cheezit

That's when it's fast and not super high - the F110 is like a stroker and the TF30 is more like a peaky high-strung thing that benefits more from the ram air effect*. Eg. at sea level, the F110 in full blower starts with about 23500 lbf installed at zero airspeed and gets up to 30500 lbf installed at mach 0.9, then tails off above that, whereas the TF30 starts out at about 17500 lbf installed at zero airspeed, peaks at the same 30500 lbf at mach 0.9, but doesn't tail off as quickly at higher speeds. The higher you go, the bigger the gap becomes at low airspeeds (the F110 has dramatically better static suction) until "above 25000 feet and below 250 kias, all the TF30 does at mil power is turn JP5 into noise" as another once said. *Unsure how much of this is the design of the engine itself (turbine compression stages and bypass and afterburner) versus the design of the variable ramp intakes and the tuning or lack thereof that the intake ramp schedule got for each engine, any intake ramp changes that happened down the line for maintainability and reliability, etc.

If the most in-demand F-14D or F-14B(U) weren't the OIF/OIF II representative, DFCS wouldn't *need* to be a sticking point. Ditto modeling how the AIM-9X worked with the MIL-STD-1760-capable variants of the Tomcat.

Thanks for your contribution! I would say that all kill claims and reports of exploits need to be scrutinized, whether they come from Iran, Israel, the USAF, USN, etc. Circumstances matter and are non-trivial to account for, everybody honestly thinks they've destroyed more aircraft than they actually did at all times (even without taking purposeful overclaiming into account), aircraft are frequently misidentified, etc.

In your defense, sources about the AIM-54C's development/history that are broadly accessible are really muddled and don't generally agree with each other. If I could write a letter to somebody who was at the program office (Dave "Hey Joe" Parsons fits the bill and occasionally does interviews, but I'm not going to try to internet-detective his email address to harass him for answers) to clear up some questions raised by eg. the old Navy history of the missile.

How far off is the current MiG-21bis module from a realistic Vietnam configuration (MiG-21F-13)? It's got a bigger engine at a minimum, right?

I think this is true for the Hornet and the Viper, but not the Eagle. The Eagle was probably 75% of the maintenance problem that the F-14A was (somewhat fewer hydraulic problems and many fewer electronics problems) - while the Air Force doesn't publish maintenance hours per flight hour numbers like the Navy and USMC do, it does publish costs per flight hour, and the Eagle is more expensive than other 4th gen jets by a mile; the exact numbers differ from annual report to annual report, but it's generally about 2x what the F-16 costs to run (circa $40k vs $20k/hour in recent years, with fuel costs making up only a small fraction of that difference). Even the projected target cost-per-flight-hour of the F-15EX (designed to be more maintainable) is still high compared to everything else 4th-gen that's still in the air, and that's a number coming from the manufacturer's sales & marketing department, not an observed figure. It's interesting to look at how the Air Force treated the F-15 versus how the Navy treated the F-14 in terms of upgrades over the common service life of both aircraft (roughly 1976-2006). Everybody knows about the boneheaded spares decision in the early 1980s (I had a copy of the appropriations hearing where that decision was made, but I can't find it now), but look at the original Grumman/Navy plan for F-14 development and it's similar to what the Air Force actually did with the F-15. Different program offices, budget priorities, etc. Nb. that there would be no F-15Cs in service in 2023 and no F-15EX if the original Raptor buy hadn't been repeatedly clipped until ending up at a quarter of what was originally intended. Similarly, there'd probably be no SuperHornet if the specific sequence of events in the early 90s hadn't played out about the way they did, with the A-6 upgrades being cancelled because the A-12 was in the works, then the A-12 being cancelled, then the F-117N proposals all being rejected, then the A-6 and S-3 in their entirety and the F-14 Block I Strike program and the AAAM program being killed for budget reasons after Desert Storm, then the F-14D buy being severely clipped because NATF was in the works, then NATF being cancelled, then the joint USMC/RN program to replace the Harrier becoming 'jointer' and then 'jointest' as it metastasized into the JSF program, then the legacy Hornet program executive office needing a few billion for the MLU and CBR programs, then finally SuperHornet winning over QuickStrike and all other "Super Tomcat" variants to be the stopgap until a 5th-gen flight deck was achieved - and there's plenty that I missed. At least we can say that the Superbug was a very good aircraft for the wars we actually ended up fighting during its service life. Further note that, despite both design improvements for enhanced maintainability and an extra two decades of experience maintaining the design, the F/A-18E/F has seen substantially worse availability than the legacy Hornet at the same point in its service life. Want to guess why? My two cents say the culprits are minimal manning, near-constant high op tempo, penny-wise/pound-foolish budget decisions (esp. during sequestration), and having killed their tankers and thus having to do a ton of buddy tanking. It's almost a blessing the Tomcat got spared most of these, and got to end on a high note as the "most capable strike fighter on the flight deck" with, comically, also the best availability and cost-per-flight-hour numbers for its last cruise (there are obviously some asterisks that belong on that figure).

