# Cold War Intercept



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Here is the picture I have in my living room. The first person to tell me what's wrong in the image will die quickly when I kill everyone. 







Then we can discuss the interceptors at the height of the Cold War. In poll, the question is for intercept roles only. Any mention of "multi-role" capability is just ...a waste of energy.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

The Camo???


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Nope.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2005)

the probe(pitot?) on starboard ac is drooping


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

The insignia on the tail doesnt match up with the red/blue color bar???


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Nope. The pitot is under the nose, the probe on the side is the re-fueling probe.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

Hey, why isnt the F106 listed?..........

Isnt the wing pylon supposed to be on top?

OK..... I agree the Lightning had the best performance for an interceptor. However, I think the F106 and F101 had the better weapons. That said, Id still take the Lightning.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Dude, the F-106 is listed. And nope for les, and nope for syscom. There's no wing pylon on 'em (in reality, there were under-wing positions on the Saudi Lightnings)


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

Well dammit, MAYBE A BIGGER FREAKING PICTURE MIGHT HELP!!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

Nevermind.... I got it....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

There aren't any bigger pictures on the internet. And you don't need a bigger picture to notice the mistake. I'll post a picture of an 11 Sqdn. Lightning tommorow ...and then you might work it out. I will say it's quite hard if you don't look carefully and know something about operational Lightnings. 

By the way, don't you think the picture is cool? Right in the middle of the back wall in my front room...it's flanked by an 11 Sqdn. Lightning from Binbrook picture...and a Chinook from Odiham ASF.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

As a pure Cold War, shoot down Commie Bombers Interceptor, the Lightning has it hand down.

However, the F-4 and F-106 were no slouches in the 60s and 70s and fulfilled the intercept role well over North America along with CAF Voodoos until the F-15 and F-18s came along. In the 80s I could of seen a NATO scenario where Lightnings were taking care of Soviet bombers while the F-15 tangled with any fighters.....

In either case I think if the Soviet Union would of attempted a strike using its bomber force over Europe, they would of gotten mauled....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Interesting thought about the Lightnings and F-15s. It'd work perfectly. The idea of the Lightning simply was to be up there first and slow, or hold up, the enemy until the better armed machines could be up into combat. 

With a Lightning/F-15 combo ...it would have been the Lightning the shield, the F-15 the sword.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

What about the F-14???

The AIM 54 Phoenix system could destroy a bomber sized target from 75 miles out and further.... And flying CAP doesnt require you to go cold start and fly to altitude, ur already there....

Does that count as the interceptor role pD???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> What about the F-14???
> 
> The AIM 54 Phoenix system could destroy a bomber sized target from 75 miles out and further.... And flying CAP doesnt require you to go cold start and fly to altitude, ur already there....
> 
> Does that count as the interceptor role pD???



I see the -14 as a close second, especially fulfilling this role with the Pacific Fleet


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

...I did actually list the F-14. From a ground strip, the F-14 would still be left standing by the Lightning though. Most interceptions took place from ground strips, and even with the Phoneix system the F-14 was still behind.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

Ok u clarified the scenario.... FROM a LAND strip, the Lightning has no equal, period... My vote is cast...


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 4, 2005)

Lightning for me...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Interesting thought about the Lightnings and F-15s. It'd work perfectly. The idea of the Lightning simply was to be up there first and slow, or hold up, the enemy until the better armed machines could be up into combat.
> 
> With a Lightning/F-15 combo ...it would have been the Lightning the shield, the F-15 the sword.



Yep, agree! We should run NATO.....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

If I had any position of power over the aerial defence of Europe during the late 80s, the Lightning would still be in service because I would have demanded that English Electric implement it's modernisation of the Lightning.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2005)

As much as id have liked to vote F-14, it has to be the Lightning...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

Here's a picture of an 11 Sqdn. Lightning ...now you should get what's wrong with the picture...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2005)

It might be the colored thingy at the bottom rear of the tail fin. And the bullseye just under the cockpit is missing a color. And if its the same squadron, its also missing the "J" code.

Hey, isnt that the French tri-colors...... the unversal sign of surrender and submission?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2005)

Compare...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2005)

Maybe the gold triangle in front and behind of the roundel....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

Damn right, les. That's the 11 Sqdn. symbol as well as the eagles on the tail fin. The artist has missed them off ...when not around the roundal they were at the front lower of the tail. 

The white on the roundal and bars (on the tail) was removed later on. Some roundals would be ringed with a dull yellow. 

But, les got it. It's on the bottom one in this picture.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

Nice Shot!!!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

This could also be on the tail ...but there's always the black 'n' yellow marking somewhere on the Lightning.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2005)

Whoop whoop!!! Raise the roof my niggas......

Now.... What was my prize again???


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

I can't remember ...it's on the first page.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2005)

How bout this dude?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

I'm not worthy enough to be mentioned alongside a Lightning. Look at it this way, let's be honest, if the Lightning was a person it'd be a big mean arrogant prick and everyone wants to hate it ...but it's just too damn good to be hated by everyone ...I'm just not that good ...yet.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 5, 2005)

if speed and climb coupled with altitude are the criteria the mig 25 is the beast it holds the record for climb to 15000metre 20000metres is almost mach 3 capable ceiling of 70000+ 
any of you lightning fans tell me the fuel consumption per minute of the avon at full power ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

I got information on the Mig-25 

Unquestionably the most impressive military aircraft to appear from the Soviet Union in 1967, the Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-25 "Foxbat" a reconnaisance aircraft equipped with powerful cameras and sensors was unique in combining spectacular speed (Mach 3) and climb performance with simplicity and ruggedness. 

One of Soviet Russia's most prized and secret weapons, it was the one plane most feared in the West. In 1973, US. Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans deemed the Mig-25 as "Probably the best interceptor in production in the world today". In 1967 a stripped down Mig-25 set a world record by achieving a speed of 1,852 MPH and another aircraft set the altitude record by soaring to 118,898 feet. It became almost a Third World status-symbol back in seventies and eighties. It was replaced in the Soviet Union by the similar MiG-31. . 

During the cold War the Russians were highly concerned about the United State's XB-70 supersonic bomber project. In response, they built the Mig-25 which was designed to be a Mach 2.8 Interceptor for countering air targets in all weather conditions, by day and by night and in dense hostile electronic warfare environments. This was the USSR's answer to the design in the US of fast, high flying aircraft as the XB-70, North American F-108 and Lockheed SR-71. 

The MiG-25 lacked technological refinement, but its performance caused much concern in the west. It was designed to function both as a long- range interceptor and reconnaissance aircraft. The center fuselage is a big, welded steel fuel tank, so avionics, radar or cameras are in the nose. *Speed is limited to Mach 2.83 *mainly by controllability problems. The MiG-25 is a twin-finned high-wing monoplane with slightly swept wings and a variable angle tail plane. To improve the aircraft's longitudinal stability and to avert stall at steep angles and subsonic speed, there are two shallow upper surface fences on each wing. The high-wing monoplane configuration together with lateral air intakes both have the effect of reducing the loss of aerodynamic efficiency resulting from wing-fuselage interference. 

The aircraft is powered by two 11200kg Tumansky R-15D-300 single shaft turbojets, arranged in the tail section of the fuselage. The engines develop 11,200 kgf of thrust with fully selected afterburner. The engines provide a maximum speed of 3,000 km/hour at high altitude. The maximum speed at low altitude is 1,200 km/hour. The aircraft has a service ceiling of 22,500 meters. The range at altitudes between 9 and 11 km with speed of Mach 0.85 is 1,950 km. At higher altitudes between20 and 21 km and speed Mach 2.35, the range is 1,650 km. The maximum in-service g-load is 4.5g's. 
There are two-seat trainer versions of both the fighter and the reconnaissance version. Production of the fighter ended in 1983. The MiG-25 saw combat in several wars in the Middle East. Over 1200 have been built, of which about 75% were interceptors. The MiG-25 was produced by MAPO-MiG, the Moscow Aircraft Production Organisation MiG, which is based in Moscow and the Sokol Aircraft Manufacturing Plant Joint Stock Company at Nizhni Novgorod in Russia. 

Lt. Viktor Belenko's defection to the West gave the United States the opportunity to closely examine the Mig-25. The aircraft was completely dismantled and then carefully inspected by aviation scientists and engineers from both Japan and the United States. Upon dismantling the Mig-25, the data was analyzed by the Foreign Technology Division of the Air Force at Dayton, Ohio. 

"My God! Look what this thing is made of! Why, the dumb bastards don't have transistors; they're still using vacuum tubes! These engines are monsters! Maybe the Sovs have a separate refinery for each plane! Jesus! See these rivet heads sticking out, and look at that welding! They did it by hand! Hell, the pilot can't see a thing unless it's practically in front of him! This contraption isn't an airplane; it's a rocket! Hey, see what they've done here! How clever! They were able to use aluminum! Why didn't we ever think of that? How ingenious! It's brilliant!"--- MiG Pilot : The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko 

There were many surprises: 

--The Mig had been manufactured in February 1976 and thus was one of their latest most sophisticated production aircraft. 

