FalconDudeI’ve never heard of any problems with the proximity fuse on the Phoenix – I’m sure it would have been updated on the C version in the 1980s?
Not a problem. Design. A fighter with RWR will turn to through the missile off. A bomber perhaps not so quick to react or not so able to turn.
Also a lot more massive target for the missile’s sensors.
FalconDudeCan and has.
http://www.acig.info/CMS/?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=1
I remember the watching this on the news. I think the Iraqi pilot just flew straight though.
FalconDudeWouldn’t it depend more on how the target was maneuvering rather than its actual size? Missiles as big as a Hawk or SA-6 Kub can hit ‘fighter sized’ targets, why not the AIM-54?
They can, but the firing position is different, their guidance is different. Don’t know a lot about these SAMs, especially the Hawks, which surprisingly enough I have seen up close more times than I could count.
I think the phoenix has a proximity fuse, but perhaps not fine tuned enough for a small target.
FalconDudeDidn’t the F-14 have a longer reach with the Phoenix missile, outside the R-33 armed MiG-31 in the RF?
Yes, but the phoenix would probably never hit a fighter sized plane at those distances. It was meant to protect the fleet from nuclear bombers.
FalconDudeAIM-54 was retired from USN service in Sep 2004, the Tomcats followed two years later..
Phoenix was designed to primarily kill bombers, even with later mods it was not exactly a dedicated dogfighting tool.. Misses against fighter-sized targets were common..
Yes, nonetheless people still give the F-14 a longer reach than other fighters because of it.
And as far as use, I vaguely remember not seeing F-14s carrying the phoenix at all from the mid 90’s on. did not have internet back then and relied on magazines though so I could be wrong.
Yeah, scratch that, I found a photo (wikipedia nonetheless) that shows a phoenix on a tomcat in 2003.
FalconDudeyou need to clear your mind of Russia bias and think with a neutral attitude. then the answer will be very obvious.
here’s a hint.
look at what the su-33 is designed and used for
look at what kind of missiles it can actually carry (not the ones for show)
then compare what the F-14 actually could do. look at its performance in Iran during the war. the F-14 will easily winmig-21 is limited. thats why CHina had to heavily modify it into a new airplane. it is short ranged but doesnt have the agility of the f-5. the j-7 fixed that.
singapores f-5 and chile’s f-5 has all those things you mentioned indian mig-21 has, and more.
No. The Su-33 is a more modern and generally more capable aircraft. The F-14 stopped carrying the phoenix missiles a long time before its retirement iirc and in its last legs was used as a bombcat (not sure about that though, my brain is too old).
The F-14 was a very good design, with many positive aspects, but even in its heyday was not the best aircraft around. The Su-33 is from the “best airplane around” lineage.
FalconDudeno. llook at the singapore f-5s. they are superior to any mig-21 version out there
f-14 is superior to su-33. su-33 cannot take off with much of a load. it was almost always empty
a-12 doesnt count. paper plane
Yes, but that is not the Su-33’s fault. If there was a steam catapult on the russian carrier things would be different.
FalconDudeYou want it unfair when you are a bully attacking others. When you fight in a war only to defend yourself you never have an overwhelming advantage unless the guy who attacked you is plain stupid.
Nic
War is not supposed to be fair. You fight when the odds are in your favour if you can. What is the point of fighting fair? The losses would be too heavy.
FalconDudea comparison of all the us and russian equivelant aircraft and which was better
F-5 > Mig-21
F-4 > MiG-23
F-4 > MiG-27
F-106 < MiG-25
F-15 > Su-27
F-16 > MiG-29
B-1B > Tu-160
F-14 > Su-33
A-10 < Su-25
whence cometh this list?
I wouldn’t say the F5 > MiG-21 .. better built maybe, but roughly similar
The F4 was probably better than the MiG-23 but it was a heavy fighter, not a medium fighter.
And the F-15 > Su-27 ? In terms of performance as a fighter or as a plane?
Again the F-16 > MiG-29? Let me put it this way, if you could cram the MiG-29 with the F-16 avionics you would create an ideal medium fighter.
