Your favorite post-war aircraft

[FLYBOYJ]

Very well put FBJ.

Thanks Adler!

Another point - In the last years of the USSR the VVS actually removed the MiG-25 from frontal aviation interceptor squadrons and replaced them with MiG-23s and MiG-29s - why? Cause they cost too much money to maintain and operate and the Soviets figured out the aircraft was a pig! The MiG-31 was an attempt to give life to a dated design, but again it just wound up in a swine pen! The Chinese allegedly bought 24 of them with the plan of building 700 under license - this was supposed to start around 1999. This never materialized, I wonder why?!?

Although the MiG-31 carries a cannon, it could only maneuver at 5.5 Gs. What do you think an F-16 could do to it?!?

The last MiG-31s are expected to retire by 2010, if not sooner.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay and the F-14 would be hitting targets while the Lightnign was still trying to get into range.

 

[vanir]

Sorry FlyboyJ but you're post was far more ridiculous than mine, which had quite a bit of background to it.

They YF-12 was canceled because there simply wasn't a threat for it to intercept. It was impractical but did assist in the development of the Phoenix missile system. The F-15 was developed under a whole different military doctrine nearly a decade later. The USAF didn't go with the F-15 in lieu of the YF-12, that's plain nonsense!!!

The YF-12A was cancelled because of mission complexity and overall cost. As described by an A12 CIA pilot who was carried over to the SR71 programme in his book, Blackbird (to paraphrase), "...the problem with the YF-12 interceptor was that every Blackbird mission required the support of a NASA ground station identical to that used in its space launches. In all respects flying the Blackbird is far more like a space mission than flying an aircraft."
But you're right about the missile system, the AIM-47 SARH and advanced radar package comprised the Pheonix weapon system, the 90 mile range missiles available initially in nuclear tipped and conventional warheads. These were further developed to the AIM-54 ARH when the entire package was salvaged by the Tomcat in an attempt to recover development costs.

The F-15 will turn out to be one of the most cost effective weapons platforms when it is finally retired.

But not when it was intially developed. It was the single most expensive front line fighter of its day.

NOW THAT'S A JOKE! Are you sure you don't mean the SU-27???? The Mig-31 has a big powerful radar that could still be jammed, flies real fast and carries BIG missiles. BIG DEAL! Other than that it's a pig! It's still built out of steel, it cannot maneuver out of it's own way, has a 600 hour engine, drinks fuel like a whale, has a turning radius comparible to an SR-71 and is (was) a logistical nightmare. There was no big secret during it's development. Why do you think the Russians and other former USSR nations have gotten rid of their MiG-31s? It's a brick with wings! I think just about any modern western fighter (F-15, F-16, Tornado, F-18 ) if deployed properly, will feast on the Mig-31 without mercy!

I think it's fun dispelling comic book misconceptions.

The airframe of the MiG 31 is 50% high temp. nickle steel, 16% titanium and 33% indeterminent light alloys. Radome and wing spars are composite.
The construction is inherently stronger than the F-15's alloy and titanium ribbed, composite construction and aluminium honeycomb sections, which is designed for high transonic performance and excellent manoeuvrability as a dogfighter (something which had been continually stressed by F-4 pilots during Vietnam). The Strike Eagle involved a reinforcing of the overall structure to sustain high g's under heavy subsonic loading.

The high-supersonic g rating of the Foxhound is 5g's. The SR-71 is 1.5g's. The SR-71 is limited to a 45 degree turn rate at high supersonic speeds, a restriction the entire MiG 25 series does not have.
All MiG 25s (including the MP Foxhound or MiG 31), were designed for high manoeuvrability and overall rigidity at high Mach speeds. Put simply the best way to achieve this is with a good old fashioned solid construction.
What they can't do is a sudden wing over, split-s and immelman at transonic speeds (Mach 0.85 to 1.2), quite like honeycomb/composite structure US fighters can. What it can do is manoeuvre far more erratically at high supersonic speeds (Mach 2.3 and up), than any other fighter in the world and it has a fully loaded combat radius of over 700km on internal fuel, at that speed (1200km otherwise). Since they don't tow a refuelling tanker behind them into combat, they obviously don't guzzle juice too badly.