--Transistor circuitry was not used but instead the Soviets relied on high tech vacuum tubes for most of their electronics. 

--Welding was done by hand. 

--Rivet heads were exposed in areas not critical to parasitic aerodynamic drag. Pilot forward vision was highly obstructed. 

--With huge Tumansky R-15D-300 engines the Mig was considered almost a rocket. 
*
--Pilots were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. There was a total of three engine instruments and the airspeed indicator was redlined at 2.8 Mach. *
--Above Mach 2.8 the engines would overheat and burn up. The Americans had clocked a Mig-25 over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973. Upon landing in Egypt, the engines were totally destroyed. The Americans did not understand that the engine destruction was inevitable. 
*
--The combat radius is 186 miles. *

--Without using afterburner; staying at optimum altitude and not maneuvering, the Mig can fly in a straight line for 744 miles. 

--*The plane was so heavy, at 64,200 pounds, that Soviet designers had to eliminate a pilot ejection system. *Maximum operational altitude: Carrying two missiles, 78,740 feet (for maximum two minutes duration); carrying four missiles, 68,900 feet is maximum. 

--Maximum altitude of missiles: 88,588 feet. 

--Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it. The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71. 

--The Mig-25 has a jam proof radar but cannot distinguish targets below 1,640 feet due to ground clutter. The radar was so powerful it could burn through jamming signals by approaching bombers. 
*
--Maximum G load: With full fuel tanks 2.2 G's is max; with near empty fuel tanks, 5 G's is dangerous. The Mig-25 cannot turn inside a U.S. F-4 Phantom fighter! *

--The plane was made of steel alloy, not high temperature titanium, although strips of titanium was used in areas of high heat concentration. 

--In a tight turn the missiles could be ripped from the wings. 

*--The Mig-25 was was not a fighter or an air superiority aircraft but rather designed by the Soviets to climb at tremendous speeds, fire missiles at one pass of the target and then land.* 

--Search and tracking radar had a range of 55.9 miles. 

--The pilot duties were to take off, turn on the auto pilot and await instructions to fire the missiles from ground controllers. The Mig-25 had a superb auto pilot and digital communications from an onboard computer to ground controllers. 

--Credit is given to the Soviets for building a high altitude Interceptor in a short period of time with the materials and engines available to them in 1967 in order to counter the perceived threat of the XB-70. 

On November 12, 1976, sixty-seven days after the defection of Belenko and his Mig-25 to the West, the United States and Japan returned the Mig-25 to Russia...in dismantled pieces 

Anybody remember that guy from Austrailia I got into the argument with when he said the Mig-25 could out maneuver an F-15?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 5, 2005)

Nope...

Nice info FBJ!


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 5, 2005)

what i thought most amazing of the mig 25 was the use of alcohol or the like in the hydraulic systems and rthe ground crew were sampling it regularly thats from somewhere in the balanko book when it came out


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> what i thought most amazing of the mig 25 was the use of alcohol or the like in the hydraulic systems and rthe ground crew were sampling it regularly thats from somewhere in the balanko book when it came out



I read the book, yep that's pretty amazing! I remember reading about his crew chief falling off the boarding ladder and passing out as he was getting ready for a sortie.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 5, 2005)

ref the one pass with an interceptor thats what they are designed to do take off point at the targets as GCI (ground control Intercept)--directs them destroy them and get back and turnaround if they still have an aerodome not usually a lot of yanking or banking in theory ;ground control in north america is by norad and i think ukadge in the uk . Most of the ac have a data link allowing them to be "steered " by gci guys


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

I don't know the fuel consumption of the Avon at full power, but the Lightning has a combat radius of 400 miles. 

And from that post Joe kindly made (Excellent information) it's obvious that the MiG-25 was not a capable interceptor. Climb and speed alone do not make a remarkable interceptor but they are important. However, if the MiG-25s weapons systems could not detect, lock on and destroy it's target then it's a pointless venture. How many MiG-25s would be operational at any one time? It's less modern than a Lightning, and the Lightning was maintenance intensive. 

Also, from call to altitude the MiG-25 would have been slower than the Lightning. Why? Vacuum tubes need to warm up. With that "sophisticated" auto-pilot and control system it would take a lot of vacuum tubes which need to warm up. And while the MiG-25 is sat there warming up, the Lightning has already gone. And it's missiles won't detach from it ...and the Lightning will be able to go to 88,000 feet with it's two missiles. And it's two missiles can actually hit aircraft. And ...well, the Lightning was just better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

Agree - you could barley turn a Mig-25 with missiles on its wings. The Mig-25 was designed for one thing - to stop the B-70 which never materialized.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

Great information Joe! Made for great reading! 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

Thanks CC! I actually got t meet a few Russian pilots who flew the Mig-25, they all confirmed what Belenko said in his book. One of them told me he was scared to death of the aircraft, felt like he was flying a flying bomb!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

Im not suprised! Ive always had that impression with the high powered MiG's, what with low funding and poor materials.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

Shameless promotion of the Lightning time!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

Nice D!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

We can't give the Lightning all the credit, other aircraft intercepted too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

The shot with the Phantoms is great! Nice pics!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

...some more...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

Some for Joe ...not all encounters were against Red air forces...


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 6, 2005)

Great shots pD!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

Ah, P-3s! Just makes me want to sink a sub...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

My vote still goes for the F-14. I dont care if the Lightning could out climb it or what. Once the Tomcat was in the air the F-14 could fly faster than a Lightning and it could hit the target with the Aim-54 Pheonix before the Lightning could get into range with its missles.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

I don't hear of any F-14 making a stern intercept on a Concorde flying at 57,000 feet and Mach 2.2. The F-14 wasn't faster than the Lightning. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, quicker to altitude, quicker to target ...it was just quicker.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 6, 2005)

Aircraft on alert could have the vacuum tubes warmed up. Plus......... vacuum tubes are immune to EMP.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Aircraft on alert could have the vacuum tubes warmed up. Plus......... vacuum tubes are immune to EMP.



That was sited as a reason why the MiG-25 had vacuum tubes, it's immunity to EMP. As far as having the tubes "warmed up" while the aircraft was on alert, there is no evidence that the Soviets ever did this. It would involve running heated air into the electronic bay of the aircraft or keeping the aircraft in a heated hangar, I doubt the Soviets did either...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2005)

Some more nice pictures..


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2005)

And you're certainly not going to have the whole squadron heated because that'd be one expensive bill for the government. A full squadron of Lightning's would be up long before a squadron of MiG-25s. 

Fourteen aircraft a piece, two on QRF that are warmed up (not the Lightnings, they don't need to be.), the O aircraft would be up. The crews would be pulling the rest of the squadron out of the hangars and such (RAF squadrons actually had another two on stand-by, but not in the Q hangar)...now the MiGs sit there for 2-5 minutes warming up...while the Lightnings are just piling on to the runway and only lack of room on the runway is what's stopping them taking off quicker. 

So, NATO attacks a Soviet MiG-25 base ...it meets two straight away...then breaks through and destroys the base while the rest are warming. VVS attacks a Lightning base, it meets two straight away ...breaks through...and then there's another twelve coming at them. Actually, if it were Binbrook...there's two squadrons and a LTF with T-bird Lightnings that also have full combat capability.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

If the Ruskies kept power to the aircraft and had the radar on, this would of presented a hazard to the crew and would of eventually burnt out the tubes in the radars.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

You dont need to have all the radar tubes on, just the associated tubes used for preamps, tuners, etc.

The main radar tube would be kept off for safety reasons, and also cause they heat up so fast once turned on.

I cant find any reference what tube the Foxbat used for the main radar amp. Klystron? TWTA? Anyone know?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 7, 2005)

lack of room on runway? do they take off singly or in flights? i be worried about the second launch and how many you can get up then after doing a hot turnaround. how many targets would be left after norwegians and danes had their go with 104s 16s and drakens


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

pD the F-14 could reach Mach 2.2+, I dont believe the Lightning was faster than the Tomcat. With its Pheonix's it could take anything out before the Lightning could.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

I wonder if the Lightnings had the radar and fire control needed to find and track very low flying aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

That I am sure they did.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 7, 2005)

unless the procedures have changed a lot the interceptor is usually vectored onto the target using awacs or ground based fighter cops (norad or ukadge) using data link and voice com being last option the a/c radar probably turned on during last part of intercept as to prevent detection by ecm (electro counter measures) guy on target a/c 
The awacs has alook down capability and the ground based radar is supposededly able to detect a small object a low level at great distances over the horizon . the early interceptors (f101 104 F4) were easy to spot because of heavy smoke from engines was visable at a great distance .
it has been known for 2 engine interceptors to shut one engine down and go full on other cutting smoke to a minimum


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2005)

The Lightnings normally took off in twos. Ever heard of a doomsday scramble? Every single plane scrambled, went up, fired off missiles, came home, re-armed, re-fueled and back up again. The whole squadron could be up in about 20 minutes. 

And the Red Top was designed for low-level nimble aircraft. It was perfectly capable at detecting low-level, and intercepting low-level targets. 

