turkeydriver

NONONONONONONONONOSTEVECARRELLNONONO! You have zero actual facts on the IRL launches of the AIM-54 based on your assumptions. This is a valid rant that is supported by all logic and reason in the universe. Please delete the stupid and do a small amount of research other than reading internet posts. Please. Of the misses that you speak of( US launches-3 of which we know of), one tracked fine perfectly a high-speed target which beamed at high Mach and then ran at high Mach-translate, not even an SA-10 will complete that intercept, it missed AFTER F-15s missed with an undisclosed amount of AIM-7s and AIM-120s. I use this not to clown the F-15, but to demonstrate how hard the intercept was. The only thing an Iraqi fighter pilot could do after GW1 was learn to run, period. The AIM-54 tracked and dropped after it lost energy. The MiG crashed on final after fuel exhaustion-which is why the crew were congratulated when they landed, they weren't awarded a kill, but it resulted in a kill(sort of). The next two misses were due solely to the missiles being loaded incorrectly by a new Sailor so when the missiles were launched, the rocket arming pins remained with the missiles. After seeing both missiles drop after good avionics checks, the crews knew there was a loading problem and didn't bother shooting their other AIM-54s. It has nothing to due the missile not meeting its advertised capability. I'll warrant that Iran's claims are exaggerated, and I don't give Iraq's claims credibility either, but Iran did deploy and use the weapon successfully many times. This is directly why Iraq fled every F-14 that escorted flights in country(not often). So much so that A-6 drivers wanted to develop a pod containing an AWG-9 transmitter to drive MiGs away. Your link shows good info for the rocket motor, and I'll forgive your mistakes here. Don't pontificate over 3 shots and dub it a failure. That's just armchair commando lunacy.

There is an article in Approach about a malfunction that actually happened in the fleet somehow. Not as drastic as the NASA test, but the wings were at separate sweep angles. They got one wing to sweep back to match the other(~50 degree) and tried to land on the ship but the sink rate was way too high so they recovered on land. I'll try to find it if you want to read it. Regardless, out of all the F-14 flight hours this condition only happened once in the flight, so there isn't a reason to simulate it.

Just FYI, there is no sensor difference whatsoever between an F-14A and F-14B. Both carried LANTIRN. They both have identical systems but the F-14B was later upgraded with a Mil-STd-1760 databus that allowed it to carry JDAM. F-14As were "limited" to dumb, cluster, mines, and ALL series of LGBs. F-14Bs had display upgrades and a Sparrowhawk HUD later that had F-14D symbology. The F-14A and F-14B squadrons converted over the same period to Super Hornets, with 2 F-14D squadrons being the last to do so. So their campaigns should be completely interchangeable regardless whether you are flying in F-14A or B, unless LNS decides to model them during different points in their history. AFAIK, they will be both early 90's jets......so the only difference will be the motors( and the fact that F-14Bs don't have any glove vanes at all)

There were never anything close to 250 F-14Bs, they outnumbered the D but they weren't more than 90ish, never reaching 100 F-14Bs. Planned to have many more before the drastic cutbacks and super Hornet decision in the early 90s. B's had their shortages too, which is why VF-211 had to revert to the A model from the mid 1990s until retirement.

Those two are the only two left that aren't in Museums or on a stick somewhere. As far as I know all US F-14s will not be able to fly again. These two may be an exception but most likely aren't able to become full mission capable again.

Half of ALL F-14s lives were spent in the A-G role. The F-14B didn't switch first, F-14 squadrons were training and dropping dumb bombs in the early 1990s, even if they didn't do it on cruise until Bosnia with buddy lasing, and then Desert Fox with their own LANTIRN.

F-14A and F-14B had "link4" that allowed a flight of F-14s a very limited datalink- severely limited in bandwidth and data. I have no specifics on it.

The pylon that the AAQ-14 and AAQ-25 mounted to was the HARM pylon develop but not used operationally. One of the reasons the LANTIRN integration was so cost effective.

That's a lot of people's thoughts but its just not historically accurate, otherwise we would have an F-111B. The part that is accurate is that the F-14 was designed to incorporate and exploit the AWG-9 and AIM-54 to its maximum potential, so big nose, big area for weapons in low-drag config, and a lot of gas. ACM was a priority from DAY ONE period, end of story. Any Grummanites that remain will confirm this.

