SchorschIn an encounter, with the powerfull AGW-9 at hand every experienced crew can rule arial engagement to its best terms. There was a joke in Israel, that a F-14A with AIM-54 had not even to take-off to rule the sky over Damascus. When limited to the AIM-7, the cheaper F-15 did become the first choise.
Always given the missile is on the aircraft. AIM-54 are a million USD a piece, the AIM-7 costs a quarter of that. So, the F-14 might rule in one versus one, but as soon as numbers are involved the F-14 might soon be outnumbered missile-wise. Let’s remember that for CAP missions even the solvent USN equipped its F-14 with AIM-7. A large expenditure of those missiles is unsustainable for every air force, especially as we can expect a Pk of well below 0.5 (due to out of envelope engagements, duds and tactics).
Today the “experts” of air combat do not consider a missile with the engagement envelope of an AIM-54 as vital element of their inventory.
SchorschAnyone know the range of the Gripen NG compared to the Rafale? Brazil is a big country, and I wonder if the Gripen could cut it?
I doubt the Rafale has any real range advantage over the Gripen. We have to accept that the Gripen will only carry 4 AAMs in long range config, but that is sufficient most of the time.
SchorschI’ve heard from alot guys that once the F-14B and D’s surprised many F-15/16 pilots with their manoeuvrabilty WVR.
When the F-14 drags the engagement into its domain, the low speed arena, any F-15/16 pilot can find a tough opponent, especially when operating short of corner speed (where the 9g rated F-16 cannot take advantage of its design). At high subsonic Mach numbers the F-15 and especially the F-16 ruled the skies. With wings swept back the sustained turn performance should not be that good, any hard turning costs lots of energy.
A huge disadvantage of the F-14 is its size, compared to an F-5 or F-16. That cancels out the advantage of the second crew member.
SchorschA MiG-25 at cruise was solidly within the envelope of the F-14/AIM-54. This is not surprising since targets of this type were specfically one of the threats the AWG-9/AIM-54 as enhanced for the Tomcat was designed to counter. This was certainly a consideration for the Iranians in their choice, but not the only one. It’s worthy of note that once the Tomcats arrived, MiG-25 overflights dropped to a trickle.
Armed with AIM-7, both the -14 and the -15 were marginal against the Foxbat, with the Tomcat maybe having a slight edge due to its better radar and fire control.
I think to get a MiG-25 you’ll need ground support, as the short overflight gives little room for the particular aircraft to get into fire position. I further think that the F-15 with AIM-7 was sufficient to make MiG-25 overflights a tough gamble, even if the kill probability was lower than with AIM-54.
One reason for the F-14 was surely the combination of radar performance and second crew member. Iran is a huge country with difficult terrain, its radar coverage probably not that great. To detect low level intruders the F-14 can do a favorable job. Iran was to get F-16 and had F-5 and F-4Ds. The F-14 could act as force multiplier, as AWACS for probably not on the shopping list.
In the end, that is what the Iranians did with some success.
As pure fighter in a network of the late 70ies with E-3A, the F-15 was probably overall the better aircraft. It cannot compete in low speed turning fights, but that is something a good fighter pilot wouldn’t engage in anyways.
Pitted against the threat of the late 70ies (MiG-23M, MiG-21, Suchoi 7/17/22) the F-15 was superior in basically all relevant aspects.
SchorschI once read that the Iranians were not exactly masters of air combat tactics. Lots of engagements ended in prolonged turning fights. For low airspeed turning the F-14 is much more suitable than the F-15, which is obliged to stay fast. Although the F-15 is credited with being “maneuverable”, we have to see that without leading edge devices it lost energy quite quickly when really pushed to the limits. Therefore the perfect aircraft for high altitude and fast flying including supersonic, but not exactly the one if you want to “outturn” the opponent at low airspeeds and Mach numbers.
Other considerations may have been time on station (Iran is huge and does not have airfields every 5 miles) and field performance. The F-15A was not exactly very good in range (also owing to problems with early F100 engines). The YF-16 had better range than line F-15A in the mid 70ies (with the same engine).
@all:
please don’t let this topic turn into another “MiG-25 hooray” thread, discussing what and what not can kill the “superior interceptor of all times” that “handles like a spacecraft”.
SchorschRange?
Screws and rivets, maybe?
Or the idea to have retractable landing gear?
Vertical tail fin?
“Range” is normally set in the requirements, so if one aircraft follows another it should have range, even if they not share a single rivet.
Not on strategic bombers. It seems that is what they had in mind.
The B-1A had it, and other Russian bombers, too. For supersonic aircraft it is close to mandatory.
SchorschThe Rafale is French, like the current main fighter. I guess some ties exist.
The Gripen convinces by its small size, overall low costs and its obvious suitability for small air forces (many AFs operate less than 20 Gripen).
The F-18E convinces by price per capability I think, and I guess Boeing can make very competitve offerings.
And the Eurofighter probably does not offer enough to justify the price. Performance-wise it is ahead of the Gripen and at least head-on to the Rafale.
The Suchoi 35, it is still a paper aircraft without any air force really committing to it in numbers. I doubt Brazil wants to be “launch customer” but rather purchase a mature product.