Adler, if a Lightning caught and over-took a Concorde at 57,000 feet and Mach 2.2 while on stern intercept...it's going faster than Mach 2.2, don't yah think!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Yeah you got me there. Duh stupid me. I still believe that a Tomcat can fly faster than a Lighting and besides again a Pheonix can hit a target before a Lightning can. So my vote still goes for the Tomcat. 

The F-15 also could outfly a Lightning.

Dont take me wrong I think the Lightning is a wonderful aircraft and one of the best intercepters ever built.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 7, 2005)

we called the doomsday scramble a flush it was fun to watch those big afterburners at night usually happened at night because of less congested airspace


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2005)

Both the F-14 and F-15 failed to intercept the Concorde in the same circumstances as the Lightning. The official record for the Lightning was Mach 2.3, but that's the same record that said 60,000 feet. 

The Lightning would rise to it's opponent and catch it before the other aircraft, it was so simple ...it was almost Russian! But ...at least it was built properly.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 9, 2005)

i think the concorde would be a pretty easy target immense heat source from those engines a head on attack is pretty common besides the f14,15 have bvr (beyond visual range) capability


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2005)

The interception against the Concorde was a stern intercept, they were chasing it as it was flying away. The Concorde was at 57,000 feet and flying Mach 2.2 - the Lightning caught it, and over-took it!


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2005)

i guess that proves lightning was capable of ceiling higher then fl600 cuz it had to be going down hill to catch it also probably overhead the base because it sure would've been sucking back the fuel


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

No sorry, as was stated there the Lightning had to intercept its target. The Tomcat can hit the target before it even is in sight of it. 

One reason and one reason alone. AIM-54 PHEONIX!

Sorry Plan_D but a Tomcat would out intercept a Lightening anyday.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 10, 2005)

You obviously don't know how quickly a plane as fast as a Lightning can make up for deficiency in it's missiles range (which was 7 miles). The Lightning was up before the F-14, it was faster accelerating than the F-14 and was ultimately quicker than the Lightning. And it could fly higher than the F-14! Current standing at 88,000 feet for the Lightning.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2005)

But the Phoenix can intercept 100 miles out from launch.

If the F14 is catapult launched, it would be at firing altitude long before the Lightning was wheels up.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 10, 2005)

Read earlier in the thread ...land-based. Since the fact of the matter is the vast majority of interceptions took place from land-strips throughout Europe.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2005)

Ok, so while the Lightning is still accelerating, the F14 fires the Phoenix on wheels up, which streaks to its target 100 miles away at mach 3+.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2005)

i think the reason they state ceilings in the fl500 area is because after that point they are req'd to wear a better flight suit for the higher altitudes same as sr71 and u 2 guys wear. Was the lightning stationed for any length of time in germany or mostly Uk if in the uk almost all interceptions would be over water i hope


----------



## plan_D (Nov 10, 2005)

If all safety regulations were forgotten and the F-14 launched it's Phoenix missiles from ground level, then they wouldn't have a one hundred mile range. To achieve it's maximum distance (72-135 NM, depending on source) the Phoenix must be fired at a height of around 40,000 feet so it can travel in an arc across it's optimum altitude. 

So, for the F-14 to be used properly from a ground strip it has to warm up, set-up it's systems, take-off, climb to 40,000 feet then fire it's missiles. It cannot just rise and fire in an instant. And at $500,000 a piece, the Phoenix would make for one expensive war! 

Plus the fact, the Phoenix won't hit everytime, no missile does. You seem to think the AIM-54 achieves a 100% hit. If the Phoenix missile was the ultimate air-to-air missile, why develop others during it's creation and operational usage? 

By the way, it only achieves it's distance if the enemy is head-on. On a stern intercept, firing at low altitude, the Phoenix is pretty useless. However, generally it was a remarkable weapon ...but very expensive, and not perfect. The F-14 still had to work to get into position to target it's opponents and release the Phoenix. 

Time to altitude for the F-14 was much slower than that of the Lightning.

And Lightnings were stationed in Germany too, yes. I believe there were four squadrons in Germany but I can only remember that 92 Sqdn. was there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Who said anything about firing a Pheonix from ground level? Now you are just making up excuses. The F-14 was far more advanced and better than the Lighthing. The F-14's capabilities were better. They were 2 different classes of interceptors and the F-14 would do better.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2005)

_"Ok, so while the Lightning is still accelerating, the F14 fires the Phoenix on wheels up..."_Syscom did, didn't you read his post? 

The only thing the F-14 had over the Lightning was it's payload, nothing else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Read it again pD. Wheels Up means Wheels are up, not down and not on the ground. That means the aircraft is in flight.

The F-14 was just as fast, has a better avionics package, has better weapons. It was a better aircraft. Lightnign was great but a different era basically. Different technology.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2005)

...and you can lift up your wheels as soon as you lift off the ground. The Lightning used to do it. Once it reached V1 the pilot would flip wheels up, once he reached V2 he'd lift off just enough to take the pressure off so the wheels would come up and he'd continue shooting down the runway at about seven feet. Then at the end of the runway ... up vertical. 

Syscom was implying that the F-14 could launch the Phoenix as soon as it was off the ground ... it wasn't your mistake, don't try and defend him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

plan_D said:


> ...so the wheels would come up and he'd continue shooting down the runway at about seven feet. Then at the end of the runway ... up vertical.



What you just described is a max performance take off that just about all fighters do. Ive seen F-16's do it in Iraq. Ive seen F-14s do it at airshows. Ive seen F-15's do it at airshows. Standard Maneuver.



plan_D said:


> Syscom was implying that the F-14 could launch the Phoenix as soon as it was off the ground ... it wasn't your mistake, don't try and defend him.



Dont insult me. I am not defending anyone.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2005)

Excuse me? You just said that the I had to read his post again, and told me he was implying the F-14 would be in flight on wheels up. Which is true, however he was implying on the instant of lift-off. For the Phoenix to be able to reach it's measured distance it has to be launched at 40,000 feet. 

You claimed that I was making excuses for mentioning firing the Phoenix at ground level, but syscom mentioned it, not me. And you are obviously defending him because he's joining in your argument against me. Just look at what's been said - you defended him by saying "Wheels up means in flight..." - yeah, and he was implying flight on ground level ...not at altitude. Which is EXACTLY why I mentioned it in the previous post. And it's exactly why I mentioned the Lightning flying down the runway at about seven feet - 'cos yeah, he's in flight but he's ground level. And if the F-14 launched it's Phoenix at that level ... then it isn't going to reach 100 NM!

And the F-14 wasn't just as fast the Lightning ...since the F-14 (And F-15) tried to stern intercept a Concorde at 57,000 feet and Mach 2.2 ...none of 'em could catch it. The Lightning could.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

Ok, F14 climbs up tp 100 feet and fires the missles.

The Phoenix would have some degredation from firing at a low altitude, but not by much.

Remember, there were plenty of scenario's where the F14 would be catapulted off the carriers and have to engage incoming cruise missles/bombers right away.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2005)

For a start this is from a ground strip ...and secondly, firing from low altitude would massively hamper the range of the Phoenix. Especially if the opponent aircraft is flying at 57,000 feet - the missile has to climb all the way up ...it's range would be embarassing for a long range missile. The pilot would never do anything of the sort - he'd much rather lose time climbing to 40,000 feet and have a missile worth firing than wasting it at 100 feet.

And the speed of the missile would be much slower down low ... just hope it doesn't fire his Phoenix from 100 feet at a Lightning travelling Mach 2 at 40,000 feet - it wouldn't be able to catch it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Alright pD, you said it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Okay that post was for up there not for the last one.

Okay fine the F-14 climbs to 40,000ft and fires its Pheonix. The missle still hits the target before a Lighning can catch it and get in range.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 11, 2005)

i realise that the AIM-54 was designed to be used on the F-14 or whatever but it's ability to destroy an enemy 100miles comes from a disposable store, not the plane itself, baisically the role of an interceptor is to climb as high as possible as quickly as possible, in which case the lightening beats the F-14.........


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

But then the interceptor will need to destroy its target.

It would have been interesting to see a Lightning with the Phoenix missle. You would have to design the system for one man operation, but it could have been done.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

I actually wonder why they never had other aircraft modded to fire the Pheonix. She was the premier intercept weapon in my opinion.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 12, 2005)

The AIM-54 was originally designed to be fitted to the F-111B but that project was cancelled. On a normal combat patrol the F-14 didn't carry the AIM-54 Phoenix because, at near $500,000 a missile, it was just too expensive. Maybe it's cost effective against the massive, expensive, long-range bombers of the Soviet Union - but they've gone. 

The AIM-54 is also heavy. Fitting them to the Lightning would be extra weight that wouldn't be needed, after all the Lightning could intercept it's target far from the danger area. The weight would reduce the Lightning's capability rather than improve it. 

The Phoenix, when launched at maximum range, was at risk of being jammed or confused from background clutter, even with the advanced AWG-9 fire-control. The BAe Sky Flash was a more advanced system that had less of a risk from clutter and could keep track on it's target more efficiently. The Raytheon AIM-7 Sparrow uses the same kind of system, and the U.S were interested in purchasing the Sky Flash instead of the Sparrow. Foreign users of the of the F-16 use the Sky Flash though. 