Me too, just can't go totally one-sided on this, as the F-15 has a record and performance all it's own, but I'll take a Tomcat any day of the week in ACM.

Look 2/3 of the way down this page to see one of Bio's own pictures of a VF-24 jet on cruise. This one only has one missile of each type, all live "war" rounds, as indicated by the yellow and brown bands. Doing this allows you a longer flight time, obviously and doesn't waste missile flight hours/catapult/trap time. http://aviation-xtended.co.uk/ep-39-top-gun-days-and-the-f-14-tomcat/

That's the NAWC NF-14A testing GBU-24 release. Also a shot of it releasing at high speed in level flight. VF-154 flew F-14As until the end and dropped GBU-24 in OIF.

Not even a funny enough discovery. It is widely known that the F-14 and F-15 were designed to fight their best in different flight regimes. The "funny" comes into play when you realize that both forces may have listened to their own history in Korea and Vietnam as opposed to a fighter experience world wide. The F-14 was designed to win every dogfight at low-level and low(er) speed-where Navy kills originated in Korea(slower jets and props-focused on CAS and mud-moving, so these fights were always med/low-altitude and lower airspeed) and Vietnam (classic dogfights still maneuvering to the best envelope for a Sidewinder<navy designed weapon> or gun kill in the case of the F-8. The Air Force kills in Korea occurred with their high flying CAP flights against higher flying MiG-15s, and occurred at higher speeds as the jets built up as much energy as possible when at the edge of their range in MiG Alley. In Vietnam the Air Force had many more Sparrow kills and many high speed sidewinder and even supersonic gun kills. The F-105 MiG kills occurred at higher speeds as well. So the F-15 was built and designed to fight best where all these fights occurred- Mach .8 to Mach 1.2, and you can't beat an F-15 in that envelope unless you're flying an F-22 or Eurofighter. The F-14 fights better than the F-15 to Mach 0.75 and then again after Mach 1.2( especially if glove vanes are operational). This was designed because the bomber threat was seen to be high speed escorted by MiG-25 types that mandated a high speed intercept and maneuvering. The epic engineering feats led to two amazing designs that do their assigned jobs very, very well.

An F-14A would be closer to that KA-50 with single function switches. However, the F-14B upgrade gave the backseat multipurpose programmable buttons to control its new displays. The F-14D entered the fleet with the same MFDs as the F/A-18C. Two in the front seat and one in the back in addition to the updated big display.

It would be a loadout when on cruise with no events happening, just blue water CAP. No war at all, just aircraft armed to respond if necessary. There's plenty of pics of asymmetric loaded F-14s with only one live AIM-9, an AIm-7 under the opposite wing. and an AIM-54 on a forward station mounted closer to the AIM-9.

Depends on the altitude right? Of course the F-110s make more thrust, bt the fuel savings is in less use of afterburner and more efficient engine operation at altitude. Down low in the weeds, the TF-30 numbers should be very good as far as fuel efficiency. The F-110 may just edge it, but the TF-30 is a very fuel efficient motor, but this is about turning and burning, and the TF-30 mandates afterburners most of the time in ACM while the F-110 does not, so the new motor wins the fuel fight when maneuvering period. There I go defeating my point in the same post LOL.

not diving under- I'm meant a "reverse SAM" because it dives from above instead of climbing from below. Of course they'll both calculate lead pursuit to get the kill, but both profiles offer a large radar target for a pulse based system.

The AIm-54 should use info from the radar and its own avionics to determine the best profile. The longest range shot would use that drastic climbout and arc to achieve highest speed and range but I'm not sure about the final leg dropping to attain the target at 10-15 degrees below the missile and then co-altitude. I'd think of it as an inverse SAM that would drop down using pulse to keep the beam from being effective. Under 10 miles you would have a near 90 degree reflection from the huge planform(bomber) of the target and have the best return. If you're co-altitude the best signal return comes from the engine face if viewable, the mounting bulkhead for the radar dish, and the cockpit installations(seat, HUD, pilot). Regardless of the head on returns, they would be smaller than a return of the entire planform from directly above and only benefit a Doppler radar lock. During fighter intercepts, this is the most typical type of engagement, so fighter weapons and tactics are focused on using this to the best benefit. The AIM-54 definitely uses co-altitude during min distance shots -up to 10 miles, and low-altitude cruise missile engagement. I don't know if the AWG-9 and onboard AIM-54 avionics tell the missile to engage a fighter differently than a bomber during the end-game. I'd say the different profiles is bogus, but the AIM-54C AFAIK engages low-altitude cruise missiles with a unique flight profile, just like the long range engagement is unique. I'm betting getting any type of accurate answer is not possible at this time.