Bench testing of the Aviadvigatel D-30F-6 four stage augumention engines has surpassed several hundred thousand flying hours without breakdown (source: Jane's Information Group), as compared to the 1,000hr engine life of the MiG-25PD Tumansky engines. To my knowledge, a D-30F-6 engine has yet to fail under any conditions.
The rated maximum cruise of Mach 2.83 at 67,500 feet is geared for minimum augumented fuel consumption which provides the 34,170lbs st. the engine is nominally rated to this speed at. However these engines are designed to be oversped to 41,843lbs st. rated total maximum thrust, whereas the Tumanksys although sharing this inherent overspeed feature due to application, were not and this was the cause of the earlier Foxbat's infamous unreliability.

The avionics and full ECM package of the MiG 31 contains an electronically scanned phase array "Flash Dance" radar (digital multimode pulse doppler with lookdown shootdown equivalent), with a 200km search range, the ability to track 10 targets at 120km and engage up to four, simultaneously. This radar is so sophisticated it is able to track targets below and immediately behind the aircraft for a limited over the shoulder weapons fire capability and totally outclasses all other combat radar systems in service at the time of its inception.
Its primary weapon system is comparable to the Pheonix and although in early R-33 variants SARH (roughly equivalent to the original Pheonix AIM-47 missiles), later generation R-77, R-27 and R-33 variants are available in ARH configuration (roughly equivalent to Pheonix AIM-54 if this model has become available and AIM-120 AMRAAM class missiles, although the R-77 early production models have a bad rep).
As usual with Soviet later generation aircraft a full IR search/track system is fitted standard, a retractable sensor in this case.

"Other nations," former Soviet territories or otherwise haven't gotten rid of their MiG-31's, nobody else had any (edit to add: you reminded me in another post, China recieved a small number of early build MiG-25MP/MiG31's, quite right and my error of memory), the Russian Federation have kept their relatively few number in service (less than 200 were ever made). In fact the former "White Russia," ie. the Ukraine has kept its original MiG-25PD/PDS and RB Foxbats in service alongside the excellent Tu-22M medium bomber, MiG-23 Floggers and early Fulcrum A's. The problem however being that the limited Tumansky engine life of the earlier Foxbats and subsequent maintainence costs meant they were flown so infrequently that, believe it or not when the Ukraine became independant, nobody actually knew how to fly them! The Ukraine, India and China however all presently keep perfectly combat ready Foxbats, with India earmarked for Foxhound import (edit to add: as at around 2000).

Russia has been promoting the export of the early MiG-31 "Foxhound A" (the MiG-25MP), since the inception of the improved MiG-31M which is now the standard front line variant. More than 160 "first generation" Foxhound A's were delivered and an ASAT (anti-satellite), version has been created in the hope to increase the attractability of this inherently expensive aircraft in the wake of inexpensive Sukhoi and Fulcrum popularity.
I understand the MiG-31M is also being offered for export in its existing configuration, which is a move that mirrors the intial production of the Foxbats in the 70's, as they are designed to be employed only in small numbers with a much larger force of (detuned in the case of foreign exports) counter-air fighters.

The F-15 enjoys similar infrastructure restrictions, requiring elaborate, expensive and specialised ground support and maintainence schedules, and a large, well surfaced runway with a good takeoff run. Look I love aircraft and the F-15 is a goddamn awesome one, but reality is reality.
Vipers are therefore used in front line airfields and a strategy of inexpensive multirole, quick turnaround and easily manufactured numbers (with high parts commonality), is employed to take greatest advantage of these inherent operational "logistics."
Put simply, the US military infrastructure is the wealthiest in the world, and if it had Mikoyan instead of McDonnell Douglas it'd be using Foxhounds just like it uses F-15s and in those numbers. It'd be replacing Foxbat early variants for Foxhound later ones just as if they were F-15A's being superceded by F-15C's and equipping Flankers and Platypii as if they were Strike Eagles. The F-15 hasn't been the cutting edge front line fighter because it's just well...so universally amazing a real philosophers stone, it is because the US is rich. There is no other reason.
And when you are rich you can afford to lay out untold billions in strategic "role to model outlay" and wait 35 years for it to come good on its investment financially. The Soviet Union tried it with the Flanker, Fulcrum and Foxhound team and broke their economy, now you can buy a new Su-27 cheaper than you'll get an F-15C with 3500 flying hours, you'll probably get an export Foxhound cheaper than you'll get a used Strike Eagle (you've been selling these to the Bin Ladens by the way, you naughty Americans). And Fulcrums are the European and Asiatic export competitor for Vipers.

