small numbers, which is precisely why it was retired so soon after the F-14A/B.
The truth is that the Tomcat production was cancelled in favor of a slew of programs that were later cancelled themselves. The Navy opted for the NATF and finally the A/FX before settling for the F/A-18E/F……..
All true, but NAVY has obviously concluded that F-14D was not needed any more, and that F-18E is a better fighter.
firebarROFL. The YF-12 did something your vaunted Foxbat has never done and that’s launch an AAM from Mach 3.2 and score a kill.
May be, but you must admit one thing.
Because of MiG-25 threat, americans never attempted another U-2 like incident. The MiG-25 effectively denied them vast amount of inteligence data which otherwise would have been gathered.
Taking this into account alone, the MiG-25 has more than justiffied its conception.
By the way , these are also the words of high american official. See book Mig Pilot.
firebarPlease. If they were so worried about that they could have stuck AMRAAMs on it. They didn’t. Fact is it’s always had the potential to do air to surface but fleet defense was deemed more important. Fact is with it’s swing wing, powerful engines, long range, and two man crew it’s an excellent bombing platform.
Theoretically yes.
But there are many design problems there.
For example, its wings. Are they strong enough to endure prolonged flights with heavy weapons, etc, etc.
We know that the F-14 was tested with bombs, but have these tests been successful ?
firebarThere was a reason for that, which you’re conveniently ignoring. A flaw in the manufacturing process was believed to possibly lead to separation of the honeycomb skin panels due to a melting of the adhesive used at Mach 3 speeds. Ergo, they limited the top speed
.
We will never know for sure what was the cause for its failure to safely exceed 2 to 2,5 Mach.
firebarThe only “unsolvable problems” stemmed from the policies of the MacNamara era. In the run up to Vietnam, the tactical TFX took priority over the strategic YF-12 bomber derivatives.
The MacNamara shouldnt be blamed for a technical failures.
firebarThe XB-70 had a troublesome test program. One unit was lost to a collision with a chase plane and another started loosing bits and pieces during high speed trials. Of course, the XB-70 had been gradually reduced from a production bomber program to research program – a decision which proved to be entirely correct.
It should be said clearly. The XB-70 was a technical failure.
Remember that, for a large 2,5 Mach aircraft flight data, americans were forced to revert to russian TU-144LL flights.
The YF-12 was altogether more successful. Lockheed succeeded with a small scale program where North American/Rockwell, with a far larger investment, failed. By any measure, the YF-12 succeeded in both firing and performance trials.
That is not entirely correct.
The AIM-47 missiles had max range about 120 miles, but max range achieved when firing from YF-12 was only about 30 miles.
Of course, you failed to mention that the YF-12 interceptor was made redundant by the total lack of a credible Soviet bomber threat. In the end, it was the failure of the Soviet aviation industry that killed the YF-12.
No,no,no. You do not take into account MiG-25.
It is a bomber, reconnaissance and fighter a/c.
That is enough threat to anybody.
Also, it is always better to have faster interceptor. Imagine that TU-20 or TU-22 are attacking at great distance from your interceptor force. You should have a very fast fighter.
Just like in 9.11 incident. Had the americans had a faster interceptors, they would have intercepted jet liners which strucked Twin Towers.
With slow F-16 they had no chance.
You have to have as fast interceptor as possible, like MiG-25 or 31.
firebarThe F-14 was designed from day one to have the ability to carry iron bombs, despite its role as a fleet air defense fighter. The integration of PGM capability and air-to-ground service trials might not have started in earnest until the run down of the Intruder fleet, but the Tomcat was never inherently limited to a single role by design.
Come on, Tin Wing. The bombs were introduced on F-14D too late to save it from retirement.
firebarBut when the Americans are happy with what THEY have it’s because they can’t do better? :rolleyes:
That is a different issue.
They actually tried to make a combat aircraft of a Blackbird, but they encountered unsolvable problems. It was too much for them.
firebarThe Mach 2.83 speed limit imposed on the
MiG-25 was purely theoretical, since the aircraft
had the potential to go faster from the very start.
High speeds reduced lateral stability and service
life, but there were cases of pilots exceeding
the speed limit without harming the aircraft.
These are words of MiG chief designer.
Well, judging by this projects, the soviets had the choice of increasing the MiGs top speed , and even prolonging supersonic flight, but they choosed not to. So, I guees they were pleased with what they had.
Of course.
Its combination of speed, ceiling and weapon control system was more than enough to deal with SR-71.
firebarThen the Blackbird also qualifies. It can perform ELINT, strategic or post-strike reconnaissance, air intercept, drone launching…
To be a multi role, aircraft must have been able to carry bombs and other air-to-ground weapons.
And also to be able to do some basic maneuvers.
For Blackbird, it is out of the question.
Didn’t the XF8U-3 hit Mach 2.6? Anyway, that’s irrelevant. The Blackbird is a combat aircraft, and it had no issues passing Mach 2.5. And cruising there for extended periods.
Above 2,4 Mach , Aluminium begin to melt.
It is not possible for Al plated aircraft to cross it safely.
Also, engines have to be a special ones, able to endure high temperatures.
All such stories can be ruled out.
Regarding SR-71, it is a military aircraft, but not combat aircraft.
To be a combat aircraft, one must carry weapons.
Not in tests but in service.
Sign In
