Re: Film of the way carrier landings used to be in the RN

Came across this today on Avweb and don’t think its been shown on here before. It looks like a 5 minute section from the BBC ‘Sailor’ series from the 70’s and shows just how marginal landings looked on the old Ark Royal – Phantoms and Buccs doing their qualifying landings. Unsurprisingly lots of bolters. Scroll about halfway down the page to find the vid.. Its certainly a period piece but fascinating.

Have you seen the (USA) PBS special entitled, “Carrier”? In one episode it has a twenty minute sequence called “pitching deck.” It shows the problems of getting aboard a Nimitz Class carrier in heavy seas. It is on You Tube, URL;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGMI8d3vLs ___ Part #1 of 4

I have been on several 55,000 ton plus cruise ships and I did not know a big ship like a super carrier could move that way! The rolling as well as the pitching of the deck is amazing.

RE: Rafale News 5

Thanks for the info. I was scratching my head and wondering why anyone would want to put a 20 year old missile design on a new airplane.
I didn’t realize the “A” is a modernized version.

Maybe the reason is, the twenty year old missile is still a threat to almost all warships.

Re: My fighter is better than your fighter threads

by many measures the Super Hornet can be bested by other extant fighters.

Have you considered the qualities of the Rafale? Yes, the F/A-18E/F is a good all around aircraft but, the Rafale has these qualities also. If I were on a carrier being attacked by Su-27’s carrying ASCMs escorted by AA-12 armed Su-27’s, I would rather be in Rafale.

In exercises, Rafale pilots report that the F/A-18Cs are harder to kill than a F/A-18E/Fs!

Adrian

RE: F-14A VS F-15A WVR, early 70’s ATA combat

Recently I have been reading Osprey’s book of Irainian F-14 tomcats units in action. There is a whole chapter to why the F-14 was selected over competitiors, notibly the F-15A in weapons systems etc…

The part I don’t quite understand is when the Iranian pilots express their preference for the F-14 rather than the F-15 in WVR combat, of which Im lost:confused:

When the F-15A first came out, the USAF did not fully realize it exceptional ability to fight in the vertical plane, not just the horizontal plane. Once the F-15A started working the vertical against the F-14A, a weakness was found. The USAF as a whole took note at the F-15’s vertical abilities when the YF-16 was going through testing. The engagements that started at 15,000
feet (4,573m) against another YF-16 at 15,000 feet and the fight progressed upward! Engagements that started at 30,000 feet (9,150m) stayed at that altitude or moved upward. (The article in AW&ST Oct. 21, 1974, Pg. 40-44, “YF-16 Could Advance Air Combat Tactics” By Donald E. Fink)

The other aspect mentioned by SENS, jdsgn and, MadRat was the problem of the MiG-25 which was making regular flights over Iran, south of Tehran. The Shah wanted to counter these efforts by the Soviets. The Shah felt his best counter to this would be the Tomcat/Phoenix combination which would have the advantage of being to attack outside the weapons envelope of the MiG-25 and its missile combination. It was President Nixon who on a visit to Iran offered the Shah the opportunity to purchase the F-14A or F-15A.
The US was always afraid that the Soviet AF would get a ‘real’ look down shot down capability, like the F-14 and F-15 have and then, the MiG-25 would be far more formidable.

its worth I think looking at the Israeli F-15 volume in the same series to se why they chose differently.

Could you briefly expand on this, please? I know the IAF with its small border area needs a plane that works best in the near BVR and WVR environment.

I’d still be wary of riding an F-18E into a fight with anything with the range of a Phoenix.

I agree, especially if the Phoenix’s radar has been altered and current ECM of the F/A-18 is less than optimal. Or, if the F-14 ripple fires two Phoenix Missiles, one active and the other home on jam!

in a documentary: Tomcat Sunset, I recently got it and watched, i did not pay particular attention to the reason Iranians choose it, but i think the Shah was at the presentation – Airshow and he liked it – was impressed with the show and presentation of the F-14 especially the swing wings

The Shah was at the flight demonstration but, the Iranian AF had evaluated the two fighters and favored the F-14A. The flight demonstration impressed the Shah who gave it his final approval. The Shah was not a fool to think he could accurately evaluate the two aircraft by watching a five minute (or so) flight demonstration.
Beside, by choosing the F-14A he would have more leverage! Grumman was in financial crisis, cost over runs on the F-14 program of which the USN refused to pay for was getting so large that they could not be absorded any longer. The influx of Iranian money helped solve the problem.

At that date the Iraqis were years from the MiG-25, when former SU MiG-25R did recce flights into the Iran.

Actually they did, the reason for the Shah’s concern. It was President Nixon who on a visit to Iran in 1972, offered the Shah the opportunity to purchase the F-14A or F-15A. In his last week as the Iranian leader, the Soviet AF sent a flight of twenty-five MiG-25’s on a high altitude run deep into Iranian airspace! The Shah did not want to use the F-14’s to intercept the MiG flight because the Tomcat was the symbol of all who oppose the Shah and his close ties with the USA.

Adrian

RE: Place of the internal gun on A2A fighters

Since invention of computer, IRST and radars and HUDs the gun can be so precise that you don’t need the “fill the air with lead” M61.