The 1991 MiG-31M is did not fail to be the most advanced frontline fighter in the world at that time (to be superceded by the F/A-22), because it was incapable. It did because Russia is poor. Put it in similar numbers to the F-15C all over Frontal Aviation and I suspect the universal threat evaluation of this aircraft would more than have impacted any uneducated assumptions of its mediocrity.

Like all the final series of production aircraft in the former USSR, the Foxhound, Fulcrum and Flanker series are tremendously underrated even by many fighter enthusiasts which are not closely familiar with the these models. This holds true for the excellent Su-34 anti-armour attack aircraft in the Warthog class to the high performing Tu-160 strategic bomber (which is a lot like a Concorde...with nukes), and the Tu-22M maritime-recon and medium bomber in the B1-B class (only much better performing).
The last of the Soviet fighters are dirt cheap because the CIS is broke, not because evenly matched for type and number they aren't perfectly capable of dominating a modern battlefield. The former Soviet Union desintegrated its economy building them to compete with the best US design prototypes, not failing to. Relatively few celebrated democratic nations are buying them because of existing support infrastructure and politics, not because US fighters are inherently better.

Seriously FlyboyJ, I'm surprised at your apparent ignorance in this matter.

As for the reasons behind the F-15's initial development it will require another elaborate post unto itself. If you're unsatisfied with my assertion that it was directly conceived to combat the Foxbat in lieu of the overpriced and unrealistic YF-12A proposal, I'll get around to it presently.

 

[vanir]

There was never any intensions to use the XB-70 as a transport. Lockheed started on a SST and TRADED most of that technology to Boeing for "S" duct technology used on the B727 and later on the Lockheed L1011. Boeing cancelled their SST program as government support dwindled. I know this for a fact cause I worked at Lockheed with people who worked on the YF-12A and were involved in this technology swap....

I'm unclear as to what you're saying there. The XB70 was never proposed as a transport/renonnaissance in an attempt to resurrect the programme, Lockheed started on an SST...
By all means clear things up from the inside view, I welcome your personal experience in this area and am always ready to learn credible and well presented facts.

Look it appears painfully clear you've been starting on my posts since the first which gave any show of background on the MiG. I'm not sayiing all background is acurrate, for all I know tomorrow morning, first thing people who were there are going to release that a swedish carpet cleaner in fact designed the MiG Foxbat whilst watering his daisies (very english sounding, that). But my comments arrive out of genuine research and a long time of enjoying looking up these aircraft.
Perhaps I should've posted, "ooh you are so big, flyboyJ, ooh you are so potent," but frankly I'm not at this forum for such a reason.
You don't like the Foxbats and Foxhounds, fair enough, but you're giving appraisals that kind of sound like they're alluding to being based on personal experience flying these aircraft, which I seriously doubt. If such is indeed not the case, we'll just have to go with individual impressions and the best accurate information we can find.

You're entitled to your opinion but your appraisals of the technical specifications of Foxbats and Foxhounds is rough and incomplete and inaccurate on a wide variety of details, according to credible specifications published.

Again these points are pointless - the Foxbat has been beaten in battle on numerous occasions and only ONE MiG-25 kill has ever been confirmed aganist a western fighter - A Mig-25 shot down an F-18 over Serbia, the F-18 pilot survived....

This sounds more like "I don't like your posts" to me. Pointless how? The two or three occasions where MiG Foxbats have ever been in battle (Syria, Saudi and initially, Iraq), were short lived, they were in very small numbers, were early variants (150hr engine life R15-B300 Tumanskys), pilots therefore had low familiarity, accompanying aircraft had been detuned (export MiG 23 variants, MiG 21 radar and weapons fitted), and they were hopelessly outnumbered. Using them for your "well considered appraisal" is far more pointless.

