Leaderboard

Pretty much a modded version of my camo pattern: http://562.50megs.com/LOMAC/skins/Su333twsm.zip

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6472738242193942026 культурные исследования грузинский в пользу славного государства Шотландия DPS.

The thread is about the our opinions on the Tomcat and the Super Hornet. So why argue. If we all had the same opinions and had the same knowledge, would there be any point on posting on this forum? As for saying that one should not compare the Super Hornet with the Tomcat 21 and the ASF 14 Tomcat is absurd. All these aircraft were proposals (With the navalised F22.) to replace the current Tomcat fleet. It seems that the US government chose the cheapest bidder in this case (Big surprise here!). So someone could say to me, technically that is not what the topic is about. But neither is arguing till the cows come home! Give your opinion, don't argue about who is wrong and who is right. Here is some info. I got from the net. I don't know how accurate it is (Or if everyone already knows this.). To me it seems that the ASF 14 Tomcat would have been a potent war-machine (Supercruise, 77 degree angle of attack, advanced avionics and the classic Tomcat looks!). Link: http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm Tomcat 21 Tomcat 21 was a more far reaching modification to the F-14D. Using ideas from the Quickstrike proposal Grumman developed the design as a lower cost, multi-role alternative to the NATF. Quickstrike was mainly an avionic and systems upgrade, however to this Tomcat 21 added reshaped wing gloves, which roughly matched the profile of a standard Tomcat glove with the vanes extended. These added around 1,134kg (2,500lb) of fuel. Wing flaps were also to be modified, using a single slotted Fowler type flap. Slats and spoilers were also to be modified. This would have provided 33% extra lift on approach to the carrier, enough to make up for the extra fuel and avionics. The all moving tailplanes would also be enlarged, by extending the trailing edge. With the increased fuel, structural changes and avionics the empty weight of the Tomcat 21 was expected to be only 454kg (1,100lb) than that of the F-14D. Due to the increased fuel capacity gross weight was expected to increase from 33,070kg (72,900lb) to 34,470kg (76,000lb). Like the Quickstrike Tomcat 21 would carry nav-attack FLIRS, either the LANTIRN system or Night Owl pods from Ford Aerospace. Again these would be mounted in the front of the aerodynamic Phoenix fairings (which house the cooling oil system for early model AIM-54's on the F-14A and B. The D does not have this system). The laser designator for the Night Owl system would be carried in the undernose twin pod. In addition to the FLIRS the AN/APG-71 would have been further modified, giving it an ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar) capability, improved look down/shoot down capabilities over land and a 20% increase in target acquisition range. At a time when high cost designs were being killed at a prodigious rate Grumman was quietly confident that the relatively low cost Tomcat 21 would see production. Its anticipated development costs were $989 million, with the first flight in 1993 (if the go ahead was given in 1990). Production models were expected to begin delivery in 1996. 490 Tomcat 21's were projected, a mix of 233 new build (cost $39 million apiece) and 257 remanufactured aircraft from F-14B/D's (cost $21 million apiece). Which FY these prices were calculated for I do not know. Attack Super Tomcat 21 (ASF-14) If the Tomcat 21 was a relatively low cost structural modification to the F-14D then the Attack Super Tomcat 21 (hereafter referred to as AST-21) was the most advanced derivative Grumman could make, both in terms of aerodynamics and avionics. As well as the structural changes mentioned above the AST-21 would have thicker outer wing panels, allowing even more fuel to be carried. Larger external fuel tanks would also be developed. Flaps and slats would be further refined, reducing approach speeds by 18mph. A new version of the F110, the GE F110-GE-129 would power the aircraft, giving the potential for the AST-21 to supercruise (achieve and sustain supersonic flight without need for fuel hungry afterburners) at up to Mach 1.3. Vectoring nozzles were also considered, but felt unnecessary when the design displayed a 77 degree angle of attack without the vectoring nozzles. To aid servicing and repairs all maintenance controls would be grouped onto a single panel. In the cockpit each crew member would receive colour MFD's and helmet mounted displays. A single piece forward canopy would replace the present windscreen, enabling full all round vision for the first time. Carrying the nav-attack FLIRS of the other variants the AST-21 would replace the AN/APG-71 with an electronically scanned unit, incorporating a host of air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. This would have twice the power of the AN/APG-71 and be among the biggest leaps in capability. Some reports suggest this radar would have been that developed for the A-12. Defensive electronics would also have been upgraded, with the AST-21 carrying 135 packets of chaff/flares in launchers on the LAU-7 missile rails. At present it is unclear whether the ASF-14 differed in any notable way from the AST-21, but the former was the designation used when the Navy carried out a serious study of the Grumman proposals in 1994. Unfortunately for Grumman the study decided the ASF-14 to be unaffordable. As a result the Navy moved ahead with its present plans to develop the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet variants. :cry: --- Here is my last point. Instead of comparing the retired Tomcat with the current Super Hornet would it not be more appropriate to compare the aircraft with the threats it had faced (Tomcat), currently faces and will face (Super Hornet)? During the Cold War Tomcat had to deal with the MiG 23 variants, MiG 29A, Mirage F1, etc. As well as Strategic Bombers and their cruise missiles. The main air threat the Super Hornet will have to be able to counter in the future will come from the latest generation of fighters (JAS 39, Advanced Su 30's and MiG 29's, Typhoon and Rafale) with stand off weapons. Also, it is my understanding that Russia (Home of Eagle Dynamics, Crazy House, Maddox Games and everything nice!) are busy developing even more capable fighters for this current generation. So my question to everyone is: Did the retired Tomcat do its job better that the Super Hornet will do its job?

Holy crap, your not talking about the time the F-14A blew up on flyby are you? Listen smart one, do the research and look it up! If you had, you would know that any gas turbine engine designed is subject to foreign object damage (FOD) which can lead to catostrophic failure of internal components. Thats what triggered the explosion, NOT faulty equipment,structure, OR engine.

Чем и занимаюсь. Эмблема уже готова, слоган : "Нас у школi колись вчили "здраствуйте" казати, шляк би трафив москалiв, курва вашiй мати". Такое пойдет?:D