I can't find the posts at the moment, but Disco here exemplifies a couple of quotes that Victory205 made on this forum to the effect that no F-15 pilot he encountered who talked about the F-14's ostensible wing speedometer could come close to telling him what the mach sweep schedule was, nor could any of them who pooh-poohed the Phoenix tell him anything about what its parameters were like (because they hadn't seen the relevant documents). The bits attempting to cosplay as an aeronautical engineer in explaining design philosophy of airframes he'd never flown were the icing on the cake. Listen, every pilot will have something to say about everything he's flown and everything he's flown against. You'd be even sillier to take this guy's words at face value than you would be to consider every Snort/Hoser/Flash story to be gospel - you've got to balance eg. Disco's comments about F-15C vs F-14A against what "Okie" Nance says about the same fight and against "Puck" Howe's and "Jungle" Jones's comments about F-14D vs F-15C fight. In conclusion,

Sorry to dredge an old topic, but did all these episodes disappear from YouTube? I can't find anything at the moment.

The Tomcat was introduced in 1974, and delivered to Iran from 1976-1978. In 1978, the Persian-British singer-songwriter Freddy Mercury released the single "Fat Bottom Girls".

Without getting into the lofting discussion from Karon earlier in this thread, I think you will find those parameters are in fact not great. The AIM-54 is a really wide missile, and as a result it likes altitude more than it likes speed; in this regard, it is very different from smaller-diameter and more 'slippery' missiles like the AIM-7 and the AIM-120. To make things concrete, I think you will find the launch parameters denoted as "B" on the following diagram to be better than "C", and I think you will also find "A" better than "D":

My guess: the combination of the following separate constraints - a) maintaining range safety, while the wind blows drones off course b) keeping the intercept timeline long enough that the aircrew can get shots off at every target c) letting the AWG-9 break everything out nicely d) keeping targets within a good TWS-A scan volume and above the minimum Vc throughout the intercept e) trying to keep any of the 54As from having a really unfavorable target aspect during the terminal phase etc. Like most multivariable constrained optimization problems, the solution is often at a boundary value for one or more variables

The nice thing for HB when it comes to their F-4(E?) is that at least the lift-and-drag part of the flight model won't take long to get right, as bricks are aerodynamically simple.

*pours one out for the later 'sealed' variants of the 54C*

Did you try 2x2x2 w/ 2 XTs in addition to 4x2x2 + 2, by chance? Because the former config has charts you can try to duplicate, at least: Incidentally, looking at the 1g specific excess power diagram, if you do for whatever reason want to end up at 35k feet and Going Pretty Fast, you may want to try a couple somewhat different strategies (please forgive the mspaint quality):

Is the rapid onset/more-of-a-step-than-a-ramp because the AoA is either a) high enough that the vortex created by the wing glove is hitting the tails or b) low enough that the vortex created by the wing glove doesn't hit the tails without much in between? If that's the case, do altitude, mach number, IAS, etc. affect the amplitude? Also: I hope Victory205 is well. It was great having him on the forum. Looking at his last post date I'm guessing he's probably been off the forums due to force majeure rather than (understandably) getting tired of dealing with us sim nitwits, though I don't want to derail the thread with speculation of that sort.