Your numbers on the Foxbat must have come from a sales brosure. Even if the Mig-25 is flown at Mach 2.8, it has to be able to maneuver, it will slow down. Hang those lumbering "Aphid" missles on the machine and it turns into a brick

The MiG Foxbat has a supersonic g rating of 4.5g's. Aphids were excellent missiles of the 1960 and 70's. As were Sparrows and Sidewinders. I'm not big on the R-40's myself but apparently they're fairly comparable to the Sparrows of the day but with a better range spread and a nice, big warhead. R-73's are apparently as good as later Sidewinders. R-23's are as good as later Sparrows with their proximity fuse and a slightly heavier yeild.

The MiG 25 has throttle problems with overspeeding over Mach 2.6, this is inherent to the design of its turbojets. The airframe is rated to Mach 2.82 with a full load of four underwing bombs, a performance which it has demonstrated. It is also anecdotally exampled to have flown at speeds exceeding Mach 3 on numerous occasions, however in each case the engines were destroyed (these speeds were as a result of engine overspeed or "runaway rpm"), which the Foxbat was prone to without precise throttle control at high Mach speeds.

Its cruise speed is Mach 2.35, higher speeds may be considered a dash ability, designed to be used in strategic interception applications as a potentially one shot use. More anecdotal evidence has it Soviet pilots had to be specially cleared to use the Foxbat over Mach 2.3.
The Foxhound by comparison, with its redesigned bypass tubojets (aviadvigatel turbofans), has no problems with a Mach 2.83 cruise speed at 67,500 feet and is markedly more reliable under overspeeding conditions (designed specifically for up to 40% overspeeding or more than 41,000lbs of aug. thrust per engine).

 

[vanir]

Very well put FBJ.

Thanks Adler!

Another point - In the last years of the USSR the VVS actually removed the MiG-25 from frontal aviation interceptor squadrons and replaced them with MiG-23s and MiG-29s - why? Cause they cost too much money to maintain and operate and the Soviets figured out the aircraft was a pig! The MiG-31 was an attempt to give life to a dated design, but again it just wound up in a swine pen! The Chinese allegedly bought 24 of them with the plan of building 700 under license - this was supposed to start around 1999. This never materialized, I wonder why?!?

Although the MiG-31 carries a cannon, it could only maneuver at 5.5 Gs. What do you think an F-16 could do to it?!?

The last MiG-31s are expected to retire by 2010, if not sooner.

The "soviets figured out the aircraft was just a pig" is not mentioned in any credible source I've ever read. This kind of appraisal appears markedly counter to any credible Soviet or technically knowledgable appraisal of the Foxbat/Foxhound series with which I'm familiar.
It was ridiculously unrealistic to maintain in its initial interceptor form, the Foxbat A due to a 150hr engine life. Even the 1000hr engine life of the improved Tumanskys and the difficulties of operating such a high performance aircraft in front line service meant that Foxbats were so little flown that only a very small amount of pilots had the model familiarity to be cleared to fly them.
There were many reasons the MiG 25 was pulled from service, primarily the design was a Cold War inteception strategy which had limited use in other roles, it was a very expensive and very compromising counter-air fighter if that's what you were going to use it for. A MiG 23 or Fulcrum is infinitely better for this purpose, the Flankers an infinitely better technology.

None of this holds true for the Foxhound except the expense. The Soviet Union economically collapsed just as they'd begun delivery and less than 200 were delivered (figures have varied). This does not impact on the effectiveness nor capabilities of the aircraft itself.
By your appraisals the Foxhound is one of the most underrated combat aircraft in history. A pig or a brick it is most definitely not, very expensive and complicated, yes. It does what it was designed to do superbly, reliably and with a good role variability. It terms of performance specification alone it is the most powerful combat aircraft ever constructed. In terms of comparison, of course it isn't. It's just one of them and a 1990 technology at that. About en par with a late build Strike Eagle, F14D or a C/D Hornet, a little more specialised, real nasty if it gets in the air with them but it needs things like Flankers for counter-air support. Can't be helped, that's the strategic use.