While it only has twenty-eight mile range, the Sky Flash is more capable of striking it's target than the Phoenix which uses it's massive (and impressive) range to make a name for itself - range isn't everything. It still has to use the AWG-9 of the F-14 until the last ten miles too. So, the F-14 can't go home when it's fired all it's missiles off.

Did I forget to mention the F-14A had a ceiling of 56,000 feet? And the F-14B/D had a ceiling of 52,000 feet?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 12, 2005)

You forget to mention that the Phoenix dives on its target from above where its radar return was highest.

The Phoenix missle system never had a problem finding its target.

$500,000 a missle is a bargain when you think of it, when compared to the cost of a ship.

Plus it was a mach 3+ which far exceeded the Lightnings speed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

and if the queen had balls she'd be the king, what's your point? you're still just talking about a missile insted of the actual abilities of the planes that launch them..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

No Lanc you just dont want to admit that something was better.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 13, 2005)

No, I didn't forget to mention to the arch of the Phoenix at all. I mentioned it's optimum flight path in a previous post. And, yes, the Phoenix was always able to be jammed while being superior to missiles before it. It's no longer considered advanced - and the F-14 can't go home until the missiles have reached 10 miles of their target. 

$500,000 was a bargain against massive bombers but hardly when a Lightning with much cheaper missiles could get their around the same time, if not earlier. The Phoenix was Mach 3 but how fast, really, was the Lightning? It was faster than Mach 2.3 which is stated - as 60,000 feet is always stated, and that's wrong for it's ceiling. But even though the Lightning is faster than the missile - the Lightning would be travelling toward it's target and would have about five minute lead on the F-14 from call to target. 

And that's Mach 3 on burn-out. And the F-14D could only go to 52,000 feet. Oh, wait, I already mentioned that ... but that was obviously ignored.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Lightning - 50's technology

Tomcat - 70's technology and better

Do you really believe that the Lightning was faster than the Pheonix Missle. You did say that. "The Phoenix was Mach 3 but how fast, really, was the Lightning? It was faster than Mach 2.3 which is stated - as 60,000 feet is always stated, and that's wrong for it's ceiling. But even though the Lightning is faster than the missile ". If you believe that then WOW!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 13, 2005)

The SR71 was the only aircraft to have the airframe materials to reach mach 3 (yes I know the Foxbat could reach that, but it had plenty of steel to handle the heat loads).

On paper the Lightning could go way faster, but it did have a redline below Mach 3, unless the pilot wanted to see his jet start to glow red.

This emphysis on ceiling of the jets is kind of redundant, and not applicable for aerial warfare begining in the 70's. No one fly's high and fast anymore. Its as fast and as low to the ground as possible.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The SR71 was the only aircraft to have the airframe materials to reach mach 3 (yes I know the Foxbat could reach that, but it had plenty of steel to handle the heat loads).



Are you forgetting the X-15. It could go like Mach 6.72.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 13, 2005)

X-15 was a rocket plane, not a jet plane.

It also was air launched by a B52!!!

(I hope non of our Brit friends wll say a Lanc could be converted to do the same thing!!!)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Um syscom, *I have news for you the X-15 was still a plane.* Yes it had a rocket engine and yes it was dropped from a B-52 but you know what it was still a plane. Therefore in that sense the SR-71 was not the only plane like you state.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 13, 2005)

Yes it was a plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Then why the issue. You made it seem like it did not count because of those reasons you stated.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 13, 2005)

everybody seems to be fixated on max speed how much flying time did lightning have at full power the 101 at full power consumed 85 gals per engine per minute for about 13 -18 minutes of flight time depending on number of tanks which is approx 300nm one way or 100nm in return mission including set up fo attack far too close to let an intruder approach particularly with stand off weapons


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Very good point there pbfoot.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 13, 2005)

Here is some info on the Phoenix AIM-54C.

Range In excess of 100 nautical miles (115 statute miles, 184 km)
Speed	In excess of 3,000 mph (4,800 kmph)
Guidance System	Semi-active and active radar homing
Warheads	Proximity fuse, high explosive
Warhead Weight	135 pounds (60.75 kg)

The speed is quite impressive. Almost Mach 5


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

That is actually what I allways thought it was at about Mach 5.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 13, 2005)

No it isn't, most sources count it as Mach 3. And the Lightning was aerodynamically superior to the F-14, no matter the era. The F-14 had a better weapons system. 

And, no, that wasn't a good point. The F-101 was inferior to the Lightning as an interceptor. It would be left standing by the Lightning and it's only saving grace is the nuclear tipped missiles ...but they're unguided. And it can't even reach the altitude of the Bison. 

The Phoenix would have to make up about five minutes on the Lightning because the F-14 would be that much slower. And high-flying, fast bombers don't exist anymore that's why the F-14 doesn't exist anymore nor does the Phoenix, it's a waste of money. But in the Cold War, they did exist and altitude was needed on top of climb rate, time from ground and speed. The U.S thought the U-2 was safe from interception until a Lightning bounced one at 80,000 feet - could the F-14 do that? No.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 13, 2005)

"Skyflash is a medium-range radar-guided air-to-air missile. Designed to operate in severe electronic countermeasures conditions"

Range 28 miles ( 45 km )
Speed Mach 4
Propulsion One Aerojet Mk52 Mod 2 or
Rocketdyne Mk38 Mod 4 solid-propellant rocket motor
Guidance Marconi XJ521 monopulse Semi-Active Radar Homing
Warhead 87 lb ( 39.5-kg ) HE fragmentation with contact, delay action fuses.
Launch Weight 425 pounds ( 192.8 kg )

Id say the Phoenix system was superior to the Skyflash in long range intercepts. It was faster, far bigger warhead and far more range. The F14 could also carry six of them, as opposed to two skyflash's for the Lightning.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 13, 2005)

The Lightning never carried the Skyflash - the Skyflash was at less risk from being jammed, it was superior technology to the Phoenix. The AIM-54 was too expensive, and that long-range gave it much longer to become confused due to background clutter and jamming. The F-14 also had to stay there until the missile reached a 10 mile range to the target, then it would take over itself.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> .......that's why the F-14 doesn't exist anymore nor does the Phoenix, it's a waste of money. But in the Cold War, they did exist and altitude was needed on top of climb rate, time from ground and speed. ........



The F14 still exists.

And I do agree with you the F101 was inferior to the Lightning.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 13, 2005)

Removed from U.S front-line service ...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 13, 2005)

Im gonna be the Patriotic Canadian again and mention the Avero Arrow,

I know that it never saw combat, among alot of things it never did.

but lets take into consideration what the plane accomplished during its tests. what do we all think it would have been capable of? 

Oh and I thought the F-14 was still being used on the carrier, it was just being slowly fazed out by the Superhornet

Pbfoot youve sobered up quite nicely since your previous post eh?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Im gonna be the Patriotic Canadian again and mention the Avero Arrow,
> 
> I know that it never saw combat, among alot of things it never did.
> 
> ...



The Arrow would of been a very capable "heavy" interceptor killing Soviet Bombers with ease. It would of been fast and effective against such targets and might of found room as a light tactical nuclear bomber, such as the F-105, but as an air-to-air fighter, it would of been lunch for more maneuverable aircraft. I would put it close to the Lightning, F-4, F-106 or the F-14, but you're looking at "would of, should of, could of" and the only person who could be blamed for that was Diefenbaker....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2005)

Yep, the plan for the Arrow was not just a intercepter, it would have been able to carry short range nuke missiles from high altitudes. I heard that Avro Canada improved the guidance system on the sparrow air-air missile is that true?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 14, 2005)

I'd read somewhere that they had been working on a Sparrow II that was cancelled along with the plane. It was just a vague reference though, and didn't give a lot of detail. Hmmm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

Here is why the F-14 is the best interceptor there is. And dont tell me the Lightning can do this, cuz it cant, and dont tell me all this would not matter because the Lightning would fly around and hit all the targets before the Tomcat could even track them. The Lightning never had these capabilites that the Tomcat does.

The F-14 can track up to 24 targets simultaneously with its advanced weapons control system and attack six with Phoenix AIM-54A missiles while continuing to scan the airspace.

Overall, the Navy's Grumman F-14 Tomcat is without equal among today's Free World fighters. Six long-range AIM-54A Phoenix missiles can be guided against six separate threat aircraft at long range by the F-14's AWG-9 weapons control system.

The cockpit is fitted with a Kaiser AN/AVG-12 Head-Up Display (HUD) co-located with an AN/AVA-12 vertical situation display and a horizontal situation display. A Northrop AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS) is used for visual target identification at long ranges. Mounted on a chin pod, the TCS is a high resolution closed circuit television system with two cockpit selectable Fields Of View (FOV), wide and narrow. The selected FOV is displayed in the cockpit and can be recorded by the Cockpit Television System. A new TCS, in development, will be installed in all three series aircraft. Electronic Support Measures (ESM) equipment include the Litton AN/ALR-45 radar warning and control system, the Magnavox AN/ALR-50 radar warning receiver, Tracor AN/ALE-29/-39 chaff/flare dispensers (fitted in the rear fuselage between the fins), and Sanders AN/ALQ-100 deception jamming pod. 