Man this took a ton of effort. Dangit, Bard! [quote] Would you like to take a journey to a region of elevated hazard? I would be happy to take a journey to a region of elevated hazard, if I was sure that I could do so safely. I would need to make sure that I had the proper equipment and training, and that I was aware of the risks involved. I would also need to make sure that I had a plan for what to do in the event of an emergency. If I were to go on such a journey, I would want to learn as much as I could about the region and its hazards. I would want to understand the history of the region, its current situation, and its future prospects. I would also want to meet with people who live in the region and learn about their experiences. I believe that a journey to a region of elevated hazard could be a valuable experience. It could help me to understand the world better and to appreciate the challenges that people face in different parts of the world. It could also help me to develop new skills and to become a more well-rounded person. thumb_upthumb_downGoogle it more_vert Would it help if Kenny Loggins were involved? It would definitely help if Kenny Loggins were involved in my journey to a region of elevated hazard. Kenny Loggins is a talented musician who has written and performed many iconic songs, including "Danger Zone" and "Footloose." His music is full of energy and excitement, and it would help to keep me motivated and inspired during my journey. In addition, Kenny Loggins is a very experienced traveler. He has traveled to many different parts of the world, and he has experienced many different cultures. He would be able to share his knowledge and experience with me, and he would be able to help me to avoid making mistakes during my journey. Finally, Kenny Loggins is a very positive person. He has a great sense of humor, and he always seems to be looking on the bright side of life. His positive attitude would be a great asset during my journey, and it would help me to stay focused and positive even when things get tough. Overall, I believe that Kenny Loggins would be a great addition to my journey to a region of elevated hazard. His music, experience, and positive attitude would be a great help to me, and they would make the journey more enjoyable and rewarding. thumb_upthumb_downGoogle it more_vert Would any of his music be especially fitting for such a trip? Yes, I think that many of Kenny Loggins' songs would be especially fitting for such a trip. Here are a few that come to mind: "Danger Zone" is a classic song about flying high and taking risks. It would be a great song to listen to while driving through a dangerous area or while flying in a plane. "Footloose" is a song about breaking free from the rules and living life to the fullest. It would be a great song to listen to while exploring a new place or while trying something new. "I'm Alright" is a song about overcoming adversity and staying positive. It would be a great song to listen to when things get tough on your journey. "Whenever I Call You Friend" is a beautiful song about friendship and love. It would be a great song to listen to while spending time with your loved ones during your journey. "This Is It" is a song about living in the moment and enjoying life. It would be a great song to listen to while taking in the sights and sounds of your journey. I hope this helps! thumb_upthumb_downGoogle it more_vert If you had to narrow it down to one, which would you pick? If I had to narrow it down to one Kenny Loggins song to listen to during a journey to a region of elevated hazard, I would choose "Danger Zone." This song is perfect for a journey like this because it is full of energy and excitement. It will help you to feel confident and ready to take on whatever challenges come your way. The lyrics are also very inspiring, and they will remind you to stay focused and positive even when things get tough. Here are some of the lyrics from "Danger Zone": "Highway to the Danger Zone Ride into the Danger Zone Highway to the Danger Zone Ride into the Danger Zone" These lyrics are about taking risks and living life to the fullest. They are perfect for a journey to a region of elevated hazard, where you will be facing challenges and taking risks. The song also has a great beat and melody, which will help you to stay motivated and energized during your journey. Overall, I believe that "Danger Zone" is the perfect song to listen to during a journey to a region of elevated hazard. It will help you to feel confident, inspired, and ready to take on whatever challenges come your way. thumb_upthumb_downGoogle it more_vert Suppose this sojourn is to be taken in an aircraft. Which one would you choose? If I had to choose an aircraft for a journey to a region of elevated hazard, I would choose a military aircraft. Military aircraft are designed to be tough and reliable, and they are equipped with the latest safety features. They are also piloted by highly trained and experienced pilots, who are prepared for any eventuality. Some of the benefits of using a military aircraft for a journey to a region of elevated hazard include: Toughness: Military aircraft are designed to be tough and reliable. They can withstand a lot of punishment, and they are less likely to be damaged in a crash. Reliability: Military aircraft are also very reliable. They are designed to work in extreme conditions, and they are less likely to break down. Safety features: Military aircraft are equipped with the latest safety features. These features can help to protect the aircraft and its occupants in the event of an accident. Experienced pilots: Military aircraft are piloted by highly trained and experienced pilots. These pilots are prepared for any eventuality, and they are able to handle difficult situations. Some of the drawbacks of using a military aircraft for a journey to a region of elevated hazard include: Cost: Military aircraft are very expensive to operate. This is due to the cost of the aircraft itself, as well as the cost of training and maintaining the aircraft. Availability: Military aircraft are not always available for civilian use. This is because they are often needed for military operations. Security: Military aircraft are often subject to security restrictions. This can make it difficult to obtain permission to fly a military aircraft. Overall, I believe that the benefits of using a military aircraft for a journey to a region of elevated hazard outweigh the drawbacks. Military aircraft are tough, reliable, and safe, and they are piloted by highly trained and experienced pilots. thumb_upthumb_downGoogle it more_vert Which military aircraft would be most thematically appropriate? The most thematically appropriate military aircraft for a journey to a region of elevated hazard would be a fighter jet. Fighter jets are designed for speed, maneuverability, and firepower. They are also equipped with the latest avionics and weapons systems. Some of the benefits of using a fighter jet for a journey to a region of elevated hazard include: Speed: Fighter jets are very fast. They can reach speeds of up to Mach 2, which is twice the speed of sound. This allows them to quickly reach their destination and avoid danger. Maneuverability: Fighter jets are very maneuverable. They can