"Pig, brick, would get feasted on by F15/16/14/etc." is just ignorant comic book patriotism. You're the one who sounds like a brochure, the hard-sell kind with a heavy dose of redneck.

Ultimately the Foxhound project has been pulled (decided by the turn of the century), due to low build numbers, poor national economics and the overshadowing effect of the Flanker and Fulcrum export market. Nobody's scared about strategic interception anymore, things like cheap and/or high tech multirole and deep penetration tactical is the current strategy, stressing high transonic performance, ubiquitous aircraft operation, quick turnaround and high survivability. The MiG is a Cold War relic, there's no doubt about that. But seriously, don't go around saying it's an incapable performer, it just isn't so. It's an awesome aircraft, just out of place and with no financial support (or need).

As an airframe/technology combination the Foxhound is 10 yrs, not 40yrs old.
The tiny number the Chinese bought, the only people outside the Russian Federation who operated them, were early build Foxhound A models, the MiG-25MP (MiG-31), a completely different animal to the MiG-31M which has an improved airframe. Around 160 were built. Without the Russian financial troubles it has been speculated (anecdotal), nobody outside their own air forces would have been given any but they have all been offered for export, under quite a bit of sales promotion since about 2000.

You don't like these MiGs at all. I appreciate them. You like the XB70, I think it was a high school science project.
I don't think we're really going to get along on any of this.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And what sources do you have? Everything that I think we have read is stating how the Mig-25 and 31 were nothign more than fast straight fliers. They would be outturned.

As for you post about the F-15 being so expensive. All new fighters are like that. Over time the F-15 paid for its self.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"Pig, brick, would get feasted on by F15/16/14/etc." is just ignorant comic book patriotism. You're the one who sounds like a brochure, the hard-sell kind with a heavy dose of redneck.

I DON'T APPRECIATE THE NAME CALLING, I WAS BORN ON THE EAST COAST OF THE US - FAR FROM BEING A REDNECK! I'VE BEEN IN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY FOR 28 YEARS AND ACTUALLY FLY AIRCRAFT. I FIND BY YOUR INTERNET SURFING OF SNIPPETS TO HOLD YOUR ARGUMENTS TOGETHER ACTUALLY SHOWS YOUR LACK OF AVIATION KNOWLEDGE, IN MY CIRCLES YOU'RE KNOWN AS A "WANNA-BE." ACTUALLY YOU DO IT SO WELL YOU ACTUALLY CONTRADICT AND ARGUE WITH YOURSELF BY YOUR MILES OF "CUT AND PASTE" COMMENTS AND STATISTICS THAT USUALLY GO NOWHERE! BOTTOM LINE THOUGH, IF YOU CAN'T CARRY ON A PROPER DUOLOGUE WITHOUT INSULTS DIRECTED AT ME, I SUGGEST YOU PULL YOUR AUSSIE HEAD OUT OF YOUR PET ROOS' POUCH AND POST ELSEWHERE!

I'm only responding to your more ridiculous comments....

"The MiG 25 has throttle problems with overspeeding over Mach 2.6, this is inherent to the design of its turbojets. The airframe is rated to Mach 2.82 with a full load of four underwing bombs, a performance which it has demonstrated. It is also anecdotally exampled to have flown at speeds exceeding Mach 3 on numerous occasions, however in each case the engines were destroyed (these speeds were as a result of engine overspeed or "runaway rpm"), which the Foxbat was prone to without precise throttle control at high Mach speeds.

If you knew ANYTHING about turbine engines, this situation has NOTHING to do with the "throttles," In fact on TURBINE engine aircraft the correct term is "POWER LEVERS." "Throttles" are a term used for reciprocating engines....
The engines over speed because there is little boundary control at the front of the air intake on the MiG-25/ 31. The air going in will eventually go supersonic. The engines on these aircraft have bleed air valves that prevent the compressors from stalling when this happens but lack the means to prevent over speed. Maybe you could be more precise if you didn't cut and paste that one....

The airframe of the MiG 31 is 50% high temp. nickle steel, 16% titanium and 33% indeterminent light alloys.

