Posted on 10/01/2005 12:06:14 AM PDT by mcgiver38
Here is a link giving a pretty detailed status report on the Iranian F-14s: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml
bump
And ... a very big "Thank you" to Adm. Thomas Moorer (now deceased).
Nope, they have not put 2 plus 2 together, nor will they. The range is also pathetic at 1,275 nautical miles naked! I repeat naked. I'm so tired of politicians ordering weapons. From McNamara's band to Dirk Chinney. Hope your defib unit goes high gain! McDonaldDoug is out of Fort Worth don't you know!
Builder:
McDonnell Douglas
Unit Cost:
$57 million
Power Plant:
Two F414-GE-400 turbofan engines
Thrust:
22,000 lbs (9,977 kg) per engine
Length:
60.3 feet (18.5 meters)
Wingspan:
44.9 feet (13.68 meters)
Cruise Speed:
Mach 1.8+
Ferry Range:
1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained
Combat Range:
1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Crew:
E Models: One
F Models: Two
Max Take Off Gross Weight:
66,000 lbs (29,932 kg)
Ceiling:
50,000 feet
Armament:
One M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon
External payload:
AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM-9X (projected), AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, SLAM, SLAM-ER (projected), Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); Data Link Pod; Paveway Laser Guided Bomb; various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets. See ordnance diagram:
Introduction Date:
First flight in November 1995. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in September 2001 with VFA-115, NAS Lemoore, Calif. First cruise for VFA-115 is onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
To launch a larger image, click on the thumbnail:
Compare that to the Tom. 13,000 lbs. of ordinance. Phoenix missles two! Range is far in excess of 1275 miles, probably 2200 miles loaded for bear. Cost is 20 million less. There you go!
Contractor:
Grumman Aerospace Corporation
Unit Cost:
$38 million
Power Plant:
F-14A: Two Pratt & Whitney TF-30P-414A turbofan engine with afterburners
F-14B and F-14D: Two General Electric F110-GE-400 turbofan engines with afterburners
Thrust:
TF-30P-414A: 20,900 pounds (9,405 kg) static thrust per engine
F110-GE-400: 27,000 pounds (12,150 kg) static thrust per engine
Length:
61 feet, 9 inches (18.6 meters)
Height:
16 feet (4.8 meters)
Wingspan:
64 feet (19 meters) unswept
38 feet (11.4 meters) swept)
Maximum Take-off Weight:
72,900 pounds (32,805 kilograms)
Speed:
Mach 2+
Ceiling:
Above 50,000 feet
Crew:
Two: pilot and radar intercept officer
Armament:
Up to 13,000 pounds to include AIM-54 Phoenix missile, AIM-7 Sparrow missile, AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, air-to-ground precision strike ordnance and one M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon
Date Deployed:
First flight: December 1970
Here's the enema's bird with twice the range and ordinance.
Su-37 Flanker
Function: Multi role air superiority, ground attack fighter.
Description: Developed as an improved version of the basic Su-27 Flanker designed, the Su-37 is based on the Su-35 airframe but with thrust vectoring nozzles to give it unsurpassed maneuverability. In addition to providing more power than previous engines, the engines on the Su-37 utilize steerable nozzles which can vector the engine thrust through +/- 15 degrees of travel in the vertical axis. This thrust vectoring is fully intigrated with the aircraft's flight control systems, and requires no input or manipulation by the pilot. In the event of a system failure, an emergency system will return the nozzles to their normal position. Other modifications to the Su-37 include improved offensive and defensive avionics, an improved pulse doppler phased array radar in the nose as well as the rearward facing radar already present on the Su-34 and 35.
General Characteristics, Su-37 Flanker
Designer:
Sukhoi Design Bureau
Power Plant:
Two Lyulka AL-37FU vectored thrust afterburning turbofans
Thrust:
30,855 pounds each
Length:
21.94 meters (71.98 feet)
Height:
6.84 meters (22.44 feet)
Wingspan:
15.16 meters (49.73 feet)
Speed:
2,440 kmh (1,516 mph) at 30,000 feet
Ceiling:
18,000 meters (59,055 feet)
Weight:
18,400 kilograms (40,565 pounds) empty
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
33,999 kilograms (74,956 pounds)
Range:
3,500 kilometers (2,175 miles)
Crew:
One
Armament:
One GSh-30-1 30mm internally mounted cannon with 150 rounds of ammunition
8,200 kilograms (18,075 pounds) of external ordinance including missiles, rockets, gravity bombs, and guided munitions carried on 11 hardpoints
Date Deployed:
Still under development
Reliability and ease of maintenance are touted as strong pluses in the Superhornet's favor, and it is by no means a dog in the air.