Just trying to point out that those TF-30s worked well and the F-15 pilot knew that when the F-14 had energy, they would use the vertical to prevent an overshoot, or to bleed energy when needed. Conversely, F-14 jocks call F-15s easy kills because their action after the merge was the same thing for every pilot on the first fight.

We've effectively "Nuked" this. The F-15 and F-14 aren't designed to enter fights at the same specific weights regarding fuel or even percentages.....What I mean is, an F-14 will take off with full gas and get little sips ideally from a Navy tanker and then ideally fight out at the edge of its CAP around 50%(or less!) If the threat is known once they tank, they're going to establish an intercept at a higher rate of speed and enter the merge at low gas as well. Ideally an F-15 flight is supported by a KC-135 or KC-10 that keeps it as close to full as possible. It cruise and patrol on the gas in its wing tanks and will most likely start a furball with a higher internal fuel percentage, as they'll burn the externals down and punch them off unless max speed is needed NOW. With the Eastern Iraq intercepts running down aircraft trying to escape being negated (all high speed chase downs that burned a LOT of gas), I think we can safely say the majority of F-15 fights happen with higher fuel loads than an F-14 and may very well have consumed more. Regarding staying power in the fight, the F-14 should win the wings programmed at auto, the TF-30 is a very fuel efficient engine at lower altitudes, with the F-110 burning more gas during cruise, but not needing the afterburner usage as much during climb out. If you want to compare the aircraft, you need to make 3 comparisons. Understand that in ACM, the F-14A will set the TF-30s in Zone 5 and leave them there, so it will have 40k of thrust throughout. The F-14B and F-15 will adjust throttle settings as needed to stay behind their bogey. In my mind, knowing this about the F-14A, it would make the fight against it easier, because you know the pilot can't play with throttles, and will use the vertical plane to control your energy state, so you know where he's going to go. The F-14B and F-15C can choose their maneuvering plane at will, so they would be much tougher to anticipate. That's where the real discussion lies, as pilots don't just fly to airplane strengths, the F-14A driver has a smaller bag of tricks, and the smarter enemy could use that to win more possibly, this may be why some Air Force jocks think the F-14 is easy to beat in a knife fight, because they can guess where most of them( F-14As) are going to go.

Hercules/Rocketdyne Mk 47 (Mod 1?), using Flexadyne (PBAN) propellant (impulse ~252 s) Aerojet Mk 60, using ammonium perchlorate-polyurethane rubber binder propellant (impulse ~252 s) **EDITED** Apparently the MK60 is not a new motor but was an equivalent, produced until 1978....the Mk47 Mod 1 was produced until 1992(last AIM-54 motor delivery) So you've most likely got data on the MK 47. I learned a little something tonight. It's possible the AIM-54C had better loft and guidance characteristics, and maybe that allowed for a possible longer range and speed. Sorry for the confusion, up until now, I was convinced the C had a newer motor. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html There's a table with data listing the AIM-54C as a faster and higher flying missile, that's gotta be it.

So check the date on your manual, it may be after the C version was the only unit in production, and the new motor was retrofitted to the older A models or could be. Every reference to the C I've read describes motor improvements with more speed and longer range, in addition to the solid state avionics, and internal cooling.

The diameters and weight are most likely similar and there are interchangeable motors. I still haven't found a single RIO that will own up to their longest range shot with the C, but from what I've read, C, C+, C(ECCM sealed), C (high power) all have about another Mach level capable and longer range. The C(highpower) uses the same TWT as AMRAAM and may give the DSQ-26 a boost in detection range-may go active sooner, or just be more resistant to jamming. I haven't read a single manual on the AIM-54, everything I've read is from public knowledge, so I don't know what you're reading, it may be more reliable.

Motor? There were two types of motors used for the AIM-54A and the AIM-54C is quoted to have "improvements in the rocket motor that increase range and speed." That leads me to believe a new solid fuel rocket.

Apologies for knocking your attempt to get us back on track, Basher. I'm wondering how well high alpha roll control will be implemented(rudders), and hoping for cross couple, but the update today makes it sound like the FM will be more accurate than what I'm hoping for.