Thats funny! I liked that. 🙂

incredible confussion;

the flogger ML-F corner speed (obviusly lower than the posted above) is at 8gs, the f14 corner speed is at 6.5gs (and is much higher that the miraculous 300knots!!!), that is the max f14 structural g limit, an what the hell is 7.5gs at mach2!!!!

The F-14 did not have a structural g limit of 6.5 gs. There may have been an operational directive to keep gs below 6.5 to preserve the airframe life, but the Tomcat pulled more than 6.5 gs.

About wing glove vanes, you should know that in F-14 these are put in fixed position in 90’s because it was concluded that they are unneccessary.
One more myth about F-14 eliminated.

I read about that. Fighters manuver best at their corner velocity. The F-14 had a very low corner velocity, much lower than the MiG-23. The F-14 really didn’t need to pull high g at Mach 2, so I can see why that ability was not worth the expense. The MiG-23 fights best at higher speeds, perhaps slashing with the wings fully swept. The excessive stabilty would be a bigger problem for the MiG-23 than the F-14, which fights very well at low wing sweep. If I was an F-14 pilot who had to go up against a jet with a really low wing loading, like a MiG-17, I’d put the wings back and slash at it. I’d want my glove vanes back then. The military often cuts some feature off a weapon just to save money. The glove vanes made the F-14 a better fighter when it had them, even if it usually didn’t need them.

Thats a great site! I once built a 1/72 scale VF-82 F-14A in 1980 markings. I was never sure I had the star and bar in the right place for that year, but it looks like I did – small size aft of the fuselage stripe. 🙂

“Ben Lambeth, of the US think tank Rand Corporation, flew the MiG-23UB…
His first impression was the poor view from the cockpit – he was in the front seat. Angle of attack was red-lined at 18deg, and departure and pro-spin tendencies were vicious. Corner velocity… was about 430kt, rather on the high side. Roll response was slow, stick forces were heavy, and Lambeth assesed the turning capability as something between the F-104 and the F-105. In fact, very poor. The “feel” of the Flogger was somewhere between the Tornado and the unslatted Phantom. To summarize, it was no real match even for the Phantom, while against the next generation of Western fighters it was a non-starter.”
“To go up against Western fighters such as the F-14… would have been a nightmare.”
MiG-23, Modern Warplanes, Edited by Mike Spick

“Today, the F-14’s fighter-verses-fighter capability is less respectable. Against older aircraft like the F-4 (or the MiG-23 ‘Flogger’) the Tomcat has few problems…”
World Airpower Journal Volume 7 Autumn/Winter 1991

I would add that one problem that the MiG-23 likely has is excessive stability with its wings swept. As the wings of a variable geometry aircraft sweep back, the center of lift moves back. The tailerons must deflect down to keep the nose up. The farther back the wings go, the harder it is to pull up the nose. The F-111 could only pull 2-3 g at high Mach. Grumman solved this problem by adding the glove vanes ahead of the wings on the F-14. They add lift ahead of the center of gravity when the wings are aft, and allow the F-14 to pull 7.5 g at Mach 2. The MiG has no glove vane. Also, the wings on the F-14 automatically sweep to the optimum angle as its speed changes. The MiG pilot sets his wings at 45 deg for manouver, and they stay there. The MiG-23 really lacks the combat advantage of a truly variable geometry fighter. The body of the F-14 generates about 40% of the plane’s lift, and can keep the plane in the air when the wings are completely stalled. The advantage of this body shape was deemed to be worth copying when the MiG-29 and Su-27 were designed. It goes without saying that the F-14 has a vastly better radar, the advantage of a second pair of eyes seated behind the pilot, and it can absorb more battle damage. Even without Phoenix, the Tomcat has longer ranged missiles with larger warheads than the MiG-23 has. True, the F-14 is underpowered, but the aerodynamics are first rate, and it still has speed and range that few fighters match. The MiG-23 is fast too, and the thrust/weight is a little bit better, but I’ll take the F-14 over the MiG-23 any day. 😎

Navy planning for two new aircraft carriers

The Royal Australian Navy plans to buy two $800 million, 25,000 tonne amphibious ships by 2010 and secret discussions have been held with ship builders to give the vessels the capacity to carry eight or more so-called short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 fighters.

Australia spends $800 million for a ship that carries eight planes while the US sinks a perfectly good aircraft carrier that operated 90 aircraft. What a waste. 🙁

So we buy American stuff cause it creates interoperability with US stuff. This is despite the fact that a Su-30/-32 would suit Australia’s needs better than the J-35 especially in terms of range and anti-shipping capabilities.

This would mean acquiring Flankers that would only be used for the defence of Australia and no little side trips to Afghanistan or Iraq or whatever.

So who do you think Australia is more likely to fire those anti-shipping missiles at – the Kuznetsov or the USS Reagan? Who else is out there to shoot at? Maybe thats why Australia wants the F-35. The RAAF is far more likely to be deployed to Korea than to actually defend the coasts.

I hope they last a long time. The F-15E is more versitile, but nothing beats the F-111 in the strike role. The F-35 will be a more survivable aircraft, but it won’t have the range, speed or payload of the F-111. 😎