BTW: same carrier heritage isn’t that bad, Brazil still operates a carrier (which is to small for either aircraft, but who knows).
Schorschi just cant believe somone would mention ‘plasma stealth’ and Russia savind us from US imperialism in the same topic and be serious
He is not serious.
“miles” refer to nautical miles I guess. And if the aircraft flew low, a detection range of 20nm is quite normal if all happens sea level.
SchorschThe TU-160 is the first bomber designed in Russia, and was initially designed to evade radar detection using stealth technology.
So who designed the others? Convair?
By the way: the term “initially” indicates they dropped the requirement later.
Designers at Tupolev Aircraft Research and Development Company and other research institutions, created the aircraft combining the best features of the TU-22M and TU-95MC bombers, Russia’s first supersonic passenger airliner TU-144 and other aircraft of that class.
I would like to know which Tu-95 features are included.
The TU-160 employs a number of breakthrough ideas and solutions in its design, specifically the fins and stabilizers that can move in all directions.
Was a breakthrough in th 1980s like the color-TV … in Sovjet Union. All movable control surfaces are designed, tested and used for decades.
It can carry a payload of 45 tons and is designed to hold 12 cruise missiles. Unlike the B-1, which carries its weapons suspended on brackets, the TU-160 carries its cruise missiles and bombs inside two special modules.
Which is relevant as the … both have bomb bays. Period.
SchorschYip, I know. Thing is, nothing reaches the real world. Like AESA for EF2k. Lots of studies, maybe a prototype, then – nothing. In the meantime even Ivan is starting to field the stuff!
At the moment Ivan has concentrated on the printing of brochures announcing the new world of technology, still nothing has seen operational service and currently there is no reliable plan which air force might get how much.
SchorschOr the UK sells some Typhoon to the USAF as interim capability for the delayed F-35, in turn promises to buy more F-35 & uses F-18E as stop-gap in case the carrier is ready before the F-35 is.
SchorschOften overlooked:
– balancing asymetric external loads without much additional drag.
Maybe because hardly relevant?
Prolonged distances with asymmetric loads are a rare occurance I guess.
The additional thrust will be paid by fuel, too, and if the creation of a force via thrust is more efficient than via an aerodynamic force remains unknown.
SchorschTVC adds tremendous weight and complexity, which has to be reasoned by improvements in overall effectiveness. The MiG-29 is not a good example, but let’s stick to the F-22 and Su-27+. The first is a stealth fighter with other design constraints. The second is basically a legacy airframe from the mid 70ies.
In both cases the design OEW masses are about 20t. That is 60-70% more than a Eurofighter. People are comparing apples and melons here.
I agree that trim drag is an issue, but without detailed numbers I don’t like to comment on specific advantages. Trim drag is always a nice point, but when you look at details it might be a different issue.
What do we gain?
– faster supercruise (if yes, how much)?
– more supercruise (at more altitudes, but are these relevant)?
– less fuel (but how does that compare to the additional weight)?
– more “agility” (but where in the envelope)?
– relevant for which configurations?
And finally:
– how much does the program have to pay for it?
– what other capability could be afforded instead (AESA, more weapons, ECM)?
– under which assumptions can I claim superior success rate?
If – as often told by the proponents of the Super-Mega-Suchoi 35BMX Gen 4.99+++ fighter – the Eurofighter is detectable at 200km range, what the heck do I need TVC for?
SchorschWith a realistic true airspeed for each of 1000km/h in a head-on flight, the advantage of a kilometer additional tracking distance is equal to 2 seconds. I doubt very much that from the given technical advantage any real tactical advantage can be derived.
SchorschWe use a lot of foreign-language websites as news sources and information on this board, so I thought I’d make you all aware of something I figured out by accident a while back.
First off, this works using Internet Explorer. Don’t know if it works in any other browser as I haven’t tried.
Open an internet page that is in a foreign language. Right click on the page to bring up the menu. Towards the bottom there is an item called “Page Info” with another mini menu that pops out to the side. In there you should find four options, with the bottom option being, in my case, “Translate Page into English”.
It’s not totally accurate, but it will work to a pretty good degree!
Wir verwenden eine Menge fremdsprachiger Websites wie News-Quellen und Informationen auf diesem Board, so dass ich dachte, ich würde Sie alle wissen, was ich herausgefunden, durch Unfall eine Weile zurück.
Zunächst einmal, das funktioniert mit dem Internet Explorer. Weiß nicht, ob es funktioniert in jedem anderen Browser als ich noch nicht versucht.
Öffnen Sie eine Internet-Seite, die in einer fremden Sprache. Klicken Sie rechts auf der Seite, um das Menü aufzurufen. Auf dem Weg zu den unten gibt es einen Punkt namens “Seiten-Info” mit einem anderen Mini-Menü, das erscheint auf der Seite. Dort sollten Sie vier Optionen, mit der unteren Option wird, in meinem Fall, “Seite ins Deutsche übersetzen”.
Es ist nicht ganz richtig, aber es wird daran arbeiten, ein recht gutes Maß!
————–
Sean, you are using very translatable language.
I used Firefox implemented (=Google) translation.
I also tried it on some of star49’S posts, but they don’t make sense in any language. :confused:
Sign In