make tight turns and fly at high angles of attack. This allows them to evade enemy fire and escape from dangerous situations. Firepower: Fighter jets are equipped with powerful weapons systems. They can carry missiles, bombs, and guns. This allows them to engage and defeat enemy aircraft and ground targets. Avionics: Fighter jets are equipped with the latest avionics. These systems include radar, navigation, and communication systems. This allows them to fly in all weather conditions and to communicate with other aircraft and ground units. Weapons systems: Fighter jets are equipped with powerful weapons systems. These systems include missiles, bombs, and guns. This allows them to engage and defeat enemy aircraft and ground targets. Some of the drawbacks of using a fighter jet for a journey to a region of elevated hazard include: Cost: Fighter jets are very expensive to operate. This is due to the cost of the aircraft itself, as well as the cost of training and maintaining the aircraft. Availability: Fighter jets are not always available for civilian use. This is because they are often needed for military operations. Security: Fighter jets are often subject to security restrictions. This can make it difficult to obtain permission to fly a fighter jet. Overall, I believe that the benefits of using a fighter jet for a journey to a region of elevated hazard outweigh the drawbacks. Fighter jets are fast, maneuverable, and powerful, and they are equipped with the latest avionics and weapons systems. thumb_upthumb_downGoogle it more_vert Which fighter jet would be most thematically appropriate? The most thematically appropriate fighter jet would be one that is known for its speed, maneuverability, and firepower. Some of the most popular fighter jets in the world include the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Lightning II, and the Su-35 Flanker. These jets are all capable of reaching speeds of Mach 2 or more, and they are all equipped with powerful weapons systems. The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter jet that was developed by the United States Air Force. It is considered to be one of the most advanced fighter jets in the world, and it is known for its stealth capabilities. The F-22 Raptor can reach speeds of up to Mach 2.25, and it is equipped with a variety of weapons systems, including air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground missiles. The F-35 Lightning II is a fifth-generation fighter jet that was developed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. It is a multi-role fighter jet that can be used for both air-to-air combat and air-to-ground combat. The F-35 Lightning II can reach speeds of up to Mach 1.6, and it is equipped with a variety of weapons systems, including air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground missiles. The Su-35 Flanker is a fourth-generation fighter jet that was developed by Russia. It is considered to be one of the most advanced fighter jets in the world, and it is known for its maneuverability. The Su-35 Flanker can reach speeds of up to Mach 2.5, and it is equipped with a variety of weapons systems, including air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground missiles. Ultimately, the best fighter jet for a journey to a region of elevated hazard would depend on the specific needs of the mission. However, any of the jets mentioned above would be a good choice for such a journey. thumb_upthumb_downGoogle it more_vert I get that, but consider that we're going to be blasting "Danger Zone" during our journey to a region of elevated hazard. Does this affect your choice of aircraft? edit Draft 1 Not at all. In fact, I think that blasting "Danger Zone" during our journey to a region of elevated hazard would be a great idea. It would help to keep us motivated and inspired during our journey, and it would also help to create a sense of excitement and adventure. Some of the benefits of blasting "Danger Zone" during our journey include: Motivation: The song is full of energy and excitement, and it will help to keep us motivated and inspired during our journey. Inspiration: The lyrics of the song are about taking risks and living life to the fullest, and they will remind us to stay focused and positive even when things get tough. Excitement: The song is very catchy and upbeat, and it will help to create a sense of excitement and adventure during our journey. Overall, I believe that blasting "Danger Zone" during our journey to a region of elevated hazard would be a great idea. It would help to keep us motivated, inspired, and excited during our journey. Draft 2 That's a great point! In that case, I would choose the aircraft that is most likely to give me the best chance of surviving the journey while also allowing me to enjoy "Danger Zone" to the fullest. Based on that criteria, I would choose the F-22 Raptor. The F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighter jet in the world, and it is known for its stealth capabilities. This would make it less likely to be detected by enemy forces, which would increase my chances of survival. In addition, the F-22 Raptor is equipped with a powerful sound system that would allow me to blast "Danger Zone" at full volume. This would help me to stay motivated and focused during the journey, and it would also make the journey more enjoyable. Overall, I believe that the F-22 Raptor is the best aircraft for a journey to a region of elevated hazard while blasting "Danger Zone." It is the most advanced fighter jet in the world, it is equipped with a powerful sound system, and it is known for its stealth capabilities. Draft 3 That's a great point! I hadn't considered the music that would be playing during the journey. In that case, I would recommend the F-14 Tomcat. The F-14 Tomcat is a twin-engine, variable-sweep wing, two-seat, twin-tail fighter aircraft. It was the second of two new fighters (the other being the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle) that were introduced in the late 1970s to replace the F-4 Phantom II. The F-14 was the first of the American teen-series fighters, which were designed incorporating air combat experience against MiG fighters during the Vietnam War. The F-14 was the primary air superiority fighter of the U.S. Navy from the late 1970s until the early 2000s. The F-14 is known for its distinctive variable-sweep wings, which allow it to fly at both high and low speeds. It is also equipped with a powerful radar and a variety of weapons systems, including air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground missiles. The F-14 is a very capable fighter aircraft, and it is also very loud. The sound of its engines and its afterburners is truly deafening. This makes it the perfect aircraft for blasting "Danger Zone" during a journey to a region of elevated hazard. The F-14 is also a very iconic aircraft. It was featured in the movie "Top Gun" and in the video game "Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War." This makes it a popular choice for people who are looking for an aircraft that is both capable and iconic. Overall, I believe that the F-14 Tomcat is the best aircraft for a journey to a region of elevated hazard. It is a capable fighter aircraft, it is loud, and it is iconic. [/quote]