FalconDudeGreat Ka-62 pics TR1.
Sorry, I don’t keep up with helicopters, is there going to be a military version of the Ka-62?
FalconDudeDisarming the US, Europe, WarPACT, and former CCCP states set up the current outbreak of wars. Up until the fall of the wall any of these four sources would have kicked the crap out of an insurgency
perhaps, but we will never know, will we?
FalconDudeI think every nation that had the means to intervene is complicit in not doing enough to prevent the events in Rwanda and elsewhere in Africa. That is not really a valid complaint to levy against the US alone.
Not to mention, while it is ignored in the western media and largely unknown to the masses, SOCOM has been fighting for years in West and Central Africa to eliminate terror group offshoots that are popping up all over, and training, transporting local forces.
True.. but other nations generally don’t intervene whilst the US intervenes in one place and not another often citing equally applicable reasons.
I cannot comment on SOCOM’s actions. I lack evidence and resources to do so. I am willing to take your word for it though.
FalconDudeDid US makes Assad use weapons again his own civilians?
Did US makes Iran fund Assad?
Did US themselves created all the rebel out of thin air?
Does any of these warrant an immediate involvement by the US? The US seems to be very absent from Africa when random tribes commit genocide on other tribes. Weird huh?
No, Russia doesn’t get a free pass to kill people. Russia gets a free pass to this mess as they didn’t make it. They didn’t make the Iraq mess either and they didn’t make the Libya mess.
They had a big part in the Afganistan mess and yes, we can blame them for that as long as you want. But not those and not Syria.
What is so hard for you to get? The US slowly and steadily tries to undermine Russia’s influence everywhere. Syria was a Russian Ally right where it mattered. Destabilisation of Syria and removal of Russian-friendly government would mean the Russians would have no permanent presence in the Med.
Ukraine? Should we go there?
who’s naive and who isn’t is evident. Propaganda exists in the western world as well, it is not a Communist prerogative. Perhaps you might remember there never were any WMD in Iraq… or have you forgotten?
FalconDudeFFS, have you not noticed that all the surrounding Sunni countries are bankrolling and supplying them?
Russia’s involvement – fine TBH.
You can’t seem to handle the truth. The truth is that the Qu’ran has some very nasty passages in it but many people subscribe to it and wherever they are there’s either human rights abuses or outright death and destruction among other things. The examples are everywhere and none of them good (not one), it’s not just some coincidence arranged by the US. The internet has facilitated and amplified this affect. The mistake the US made was creating the circumstances that allowed these people to ‘be themselves’. It made the mistake of assuming that many of the people in Iraq and Libya weren’t complete lunatics who’d attempt to commit the world’s first auto-genocide. A serious error of judgement, nothing more, nothing less.
No, don’t even go there. This is too far, even on a personal level. Many of my very close personal friends are muslims and they have nothing to do with this. Don’t go there. It is a nasty place and nothing good can come of it.
FalconDudeWell done, seem like this is the new hot trend around here. See someone disagree with you? =>argue with him using well thought and logical argument? => No better accuse them of being naive, or young, and that what they said is nonsense, no thinking or evidence is needed
The evidence are spread throughout the world, namely ruins, graves and destroyed lives.
You are acting as if Syria is only suddenly becoming unstable once US came.
No, Syria became unstable because the US wanted it to.
And why Turkey, Russia all get a free pass in your claim, even though they are involved in the war too?
Turkey never got a free pass from me, I already mentioned what my beliefs about Turkey’s involvement are in another thread. As for Russia, on this one they do, because the whole Syria thing is an effort to undermine Russia’s influence in the Region. Similar with Ukraine. They reacted. Wouldn’t you if someone was messing with your own back yard?
And messing with said back yard was a conscious decision, it didn’t happen by accident.
You will not grow as a person if you dont stop thinking about the world as black and white
This is a typical false dilemma. The lie that all compromised people hide behind. For some matters it is black and white. It has always been black and white. The false dilemma of ‘truth in the middle’ is a tool to keep the truth hidden.
Sign In
