Cold War Intercept

1950-1980 supreme interceptor?

  • Total voters
    17

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
...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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Dont insult me. I am not defending anyone.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.........
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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..........
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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).
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting the X-15. It could go like Mach 6.72.
 
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!!!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Does anyone have Russian or soviet cold War-era tank or flight manuals?
Replies
2
Views
296
Tomcat
Rocket-Assisted Launches And Other Aviation Oddities
Replies
1
Views
387
Gnomey
X-Planes episodes: from WWII Nazi rockets to Cold War era supersonic Darts
Replies
1
Views
198
Gnomey
Secret Cold War project "Alpha". When the U.S. managed to get hold of Soviet Jet fighters, including the Yak-23 (DOCUMENTARY)
Replies
1
Views
539
Gnomey
F-5 Freedom Fighter Jet. Northrop Supersonic Light Warbird | Documentary
Replies
2
Views
392
Gnomey
Menu
Log in
Register