YES AND WHEN YOU PUT THESE ALLOYS TOGETHER THEY CORRODE, LIKE MOST MIG-29S AND 31S ARE DOING AS WE SPEAK! IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT AIRCRAFT THIS MAKE THEM AN AIRFRAME MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE!!!

All MiG 25s (including the MP Foxhound or MiG 31), were designed for high manoeuvrability and overall rigidity at high Mach speeds.

What a Joke! Victor Belenko himself said the exact opposite in his book MIG PILOT. You even posted that these aircraft have a 5G rating. A modern fighter aircraft with a max 5G rating is toast! The 30 year old L-29 I fly can pull 9 Gs for Christs sake!!!!!

As an airframe/technology combination the Foxhound is 10 yrs, not 40yrs old.

You're wrong! MiG-31M development started in 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31

The tiny number the Chinese bought, the only people outside the Russian Federation who operated them, were early build Foxhound A models, the MiG-25MP (MiG-31), a completely different animal to the MiG-31M which has an improved airframe. Around 160 were built. Without the Russian financial troubles it has been speculated (anecdotal), nobody outside their own air forces would have been given any but they have all been offered for export, under quite a bit of sales promotion since about 2000.

No - The Chinese figured out the MiG-31 wasn't what it was cranked up to be

You don't like these MiGs at all. I appreciate them. You like the XB70, I think it was a high school science project.
I don't think we're really going to get along on any of this.

No - I love Mig aircraft! - I'VE ASSEMBLED AND MAINTAINED MIG-15s, 17s, 21S AND L-29s and 39S WHILE I LIVED IN CALIFORNIA - LOOK UP MOJAVE WHEN YOU DO YOUR INTERNET SURFING. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MIG LET ALONE WORKED OR FLOWN ON ONE?!? I've flown Mig-15s, L-29 39s and probably got more experience around these aircraft than you could ever wish to dream about!

I never said anything about the XB-70 except the MiG-25 was built to counter it, and the one thing I could agree with you, yes, it was a science project.

Much of my experience with these aircraft are HANDS ON and talking to the Ex-Soviet pilots who now reside here in the states who are contracted by the owners to test fly them after they are assembled and licensed. Most of my opinions and information are reflections of what these guys have told me while they trained me to work on their former country's aircraft - and the ones I met who flew the MiG-25 and 31 said IT WAS A PIG!

I think you might want to consider reading some of the information you post before you "cut and paste it" into a conglomeration of gibberish, half truths and wrong information. Again, you're entitled to your opinions and cut and paste beliefs, but don't call anyone on this forum names when you can't get them to agree with you......

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Very well said FBJ! And yes vanir you need to back off with the insults. We have had eneogh problems with this kind of stuff and dont need it anymore.

 

[plan_D]

Adler, the F-14 would still be on the ground warming up it's avionics while the Lightning was up in the air in less than two minutes from the alarm bell. Once it's up in the air it's up to 50,000 feet in little over a minute and shooting at almost Mach 1 towards it's target. Need it go any faster, it can reach Mach 2.3!

In three minutes the Lightning can be in the air at optimum speed and altitude (45,000 feet and Mach 0.87) from alarm bell. That time includes the time it takes for men to get the pilot in and roll the Lightning on to the runway.

In three minutes a F-14 would only just be off the runway since it's spent most of that time warming up.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

On all US Carriers there were 2 Tomcats at the ready to launch at all times. Systems up and running and ready to go. The Tomcat could hit targets before the Lightning was in range. The Tomcat could fly to Mach 2.5.

Sorry but the Tomcat was a better overall interceptor than the Lightning was.

 

[plan_D]

The only reason the Tomcat would ever be able to get up before the Lightning was because of the catapult on ships. You put them both on a ground strip, the Lightning would show it up.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And when is a Tomcat going to see combat from a ground strip. About 90 percent of the time never. Sorry plan_D but this really is an argument that you can not win. The F-14 was made with newer technologies. Who cares if the Lightning can climb faster. The Tomcat could hit the targets while the Lightning is still climbing up after it. The Tomcat was better than the Lightning.