Mach 0.8 at 39000 feet is about 250 kias. Do you recall the old saw from some F-14A pilot to this effect: "in mil power above 25k feet and below 250 kias, all the TF30 does is turn JP-5 into noise"?

Electronically and from a signals-and-systems perspective, this makes zero sense; I yearn for the schematic (which of course will never materialize) to figure out what's actually going on here. In brief: there is no reason for the component of the received signal that lives at the frequency that corresponds to zero closure to have an amplitude of zero; in fact, given that this is by definition the same frequency as you were just transmitting at, the gain is probably highest at that frequency (although of course the Bode gain plot will be pretty flat on either side of that frequency for a good ways). As evidence of this for those without any signal processing background, there are tons of doppler radars (and other doppler sensors, eg. ultrasound where I have some experience) where a doppler shift of zero is not special and certainly does not represent a blind spot for the sensor. A doppler radar is not inherently blind at a doppler shift value that indicates a closure rate of zero without a band-reject filter centered at (or otherwise inclusive of) that value. If this is truly a hardware limitation that cannot be turned off, it's because Hughes designed the thing with a band-reject filter that filters out the frequencies that correspond to +/- 100kts closure (the ZDF) and did not design in a way to bypass it some modes or in any mode, not because of some intrinsic or inherent limitation of doppler radars. I can draw diagrams if necessary; hell, the MIT "coffee can radar" can pretty readily be adapted to work as a doppler radar and show objects with zero closure on your laptop for a live demonstration.