All this taken from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14.htm

Oh and by the way unlike the Lightning, the Tomcat has actual combat intercepts. (If I am wrong and the lightning has ever intercepted anything but the Concorde, please correct me)

an E-2C of the VAW-124 detected two Libyan fighters taking off from the Ghurdabiya-Sirte AB, and moving north at high speed. Two Tomcats - actually belonging to two different CAP-pairs - were sent to intercept, in what was expected to be an exact copy of similar events from the previous day. However, shortly before the two formations passed by each other, the lead Libyan Su-22 apparently fired a K-13M missile towards the lead Tomcat. A controversy developed subsequently if the Libyan indeed fired a missile, or jettisoned a tank, which then - due to the fuel streaming out of it - looked like a missile, but the USN pilots were not to stop the Libyans and ask any questions. As the Sukhois flashed by, both Tomcats turned hard port, reached favorable positions and started to fire AIM-9L Sidewinders. The Libyan leader was shot down by the Tomcat wingman, the „Fast Eagle 102“, and the Libyan wingman was shot down by the leader of the US formation and CO VF-41, Lt.Cdr. Henry Kleeman, which flew as „Fast Eagle 107“. Both Libyan pilots ejected, and were apparently recovered by Libyan rescue teams. 
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_356.shtml


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 14, 2005)

Nice post Alder.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The U.S thought the U-2 was safe from interception until a Lightning bounced one at 80,000 feet - could the F-14 do that? No.



Ummm, I have never heard about a Lightning bouncing a U-2 at 80,000 feet. Do you have some source material for this?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2005)

Well either way it sure as hell wasnt safe from SAM's


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

No but the U-2 was the best spy plane ever made in my opinion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2005)

The U-2 was a great aircraft and I think the 1960 downing of Francis Gary Powers was a failure on all parts. The CIA was demanding more and more intelligence on Soviet Strategic Bomber strength, the capability of Soviet SAM capabilities were being underestimated, by 1960 the U-2s limitations were becoming apparent but it seem they were ignored and these dangers combined with the fact that the U-2 had a "window" of about 410 knots at altitude where it would either stall or rip the wings off resulted in a situation where a direct hit was not necessary to bring down the aircraft. At a Lockheed Management Club dinner I attended in 1982, Kelly Johnson stated in 1957 the Soviets were complaining about out overflights and they were going to shoot down that spy plane. Well three years later they did it.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

It was a tragedy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2005)

Yep - Powers died while flying a news helicopter over the San Fernando Valley in the early 70s. I was in a CAP Squadron named after him. At first we got flack for this but his son intervened....

My uncle Bill was assigned at a communications "expert" in Ankara Turkey around 1960 and once said he used to see Powers and other U-2 pilots, they were operating out of there and Pakistan at the time. When Powers got shot down they sent anyone involved with the mission stateside - they didn't even have time to pack up their household belongings!

One side note - back in the early 80s I saw an old Lockheed employee telephone book. Skunk Works departments were usually numbered 7721, 7735 ect., but there was no listing of what those departments did. Francis Gary Powers was listed as a Lockheed Employee in the phone directory I seen, I think it was dated 1959 or 1960.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

Interesting info there.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2005)

The US still has like two U2's in their airforce dont they?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

I believe NASA is the only ones that might still use them.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 14, 2005)

They were upgraded to TR-1s while I was in the AF, 84-88. I am not sure what was different. But I think Adler is right, I think they are all gone now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2005)

The last U-2 were used by NASA where in 1995 n celebration of the U-2s 40th anniversary first flight, NASA took one of it's U-2 and broke something like 15 climb to altitude records, not bad for a 40 year old airplane....

The TR-1 emerged from the U-2R which stretched the fuselage and wings. The TR-1 (Tactical Reconnaissance) designation was given to the aircraft for semantics, thinking that it's use as a spy plane would not be recognized by the Soviet Union during the early 1980s. I believe the TR-1 is still being produced or there is a line that is converting U-2Rs to TR-1s or re manufacturing TR-1 aircraft that were built in the early 1980s....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2005)

For Eric: _"In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning."_


For Adler:

If you consider just catching an enemy aircraft without actually shooting it down an interception - you must be joking to ask if the Lightning ever made an interception. Have you never paid attention to the stories about my dad scrambling Lightnings? Of course they intercepted Soviet bombers, they were on the front-line in Germany and Britain. The only aircraft the Lightning has shot down was a pilot-less Harrier that had to be destroyed to avoid casaulties. 

For the performance of the F-14. Well, the Lightning can be at 44,000 feet, direction and cruise in four minutes from call on a ground strip. The F-14 would be up in eight-nine minutes, after all it takes the F-14, with my crude working, three minutes-twenty seconds to reach 40,000 feet - that is if it can maintain a 30,000 minute climb rate, which it couldn't. So, I'd say about four minutes. Plus, on the bell it has to warm up and set up it's avionics, so being polite I'd say the F-14 is at 40,000 feet, direction and cruise in about eight-nine minutes, that's at least four minutes slower than the Lightning. That's okay, right? It's got the Phoenix to make up for that. But no, because the Lightning's recorded speed is Mach 2.3, that's around 26 miles per minute ...that means in the four minutes the Lightning has travelled over one hundred miles - more than the range of the Phoenix ... and Mach 2.3 isn't even the top speed of the Lightning. 

The Lightning would be there first, plus the Lightning has a seven mile gap to play with since it's missile has that range. Ideally, it would be a combination of F-15s and Lightnings, the Lightning would be the shield and the F-15 the sword ...because the F-15 is more advanced than the F-14. And the Lightning is capable of halting, or slowing any enemy assault 'cos it's just that quick.

Did Lightnings intercept!?!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2005)

Pd,From looking at its arrowhead design, though not quite Delta-winged, its pretty close, so I can imagine that its manouverability is not as impressive as its speed.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2005)

It couldn't turn on a six-pence like the F-5, but it was a vertical fighter. In a dogfight it could cause more than a shock when it pulled up, and climbed away from it's opponent where the opponent just couldn't follow.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 14, 2005)

the pure interceptor became a dinosaur about 1975 when more multi-role a/c became the norm the combination of the quatum leaps in electronic and computer technologys from start up and design of the a/c to and including the final product made the interceptor redundant 
and i think the f 14 would smoke a lightning hands down the times you qoute for time to climb i don't feel as correct...... i've given control instructions to an f14
to climb to fl350 within 5 dme or anticipate altitude restrictions .....he did it the guy in centre wanted to see if the a/c could do it and watched on his radar
i would have liked to see the one of the raf aerobatic teams flying the lightning


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2005)

Multi-role aircraft only appeared because of reduced funding ...but, didn't I say on the first page this is *all* about interception ability, any mention of multi-role is a waste of energy? I believe I did. 

The F-14D had an initial climb rate of 30,000 feet and a ceiling of 52,000 feet. It was slower on take-off due to modern equipment, and it also had to heat up it's engines. It's at least four minutes slower than the Lightning from call to 40,000 feet, which means the Lightning would actually beat the F-14D and it's AIM-54s to the target because it would have already made a 100 mile advantage on the F-14 before it launched it's missile. 

And the F-14 smoking a Lightning? Is that when a Lightning is flying at 60,000 + feet and the F-14 is struggling at 52,000 feet or what?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 14, 2005)

but the lightning has to turn around first


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2005)

... that's a great statement. You have a good point. Wait, no you don't, what are you going on about?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 14, 2005)

the numbers the lightning had were impressive but the tomcat was years ahead in every other facet including weapons, fire control,ecm and in particular the radar also the rio would be a major advantage


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2005)

Finally I get to do this


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2005)

The fire-control and weapons system were enough because the performance of the Lightning as an aircraft allowed them to stay in existence. The radar on the Lightning was also good, with a one-hundred and twenty degree vision it was capable of detecting targets many miles apart. 

The systems on the Lightning were basic in most cases, and that is what made it the ultimate point defence interceptor. It was up there, among the enemy before anything else out there. And it may have only had two missiles but it also had two 30mm Aden, which allowed it to shoot down much more since it'd already be near the enemy aircraft at the time. 

The F-14s systems were superior, no other number excluding combat radius were superior. The actual airframe capability of the F-14 in performance terms was inferior.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 14, 2005)

i sure they were good but to switch over to digital systems or new technologies as they came out cuz the lightning was a product of its era and it must of been very labour intensive to switch all systems over to new technologies and very expensive . i'm not up on the various mks and when they went with digital being how the original airframe (i'm guessing) wasn't designed for the new technologies


----------



## evangilder (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanks for that info on the TR-1 Joe. I figured if anyone would know, it would be you.

d, 88,000 feet?! Man, I have been a fan of the lightning, but that seems really high for a normal jet engine. But from what I have seen on the web, that does look like it happened (yep, I searched). That's f'ing amazing!

One thing that I am not sure of, did he intercept at 88,000, or just climb to it?