 

[plan_D]

The F-14 would have to be stationed on a carrier to get anywhere near the intercept capablities of a Lightning. The Lightning could defeat the F-14 to the target off a ground strip, and the F-14 could off a carrier.

The F-14 would have to warm up, you cannot sit a plane there with it's engine on constantly. The only advantage in pure intercept duties the F-14 has is that it can carry maverick missiles. By the time the F-14 is ready, the Lightning is already miles up and miles beyond. Being able to get off the ground and get high quickly is a vital part of an interceptor.

I will concede from a carrier a F-14 would be up quicker than the Lightning but from the ground, no way. It would be so far behind the minor range deficiency of the Lightning's weapons would mean little.

And my comment on the Lightning being the best interceptor of the Cold War still stands. The F-14 didn't come to service until 20 or so years after the Lightning, the Cold War was over.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What the cold war was over before the Tomcat entered service. Please plan_D you know better than that. The Tomcat entered service around 1972. The cold war did not end until 1990. So how did the Tomcat enter after the cold war ended.

Lets see the Tomcat 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. Can the Lightning do this. ummm NO.

The Tomcats AWG-9 is a pulse-Doppler, multi-mode radar with a designed capability to track 24 targets at the same time while simultaneously devising and executing fire control solutions for 6 targets. Designed in the 1960's and one of the oldest air-to-air radar systems, the AWG-9 is still the most powerful and new software will increase its capabilities for the 21st century. Can the Lightnign compare to that. umm No.

Info taken from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-unit.htm
http://www.nawcad.navy.mil/nawcad/rsrch_eng/dfcs/index.html
http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/specials/tomcat/tomcat.htm

 

[plan_D]

The Cold War was practically over in the 1980s. The fall of the Berlin Wall was merely a symbol of the end.

The Lightning could climb to 50,000 feet in one minute, 60, 000 feet in just over a minute. It could be at 40,000 feet and Mach 0.87 in under a minute and in the direction of it's opponent. It has a RADAR scope of 120 degrees, more than the most, if not all, fighter aircraft. It could release it's Red Top at any direction, it didn't need to face it's opponent to destroy it.

The only reason the F-14 could be considered superior is the Phoenix missiles. Off a ground strip, the Lightning would be able to track and destroy it's target before the F-14 could.

The F-14 is the better aircraft overall but off a ground strip, the Lightning was a superior interceptor to anything.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Who cares about this damn ground strip, jeezus christ. Just admit that the F-14 was a better intereceptor. Damn plan_D I like you and all but you are fricken more stubborn than my wife sometimes. You can come up with anythign to argue with a brick wall if you had to!

Anyways peace out, I am out on vacation for a couple of weeks, see ya in a couple of weeks. 8)

 

[plan_D]

Well, you'd need aircraft carriers all over your coast for the F-14 to be able to intercept like the Lightning did.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very well said FBJ! And yes vanir you need to back off with the insults. We have had eneogh problems with this kind of stuff and dont need it anymore.

THANKS!

 

[Nonskimmer]

At the risk of getting the sh*t beat out of me by Adler (in the imaginary sense of course ), I agree with PD about the Lightning's effectiveness as an interceptor. As he's indicated, the fact that it didn't have the range of an F-14 doesn't really play into this, because it was designed to defend the British Isles. A job that it was particularly good at. It's systems were simplistic when compared to the Tomcat's, but it got to it's destination damn fast, which was the whole idea, and it could certainly deal with the threats it was designed to. Just me own opinion.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You are right NS it was a great interceptor. I will never deny that. I just would not go as far as calling the Lightning the best Intercepter ever built. The F-14 could fly just as fast, infact with the F-14D it could fly even faster. It could not climb as fast as the Lightning but I would go as far to say that the F-14D with is 2 engines rated at 32000lb thrust each may have been able to. But at the same time the F-14 did not need to get as high the Lighting. It could shoot down whatever it needed to with its AIM-54 Pheonixes, 6 at a time and coudl technically track up to 24 targets. All of this without the Tomcat even having to see its enemy.

I repeat myself I never said the Lightning was not a great intercepter and not one of the best, but the Tomcat was of different class and was better.

Oh and NS I could never beat the shit out of you. I love you man!