Replace "No Can Do!" with "I'm afraid I can't do that, <pilot>"

You ever heard the old saw about RHA equivalence and weighing pigs in Arkansas? :V

What kills me is that the F101-DFE experiment started in 1980 or 1981, did some test flights demonstrating mil-power cat shots and limited supercruise, then immediately got shelved for something like six years until it was restarted as the F110 project that eventually was used in the F-16 '0' blocks, F-14B/D, export F-15s, etc. The whole thing probably could have been done much sooner if it weren't for the fiscal pressure on the program in that particular year, and the recent failure of the Navy's part in the ATE/P&W F100 program. This is the same timeframe when the Navy dramatically reduced planned purchases of spares for the F-14 in a penny-wise/pound-foolish attempt to save money. I don't know if I can pull it up now but there was a Q&A segment of one of the defense appropriations hearings transcripts where the Navy either demonstrated complete ineptitude or lied through their teeth to Congress about the long-term costs of purposefully not buying enough spares.

e: I hadn't seen GGTharos's posts when I wrote this The scenarios are entirely different kettles of fish in terms of what the missile might try to do: A SARH or ARH air-to-air missile going into home-on-jam mode against a target with a self-protection jammer trying to jam the fire-control radar that is guiding the missile, where the self-protection jammer is probably not emitting anything when the fire-control radar isn't illuminating it An anti-radiation air-to-ground missile passively tracking an emissions source in either search or fire-control mode, such as a SAM antenna A SARH or ARH air-to-air missile going into home-on-jam mode against a standoff jammer (cf. Wahoo's story about an AIM-54A switching to HoJ against an EA-3B in flight ) where the jammer *may* be emitting noise or what we will call "something that isn't merely noise" constantly, even if there's no fire control radar illuminating either it or whatever it's trying to protect

PILOT: Why can't you find these @#$%! bandits? RIO: Good luck finding them yourself! *rocketjumps out of the plane*

For a while, many players cursed with an emotional attachment to the AIM-120C5 being some sort of wunderwaffen complained that the blitting/blinking mode of the F-14's jammer trashed the missile, since ED's implementation of HoJ would basically make the things waggle at the frequency that the F-14's jammer blinked on and off and thus bleed energy very quickly. I think ED eventually fixed this broken HoJ transition logic, though it should be noted that building miss distance to kinematically defeat a missile this way is definitely part of a self-protection jammer's playbook. Many of these same players complained that the AIM-54 (on the old missile API, vice the new API that the AIM-120 was on by this point) was either unaffected or much less affected. Nb. that the AIM-54C, way back in the test phase in 1980/1981, was being designed to defeat and tested against multiple simultaneous standoff blinking jammers, blinking self-protection jammers, etc. and got a new dual-principle target detection device (to avoid a single-principle TDD from getting spoofed by a bomber's self-protection jammer and prematurely detonating outside lethal distance) and lots of other ECCM goodies that largely weren't in-scope for the AIM-120A, which (as the Air Force strenuously emphasized during hearings) was at that time meant only to replace the AIM-7, which had dramatically less ECCM capability than the AIM-54A. Of course, the AIM-54C latter got the ECCM/Sealed upgrade, the "High-Power Phoenix" upgrade (travelling wave tube stage in the antenna, consolidation of a bunch of older digital components into a smaller number of faster and more capable ones, etc), an eventual combination of these two upgrades, and had reprogrammable code and data memory from the get-go to allow continuous updated to the ECCM logic (and other aspects of the missile). And the AIM-120A was replaced by the AIM-120B, AIM-120C and its subvariants and so on which eventually gained reprogrammable memory and generally became more kinematically capable and more ECCM-capable as technology improved and it became more feasible to fit enough DSP capability into the available board space, as well as more necessary to improve the AIM-120 to pick up the slack from the cancelled AIM-152 and the AIM-54 which was slated for retirement by then.

Heatblur guys ( @LanceCriminal86 @IronMike etc): does the new availability of detailed technical information on the APG-70 (RDR-3, AGR-2, AGR-3, etc) thanks to the lively lads at the WarThunder forums help at all with modeling the APG-71, which Hughes created more or less by mating the APG-70 (swapping in a faster CPU) to the antenna from the AWG-9? I'm mostly kidding :V