> It was also in 1984, during a major NATO exercise that he intercepted an American U-2 at 66,000 ft, a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Shortly before this intercept, he flew a zoom climb to 88,000 ft and, later that year, he was able to sustain FL550 while flying subsonic.


http://www.lightning.org.uk/archive/0410.php

I guess it doesn't matter at what altitude he actually intercepted it, the fact that teh Lightning reached that altitude is an interesting testament to the airplane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2005)

pD you completely confirmed my posting. I said the Lightning never had a combat intercept where it shot down an enemy aircraft. Tomcats did the same thing they intecepted Soviet Bombers all the time. The Tomcat however has shot down enemy aircraft. Ever heard of Libya?

Second what are you talking about taking 4 minutes to climb to 44000ft? The F-14D had a rate of climb of 50,000+, only the F-14A was 30,000+. The F-14 also had a service cieling of 50,000+

List of F-14 "Combat" Intercepts:

Aug. 19, 1981 - F-14As from VF-41 Black Aces shot down two Libyan (Soviet-built) Sukhoi Su-22 "Fitters" using AIM-9 "Sidewinders" after the lead Fitter pilot fired a Vympel AA-2 "Atoll" at one of the F-14s, which missed. One of the Su-22 pilots was seen to have ejected. 

Jan 4, 1989 - F-14As from VF-32 Swordsmen assigned to John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan (Soviet-built) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 "Floggers" with two AIM-7 "Sparrows" (one failed) and one AIM-9 "Sidewinder." The MiG-23s were pursuing the F-14s in an attempt to get into a missile firing position for several minutes before the F-14s concluded that they were under attack and outmaneuvered the Floggers. Both of the Flogger pilots were seen to have ejected.

Feb 6, 1991 - during Operation Desert Storm, an F-14A from VF-1 Wolfpack shot down a Mil Mi-8 "Hip" helicopter with an AIM-9 "Sidewinder."

2-1 for the Tomcat!

Oh and the F-14 had the most advanced weapons systems and avionix systems of any interceptor including the F-15.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2005)

Although I have great "sympathies" for the Lightning and understand it's role as an interceptor, after that zoom climb to 88,000, I wonder how much fuel was left?!?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 15, 2005)

Enough for him to bring it home and land, at least. And so what, Adler? So the Lightning hasn't dropped anything in real combat. It still could and would quicker than the F-14 on a point intercept. Notice how none of those combat actions used Phoenix missiles!? You lose out on the Phoenix argument so you bring in combat action? Well, with a normal combat load-out the F-14 would be left behind by the Lightning because the only thing keeping the F-14 anywhere near the Lightning in quickest strike is the Phoenix, and the Lightning is still faster. 

Either way, Eric, 88,000 feet is very impressive. See, the real ability of the Lightning is yet to be released. The top speed is the next I hope someone decides to reveal because it's obvious it was faster than Mach 2.3.


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2005)

I suspect folks that were trying to compare apples and pears. 
The Lightning had the fastest climb rate of any plane that I have ever heard of. It is a point defence intercepter par excellance. It had to and could, get off the deck quickly, gain height at a prodigious rate and tackle all comers when he got there. So the Lightning correctly had climb and speed.
The F14 had three things that the Lightning didn't have, Range, payload and very long range radar / missiles. 
The F14 was designed to operate from Carriers and had to nail incoming bombers before they could launch cruise missiles, probably the greatest threat to any carrier. It also had to dogfight because carriers only hold so many planes and fighters have to fight.
Had the Lightning been able to operate from a carrier then it would have been a modern Seafire, nice performance, poor range.
They were designed to do two different jobs and they both did their assigned tasks almost perfectly.
The F14 must be considered the more flexible of the two and is what the RAF should have bought instead of building the Tornado F3 which was designed to fill a similar role. Carry a good radar, lots of weapons and have a decent range. Unfortunately we got what you get when you try to do something on the cheap, something that doesn't do anything really well.

As for the actual combat record of the F14, I have no doubt the Lightning (or even dare I say the Tornado) could have handled a couple of Mig 23's, two SU22 and a Mil 8 with much better trained pilots.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 15, 2005)

pD have you read this? http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/lightning1.html

"The McDonnell Douglas F.4 Phantom arrived in RAF service in 1969, initially as a ground attack aircraft, but the intention was to replace the Lightning as soon as possible. However, it was not until the SEPECAT Jaguar entered service in late 1973 that the Phantom was released to replace the Lightning in the Air Defence role."

"Although the Lightning fleet still had plenty of hours left in the airframes, the type was considered too labour intensive to both operate and fly by the late 1980's. With the arrival of the Panavia Tornado F2 and F3, the writing was on the wall for the Lightning. Although it still had an excellent rate of climb and could dogfight with the best, it was always short of duration, even the F.6 only had a duration of around two hours without refuelling. The Tornado could stay airborne for twice that, so in 1988 both remaining Lightning squadrons disbanded, along with the Lightning Training Flight (the renamed Lightning Conversion Flight)"

Specs: http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/lightning10.html


----------



## evangilder (Nov 15, 2005)

Yes, the Lightning was quite impressive. The first time I saw one was in 1986 at the RAF Mildenhall Air Fete. What a pleasant surprise. I was impressed! But glider is correct, comparing the Lightning and the Tomcat is an apples to oranges comparison as their roles, while both interceptor, carried them in different ways. 

How about we say this: The Lightning was the best land based interceptor, and the Tomcat the best carrier based interceptor.


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2005)

Good for me


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 15, 2005)

evanvanglider said:


> How about we say this: The Lightning was the best land based interceptor, and the Tomcat the best carrier based interceptor.


That I would agree with.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 15, 2005)

Sounds good to me.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 16, 2005)

i found this pic on www.f-16.net please note the flight suit supposedly req'd for flights over fl 500 or 600 it sure had interesting numbers


----------



## evangilder (Nov 16, 2005)

Interesting!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

The -104 could do this with ease but couldn't carry anything in the process. It's amazing that the RCAF (CAF) did this with a seemingly stock -104.

Here's the site for the NF-104

http://www.batnet.com/mfwright/nf104.html


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 16, 2005)

my national pride is wounded the 104 that broke the record was a lockheed A model used as pattern a/c for canadair its in the national aerospace museum in ottawa http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/collections/artifacts/aircraft/LockheedF-104AStarfighter.shtml


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Enough for him to bring it home and land, at least. And so what, Adler? So the Lightning hasn't dropped anything in real combat. It still could and would quicker than the F-14 on a point intercept. Notice how none of those combat actions used Phoenix missiles!? You lose out on the Phoenix argument so you bring in combat action? Well, with a normal combat load-out the F-14 would be left behind by the Lightning because the only thing keeping the F-14 anywhere near the Lightning in quickest strike is the Phoenix, and the Lightning is still faster.
> 
> Either way, Eric, 88,000 feet is very impressive. See, the real ability of the Lightning is yet to be released. The top speed is the next I hope someone decides to reveal because it's obvious it was faster than Mach 2.3.



I did not lose anything, you just dont want to ever admit that something might be overall better than your precious lightning. Yes the Lightning was a great intercepter, I have said that over and over and over however and may have been better than the F-14 in some areas but over all the F-14 was the more advanced and better intercepter. Hands down.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 16, 2005)

Didnt we put Orenda Engines in our 104's?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 16, 2005)

no they used jumo 004b-1 and later upgraded to rolls royce nene


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 16, 2005)

FBJ, that is one hell of a pic man....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> FBJ, that is one hell of a pic man....



Isn't that cool! Everytime I see it I think of the old instrumental "Telstar" playing. It looks like it's on it's way to Mars!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 16, 2005)

"Telstar"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> "Telstar"



I like the Ventures version....


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 16, 2005)

And I like the Hawaii 5-0 theme from the Ventures

)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 16, 2005)

Thanks, Syscom. Now _that_ is stuck in my head!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 17, 2005)

Book 'em Dan-o! 



pbfoot said:


> no they used jumo 004b-1 and later upgraded to rolls royce nene


I thought the CF-104's built by Canadair used the Orenda built version of the J79 though.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 18, 2005)

Read my first post on this thread, Adler, I said point-interceptor ability. Not multi-role ability. Again -  . And I agree, and that was my point from the start as les asked "Is this from a land base?" and I replied with a yes, and he agreed the Lightning was the best 'cos this whole thread was land based interceptor. 

By 1988, Gnomey, the Lightning was old. It was set to be replaced in the 70s but proved itself irreplacable so the RAF kept them until the last produced were basically falling apart. The British Government didn't consider the Lightning inferior to anything new, but they didn't want to spend anymore money on a new Lightning project that English Electric (then BAe) had proposed. 

And I remember reading on this thread that the F-14's avionics are the most advanced in the world. I can't remember who said it ...but whoever it was, you're wrong. 