As I said in posting #24, it is a philosophical perspective. It works for America and its needs. Maybe other countries have different needs and their requirements are different. As I also stated, the snap shot is the circumstance in which the M-61 is better than its competitors. Slower firing rates in this circumstance means the target aircraft might not be hit because the impact point is either in front or in back of the aircraft. The fifty or seventy-five rounds per second would mean multiple hits.
The USAF looked at using another caliber cannon for the F-22A, such as the GAU-22/A -four barrel 25mm cannon (used on the F-35) and in the end for air to air combat decided to stay with the M-61 for a variety of reasons. It is not a matter of filling the air with lead, the cost of the ammo, or the additional fuel usage due to the additional weight. It is about have a badly needed weapon when all else fails.

[QUOTE=Schorsch;1301672]An average soldier weights empty 70kg and (with equipment, gun and stuff) 100kg “NTOW”. So if a bayonet weights 2kg, I would consider it wasted weight./QUOTE]
Maybe in Japan and a few other countries the weight of the average soldier is 70kg (154lbs) but in the American Army it is well above 84kg (185lbs). (SEE NOTE) As late as the combat in Iraq -2003 showed, the bayonet was still needed in ground / hand to hand combat! When the ‘fit hits the shan’ that extra amount can make the difference between life and death. That is true whether the combat is on the ground or in the air.
NOTE:
In WW-2, Japanese Marines lost many hand to hand combat at because they were forty pounds on average lighter than the US Marines they faced, 140 (63kg) to 180 (82kg) respectively. Today’s US Marines and soldiers are heavier than their WW-2 counter-parts.

Adrian

RE: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics

Typhoon, thanx for the video.

[QUOTE=Grizzly01;1300517]At LeBourget ’89 and Farnborough ’92 Flanker did a 360 turn in 13.5 and 14 seconds respectively. At Nellis 2007 Raptor turned in about 17 seconds.
Do you really think the USAF would let you see the maximum performance of the F-22A?

Of course you have to take into consideration that Raptors are flown by USAF pilots and MiGs and SU’s were flown by test pilots which may have been exceeding the normal limits. Still, I miss those early pre-TVC displays of MiG-29 and Su-27. They still look impressive.

What are you trying to say, that one aircraft’s performance is better than the others because of difference in quality of the pilots? By the time one reaches the level to display the nation’s best aircraft, that pilot is very accomplished! I know all the F-22A pilots have at least 1,500hrs in F-15C’s. I have heard once, that the F-22A pilots are also being drawn from F-16 pilots.

In Discovery Channel, I watched that commentator quoted distinguished guest who oroginally was a Harrier pilot: “it was only 10 seconds”, in which the turn certainly was a nomal turn. I mean a turn, neither roll nor spin nor flip, just an around turn.

I agree with the philosophy that the announcer knows little in accurate information, to only trust the word of those being interviewed. Not ‘sound bites’ but, interviews where the pilots are allowed to actually speak.

The real question would be, how many recce MiG-25s were shot down while performing their recce mission under optimum conditions… Except the trap set by Israeli F-4s someone mentioned here before (was it a confirmed kill?), I have serious doubts you find many.

The first MiG-25 shot down by the Israelis was at 50,000ft (15,240m), I don’t remember how fast it was flying. According to the I²RAF, several MiG-25’s were killed at high altitude by the F-14A/Phoenix Missile combination. What the specifics are I don’t know.

RE: The MiG-25 Unsurpassed interceptor

The US navy operated more modern F-14s and betetr versions of AIM-54s, also the US and Grumman denied any real use of the AIM-54 by Iran.

YES…. they continue to deny it even though Tom Cooper has obtained through the “Freedom of Information Act” (FOIA) documentation from “air intelligence” warning Saudi and USAF pilots to avoid the northern region of the Gulf, for the previous day an F-14A used a Phoenix Missile to kill a Tu-22B Blinder. The Blinder was trying to get out of Iranian airspace at Mach 1.0+ at 44,000 feet. The F-14A was approaching Mach 2 at 40,000 feet as it fired at the bomber seventy miles ahead at the time of launch.

The US navy operated more modern F-14s and betetr versions of AIM-54s, also the US and Grumman denied any real use of the AIM-54 by Iran.

If you check during that same period (after the PGW#1), the F-15C’s had several encounters with Iraqi Mig-25’s, firing many Sparrow Missiles and failing to shoot down any of the MiG-25’s. A lot of discussion about the Iraqi’s having French made jamming pods helping defeat the American attempts.

On the other hand some Russian sources acknowledge the loss of a few MiG-25 s to F-14s, but all this lacks any real evidence such a wreckage picture.

Why would the Russians admit to loss of a fighter to American designed aircraft, if it did not happen????

While there are many who would like to think Tom is making up stories, he gets up off his butt, interviews people involved and spends his own money to get documentation from the US Government to validate his positions. (To get documentation from the FOIA, you must know the all the identification numbers, etc. and then spend $45+/hr for a government employee to locate it!) Tom’s positions are not popular in some quarters of the US Military, that by itself does not make them inaccurate!

One thing that angers me is the people who felt Iranian Air Force and pilots were competent when they flew for a dictator. Now they operate, flying for a theocracy and now lack competence?? I don’t think many Americans would like their technical competence called into question because of what the current US Government is doing at home and around the world. I sure would not want anybody to judge me by what the President of the US is doing.

Adrian