Then there is the compatibility issue vis a via the disparate Navy and Marine roles (fleet defense versus CAS). It is far more costly to have to field and maintain two different airframes and weapon systems. As I understand it, the A/F-18 does both roles well rather than one role outrageously well, and the other mediocre.
These are the kinds of considerations that go into making a decision to choose a weapons system (unless we're talking about the Air Force when Darlene Druyan ran things).
I too think the F-14 is one incredibly impressive-to-look-at aircraft. The first time saw one up close and personal at an airshow, the experience raised the hair on the back of my neck. Looking at it on tarmac, its wings swept back, I had the weird and unsettling impression that the thing was alive, crouching in majestic silence, waiting to uncoil world-destroying destructive force at the mere whisper of a command.
How sad and ironic.
My dad worked on the digital logic design for a revision of the fire control system and and IFF system for the Tomcat....
It's being retired today, and so is his 15 year old tomcat, Joey, who is suffering from liver cancer.
RIP to both!
It is remotely possible that the Federales have decided that the future does not lie with manned aircraft and "next big thing" will be some UAVs that make all manned aircraft obsolete.
But that is probably outrageous optimism.
Follow up question.
How reliable would they be after all this time?
This is a rather interesting article:
Indeed. Excellent. The decision (by Dick Cheney as SecDef) to discontinue the F-14 was a decision to evicerate carrier aviation.
Not that outrageous - the Navy's taken the lead on UCAVs of late.
I *still* don't like the fact that we're also retiring the AIM-54 Phoenix AAM with the F-14 platform (the F-18 E/F can't carry it) but we haven't made any in almost 20 years and the missiles are starting to get unstable.
However, a stealthy UCAV loitering 50-100 miles away from the fleet as CAP loaded with a 20 pack of Slammers would probably do just as well.
From FAS.org:
"With the end of the Cold War there was a general recognition that the outer air battle -- the battle against Soviet naval aviation bombers -- was significantly reduced in importance. While AAAM was seen as the best defense against the Soviet naval air arm, the future threat would consist of Third World fighter-bomber or diesel-electric submarine. This changing security environment doomed this Phoenix missile successor [as well as the associated F-14D Super Tomcat upgrades], and the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile program was cancelled in 1992."
Sorry to hear that. My thoughts go out.
Not very. Almost all the early Phoenix missiles are all but unusable because of the cracks that develop in the solid fuel rocket engine with age. Launch one off your wing and the chances are pretty good that it's going to explode - either shortly after launch, or right at launch, taking your wing off.
The missile guidance systems themselves need quite a bit of maintenance, I am told, so the chances of a working Phoenix coming from an Iranian aircraft is very small.
Hopefully their new pilots don't know ...
It is true that you could not get through a sortie without breaking something in the later years. The Tomcat was just too expensive to maintain, when not just impossible.
But with the exception of the YF-23, the Tomcat airframe is the best one ever produced. There is no angle from where the Tomcat does not look simply bad-ass dangerous. It was the most feared weapon system by the Soviets during the cold war.
Tragic that it was not given a new life in more modern versions, like what was done with the Strike Eagle.
I still believe that one day, you are going to see something similar to the YF-23 flying off our carriers, because the Super Hornet just is not up to it. Pilots like it because the computer keeps their asses out of trouble, but trouble made for a better pilot flying the F-14.
As far as the Phoenix missle, I don't think we are allowed to use it anymore due to international laws. I think thats stupid but I am not a foreign policy advisor...I am just a NFO in training slated to report to the Super Hornet RAG soon. Yeah, I wish I could have been a RIO but missed my chance.
My first look at an F-14 was at Cannon AFB, NM, in 1974, IIRC. I was an F-111D crewchief there, and someone parked an F-14 in our Squadron HQ hanger. The pilot was kind enough to give us a tour of the bird, until our commander ordered it secured and guarded to keep us away from it. The only aircraft I like better was the F-4, and that has nothing to do with any reasonable criteria, just that I fell in love with the F-4's first. The F-14 is a very close second, to me. (No, I won't argue about it. It's a personal opinion, and you know what they say about those.)
He never met a modernized weapon system he liked? There is a long list of weapon systems killed while he was either SecDef or VP. Some of them deserved it, others left (or would have left) gaping holes in our defense.
P-3 monderization was killed in favor of the 737 based variant, which also seems to have bitten the dust.
The replacement for the KC-135s/KC-10s has been put on hold (although the Italians seem to like their new one)
SP artillery, attack helicopter, Osprey; the navy is being gutted. I'm probably missing several more systems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.