The F-14D carries the Hughes AWG-9 fire control system with a range of 115 NM. It is an old style radar of mechanical movement. F-15Cs carry the Raytheon/Hughes AN/AP-63(V)2 fire control/radar system which has a range of 135 NM and uses AESA, a brand new system which makes the radar lighter and more efficient because it electrically scans. It's much-much-much more advanced than the AWG-9. Then the F-22 carries an even more advanced avionics system, the APG-77 which can detect an enemies radar at 230 NM, and detect an object at 125 NM. It also uses AESA. It does various things that Hughes couldn't even dream of in the 1970s when the AWG-9 was produced.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2005)

Alright pD I think we finally reached an agreement with one another. It took a while though. Thats what I like about you though, sometimes we get pretty hashed out on some topics but in the end we end up seeing eye to eye.

By the way when I said that the F-14 had the best avionics package of any interecepter I am right, it does and the Avionix package includes alot more than the AWG-9. It includes radios, radars, warning radars, weapons systems. The whole system combined in the Tomcat is the most advanced weapons system of an intercepter.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Alright pD I think we finally reached an agreement with one another. It took a while though. Thats what I like about you though, sometimes we get pretty hashed out on some topics but in the end we end up seeing eye to eye.
> 
> By the way when I said that the F-14 had the best avionics package of any interecepter I am right, it does and the Avionix package includes alot more than the AWG-9. It includes radios, radars, warning radars, weapons systems. The whole system combined in the Tomcat is the most advanced weapons system of an intercepter.



Actualy the Raptor has that spot, But it was very true 20 years ago when the F-14 was at it's prime. Don't get me wrong I think the F-14 is a better aircraft than the F/A-18 it's faster, more maneuverable, longer ranged and carries more ordinance. With a good systems upgrade it would be the plane to keep, of course I'd like to see the F-15 reincarnated with vectored thrust to. Realisticaly it would cost too much to do it esp with the JSF comming on line in just a couple of years. It's like the P-51/P-38 after the war, cost means means you give up that 10% added capability for the ease/cost of maintenance of a plane that just does enough.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Nov 18, 2005)

As wmaxt said, when the F-14 appeared it's system was the most advanced. No doubt about that. But in today's age, the new F-15C system and F-22 systems are superior.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Agreed on that also.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2005)

From an older discussion...

Yesterday I spoke to one of our tow pilots. He flew the F-101. I asked him if the aircraft could sustain Mach 1 without afterburner, his reply was "Not to ones I flew."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Cool thanks. I always thought the F-22 was the first one that could do that.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From an older discussion...
> 
> Yesterday I spoke to one of our tow pilots. He flew the F-101. I asked him if the aircraft could sustain Mach 1 without afterburner, his reply was "Not to ones I flew."


i guess never listen rumour did you ask about climb rate or ceiling


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > From an older discussion...
> ...



That I didn't, he was on his way out to fly so we didn't chat too much. I'll try to "accost" him the next time he comes into fly....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

The P.1A (Lightning prototype) achieve Mach 1 without afterburners, Adler...in 1954.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Yes but could it supercruise like the F-22?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

Yes.

Just so no one gets confused, the P.1A could super-cruise like the F-22. The operational Lightnings could not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Hmmm everything that I read said the F-22 was the first one that could do that. I may be wrong and if I am please correct me but everything I have ever read says the F-22 was the first one.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

Maybe they mean first operational aircraft to achieve super-cruise. Because I think that much is true.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Maybe


----------



## plan_D (Nov 21, 2005)

Since I didn't provide any source for my claim on the P.1A super-cruise;

_"The resulting English Electric P.1A flew on 4 August 1954, and later exceeded Mach 1 on two unreheated and rather basic Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojets."_

*The Encyclpopedia of World Air Power* - Hamlyn Publishing - Bill Gunston (1980). 

_"The first prototype, designated the P.1, took to the air on the 4th of August 1954, piloted by Roland Beamont, EE's chief test pilot. Powered by Sapphire engines, on its third flight (on the 11th) it exceeded Mach 1 in level flight, the first British aircraft to do so. Reheat (afterburner) had not been used; supercruise was here a hell of a long time before the Americans and their ATF programme!"_

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/history.html

Other interesting notes for the Lightning:

I believe I mentioned the lack of sales for the Lightning in another thread being due to the British government:

_"While the P.1 had survived the Defence White Paper, export prospects practically disappeared. In later months, the government even went so far as to sabotage English Electric's own efforts to sell the aircraft to Germany - after frustrating and fruitless attempts to sell the aircraft to the Luftwaffe, EE discovered a government representative was actually telling the Germans not to buy the aircraft!"_

The P.1B seems to have been super-cruise capable also:

_"On the 4th of April 1957 the first P.1B flew. On this flight it also exceeded Mach 1 without using reheat. In July, the world air speed record (then at mach 1.72) had been broken."_

Innovations of Lightning include many things but here's just two:

_"The Lightning shared a number of innovations first planned for the Miles M.52 including the shock cone and all-flying tailplane, the latter described by Chuck Yeager as the single most significant contribution to the final success of supersonic flight."_


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 21, 2005)

There must have been valid reasons your govt didnt want the Lightning exported.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

They sold them to the Saudis?!?!


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2005)

the indian air force was interested but opted for mig21 but later there was allegations of bribary etc 
here are some other interesting tid bits
There was the issue that such a powerful aircraft was something of a handful, with such unpleasant features as a high stall speed and a fast landing speed. It featured a drag chute to reduce the landing roll. Apparently the Lightning was sometimes known as the "Frightening", and it is a fact that only experienced pilots were assigned to fly the type, and then only after thorough qualification. That in itself enhanced the elite status of a posting to a Lightning squadron. Once mastered, however, the Lightning was a very rewarding ride. The accident rate was surprisingly low. The lion's share of the accidents were due to engine fires -- a nagging weakness of the Lightning -- not landing or other handling accidents. 

The F.1 had significant weaknesses. One of the worst was an inadequate fuel supply and minimal endurance, a problem that would plague the Lightning through its entire life in spite of all attempts to fix it. For a time, Number 74 Squadron's F.1s were forced to fly without the ventral fuel pack while a bug was worked out, reducing them to (as was once said of another aircraft) "fighters for defense over the airfield beacon". 

This was not a mere nicety, either, since if an F.3 missed its target on its first pass, it almost never had enough fuel to make a second attempt without topping off from a tanker, which would give an intruder plenty of time to get to its target and then depart. 

While RAF pilots liked the Lightning, they weren't all that unhappy to see it go. It was a fantastic ride, but as a weapon system it was inadequate in both armament and endurance. Lightning pilots were said to be the last people in the world who would run out of gas while driving on a road trip, as checking fuel levels was an activity somewhat like breathing to them
www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html 
still over all it was impressive


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 21, 2005)

Nice info. I've always suspected that its fuel load was the achillies heel of the aircraft.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 21, 2005)

Interesting indeed. Thanks for the link.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

Not the performer like the Lightning, the Saab Draken was (is) the same way. At Mojave Airport is located the National Test Pilot's School, a civilian training center. I know the owers personally, Shawn and Nadia Roberts. They operate several Drakens used for test pilot training. These things go like bats out of hell but could only stay in the air about 1/2 hour if you're lucky.....

http://www.ntps.edu/HTML/Aircraft/


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2005)

the way the swedish were set up with highways used a rwys with hard shelters like nato but the swedes didn't stray very far the 35 was probably a good choice


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 21, 2005)

Another good link. Thanks Joe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

No Sweat NS - Had I'd stayed in California I hoped to be a primary instructor there....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Since I didn't provide any source for my claim on the P.1A super-cruise;
> 
> _"The resulting English Electric P.1A flew on 4 August 1954, and later exceeded Mach 1 on two unreheated and rather basic Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojets."_
> 
> ...



Cool thanks for the info. You learn something knew every day here.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 26, 2005)

pbfoot, your attempts to belittle the Lightning are futile. My father refers to the Lightning as the "Frightening" - it was it's nickname. Why? Because it was fast and scary, extremely dangerous to the enemy. Plus, it rhymes with the Lightning - I know, we really are that inventive. 

There is no problem with having a drag chute on landing, and while the landing speed was high - pilots were trained well. All fighter pilots have to be properly trained in "their" aircraft. Even in World War II - pilots transferring from one plane to another were best served to have flight time in their new aircraft in training before taking it out for a "spin". 

There's no surprise in the low accident rate, it was a nice aircraft to fly and the pilots were trained. And in all my fathers years with the Lightnings, he only ever saw one have an engine fire while in the air and it made it down safely. 

The range of the Lightning was not a problem for it's purpose, and the F.6 Lightning had an added ventral fuel tank which increased it's range still further. 400 miles is enough of a distance to be there, especially because it's up first before anyone else. 

And that last statement is downright bullsh*t - everyone involved with the Lightning, and even those that weren't, were sad to see it go. The pilots loved the Lightning more than anything else they might have flown. It was sorely missed, and the last airshow at Binbrook brought tears to many people's eyes. Every station in Britain had a final flypast of the Lightning - and it was sad time for the entire RAF. 

As a weapon's system the Lightning was fine. It was a point interceptor. It was designed to be there first while everything else took it's time to get in the air. 

And the reason Britain sold Saudi Arabia Lightnings is because the Lightnings we sold were worn out and old. We gave them a shine, added hard-points then called old F.3s, F.53s - then we bribed the Saudi diplomats into buying them ...because they knew the F.3 was old. And the airframes we were selling were worn out. No where near the capability of the newer F.6 Lightnings - which had properly trained RAF mechanics keeping them in tip-top shape.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

I have always stated that the Lightning was a great plane. It is just not my favorite. I also still think that there were interceptors that were better depending on the role they were performing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2005)

i think in it's day it was the best and one of the best of all times.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

I would say from the 1950's-1970's yes it was the best.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> pbfoot, your attempts to belittle the Lightning are futile. My father refers to the Lightning as the "Frightening" - it was it's nickname. Why? Because it was fast and scary, extremely dangerous to the enemy. Plus, it rhymes with the Lightning - I know, we really are that inventive.
> 
> There is no problem with having a drag chute on landing, and while the landing speed was high - pilots were trained well. All fighter pilots have to be properly trained in "their" aircraft. Even in World War II - pilots transferring from one plane to another were best served to have flight time in their new aircraft in training before taking it out for a "spin".
> 
> ...


please read the last line of my post these are not my views but some other guys in the website I'll still say the thing had no legs which is a huge disadvantage for an interceptor and your raf ground crews are good keeping any aircraft as complex as a interceptor airborne particularly 20- 30 years ago was a labour intensive endeavour I know in the caf the maintainers shifts lasted until all were servicable


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2005)

> I know in the caf the maintainers shifts lasted until all were servicable



firstly if you mean the Canadian AF it's the RCAF, and secondly the RCAF didn't operate the lightening so what're you on about?



> the thing had no legs which is a huge disadvantage for an interceptor



not really, summit's picked up on RADAR, an intercepter's sent up to greet it, once the threat's dealt with come back to land, it's pretty much straight up and straight down again, it's what intercepters are designed for!


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 27, 2005)

it is not the rcaf and hasn't been since 1968 further i was complimenting the raf guys for keeping a complex early interceptor airborne its a tough job I almost bet that if you could get 2-3 launches out of any early interceptor without a snag or 2 it was a good day and i think you'll find an intercept was more complex then pointing the a/c at the target the gci guys have to sort out targets from decoys there is ecm involved and the lightning for all its attributes did not have good range


----------



## Glider (Nov 27, 2005)

FJ the F35 is one of my favourites. There was one version which had a more powerful engine but they didn't do anything about the amount of fuel it could carry. As a result, in certain conditions it could still be accelerating when the fuel ran out, a scary thought.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

Man Lanc even I could figure out what pbfoot was talking about.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 27, 2005)

The Lightning didn't need a long range, it was stationed in Britain and Germany. Both areas of operation for the Lightning were small, and it was clearly a defensive fighter. The range was never a problem that hampered the ability of the Lightning *as a point defence interceptor*. It followed the same defensive attitude that the RAF had for decades before with the Spitfire, short range but excellent ability. 

The RAF ground crews were/are good. The Lightning never landed without a snag but most were just minor problems, that would still let it fly in desperate situations. In the Gulf, RAF Chinooks were flying with many faults. If they weren't making the flight unsafe, they let it go. 

The Lightning did have short range, but it didn't need long range. It wasn't an escort fighter or anything. 

The Lightning was maintenance intensive, but the RAF ground crews kept them flying all the time because they were well trained. It doesn't matter how hard something is to fly or fix as long as people are trained properly on them. 

The Lightning had a high stall speed, and a high landing speed but the RAF pilots were trained. They knew the capability and inability of the Lightning. The Lightning only had two speeds, fast and stop ...and the RAF pilots knew it. 

But all the "problems" of the Lightning don't defeat the fact that it was the best interceptor on the planet for decades. And even today would be hard to beat to target.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

plan_D said:


> In the Gulf, RAF Chinooks were flying with many faults. If they weren't making the flight unsafe, they let it go.



That is standard procedure anyhow even in peace time. I am sure the British system is similar to ours. If there is a fault on the aircracft that is not unsafe such as heater vent inop, or 1 inch tear in left rear seat, you mark it as a / For instance the aircraft that I am flying today may have 2 to 4 faults on it right now because we are waiting on parts to arrive to fix the fault. It is not unsafe so we continue to fly it.

There are several symbols:

X: Unsafe fault, aircraft grounded.
Circle X: Serious fault but aircraft may be flown safely with restrictions. For example "Chaff Despenser inop, Aircraft restricted from known hostile environment".
/ Fault on aircraft, not unsafe to fly.
-Scheduled Inspection or maintenance due on aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2005)

The same system is used in the USAF except the circle x. The Navy and Marines use a computerized system called NALCOMIS...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

We are semi computerized now. We use ULLSA.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 29, 2005)

That's not what my dad says, unless the aircraft was needed there and then everything would be fixed. When he was on 22 Sqdn. SAR they had a Wessex grounded for a week and a half before he got there because the light on it's tail wasn't rotating. But I don't know how the RAF works now, this is just through the 70s and 80s that I know about.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

If the Anti Collision Light is not working (thats the light on the tail you are talking about) you can not fly the aircraft. That is considered a X because it is used to let other aircraft see you. If it is not working you can not fly the aircraft. I am sure the RAF system is very similar to ours. I know the German system is as well as the French and the Swiss. They are all slightly different but I am sure they are very pretty much the same. You do not leave an aircraft grounded because the Tail Rotor Anti Ice is inop in the summer time. You restrict it from flying in Icing Conditions and you go on your way and fly it in the warm weather.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 30, 2005)

I'm talking about the 70s and 80s here, not nowadays. My dad saw it was changing a lot during the early 90s, so it's probably changed an awful lot now. They'd always try and fix everything on a Lightning when it landed, because I don't think a Lightning has ever landed without a snag.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2005)

It is the same with us, if we can fix it and have the parts then yes we fix it right there and then. However if the part is not available for lets say 2 weeks and it is not unsafe to fly it, then we keep flying it until then. For instance lets say the lockpin is broken on the tail wheel (it is a pin that locks the tail wheel straight and level, if it is broken then the wheel can not turn left or right) and a new lock pin is not available (which is never true) then we Circle Red X the aircraft, restricting it from ground taxi and we keep flying it. The aircraft is not going to fall out of the sky because of it, we just have to hover taxi where ever we go.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 1, 2005)

I've been wondering about the missle load for the Lightning. Only two missles?

If the Lightning missed on its first pass, its options for reengagement were limited.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

I do agree that that is quite a small weapons package.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 3, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I've been wondering about the missle load for the Lightning. Only two missles?
> 
> If the Lightning missed on its first pass, its options for reengagement were limited.



As long as it has guns its not a big deal, in the early stages of the Air War in Vietnam F-4's could carry six missiles but the lack of guns cost them big time.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 3, 2005)

The Lightning would carry two BAe Red Tops and two Aden 30mm cannon into combat. The Red Top had a range of seven miles and was designed to intercept low-level agile fighters, there was much more change that it would hit than miss a bomber. Then because of the speed of the Lightning, it's always in the situation to be able to use it's cannon which would rip anything to pieces.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 3, 2005)

There yah go SYS, Now speed is not always a good thing when going to guns on a target, charging your target too fast limits the time you have to accurately aim, I mean shit if you miss you just waisted ammo and fuel.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 3, 2005)

I suspect the Lightning would have fuel issues for a re-attack scenario.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 3, 2005)

At the full extent of the Lightning's combat range, it would be capable of around three passes on target. The first would be able to attack two targets with it's missiles, and the other two would be against anything else in it's area of attack. If really needed plenty of tankers would already be about somewhere, if not the single Lightning can go home, but there's always the rest of the squadron to follow which would already be up in the air by the time the first (most likely two) would have to go home. 

I'll have to ask my dad about doomsday scrambles, but they could have RAF Binbrook empty of all operational Lightnings (about 24 normally) in 20-30 minutes, maybe less. During that time others would be coming home, being refuelled and rearmed then sent back up. 

And pilot gunnery training over Cyprus kept RAF pilots in tip-top shape for gunnery. My dad saw plenty of 'targets' splattered by firing Lightnings over the Med.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 28, 2006)

Actually is it becoming a case with aircraft of 'Jack of All Trades and Master of None'? When you look at it there are compromises that need to be made to accomodate all the different capabilities these aircraft need to perform. Does this mean we could see a generation of aircraft coming that are useless against pure-purpose aircraft? That is the real question which only time will answer...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2006)

holy crap where do you keep dragging these threads up from  and what's that got to do with the topic?

either way aircraft have to go that way because it's damn expensive to have a single aircraft per job, the Typhoon's primarily an air-to-air fighter but has a secondary ground attack role, the only ones who can afford a single plane-single role plan to some extent is America with the F-22 which is a pure all out Fighter, and because of that is arguably the best fighter in the world, of course the ideal is to have one type per role but at what cost? and think how hard the logistics of that would be!


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 29, 2006)

And even the F-22 is being outfitted with air-to-gnd capability with addition of multiple SDB in the bays.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 3, 2006)

All I was pointing out was that there are some things that could cause major problems in combat, with having to perform different roles, ie. add ground attack and you are sacrificing missile bays on a fighter that could be used to add in more ATA missiles...


----------

