ViperEagle

They could have very well been a few scrapped A's that also conducted strikes over Afghanistan. At the time, October/November 2001, VF-41 and 14, specifically VF-41, had the oldest, most worn out Tomcats in the fleet.

The F-14A's that are being scrapped are airframes that: Have been at AMARG (not AMARC anymore) for 10-15 years. Never recieved the A2G upgrades, including even basic LGB capability. Have already been very picked over, and arent in the best of shape. Some dont even have the TCS and NACA gun gas purge vents! No great loss here folks, they never would have been returned to service, EVER. There are still alot of F-14B's and D's in the war ready reserve, and they wont be going anywhere.

Anyone notice on those two big-mouth vipers, that the engine fan face is modeled along with the full duct? I think Over-G just got replaced.

It's kind of like the Falcon guys saying the same thing about Lock On, people who are crapped on tend to crap on "lowers" because it makes them generally feel better. I cant wait for Ace Combat 6, and I'm a die-hard Lock On and Falcon user.

Anyone who discounts Russian aircraft wholesale is a fool who needs to be told to STFU. Russian engines are very reliable at slow speeds, but trade off engine life, you cant have your cake and eat it too sometimes. And when your area is threatened by a potentially very unstable (Chavez) person, I would want a big stick nearby too.

My guess is more F model Super Hornets for Austrailia and more F-15K's for South Korea. That is until the F-35 arrives. And was that nuke crack a shot at the US using them in WW2? if so..you dont know history, if not, then I apologise in advance for misreading.

poke that fire again will ya? here..have some gas too..

I'm happy to hear that the F-15 is indeed being looked at and at least some issues will be fixed, it's just a question of when. Most games do under-model the F-15, mostly because it takes more than just an idea of pure thrust vs. weight to give an accurate feel. Also because most people dont realise just how much brute power it has, so they write it off as "unrealistic".

An F-15A with Dash 229's was actually already done. By some accounts, it actually had to throttle BACK because the windscreen started to melt (Mach 2.6+)

I dont have to, it's living a comfortable retired life.

Yep, he had to keep it below 450 knots. The pilot in question was Capt. Mike "Getsno" Love. Depending on the severity of the Over-G, it could be anything from a simple inspection to pulling the wings and engines and doing a full, detailed check.

The F-15, in reality, is not G limited, as GG said, if you want to kill yourself (or just your flying status) by pulling 15G's, feel free. You'll just Over-G, bend, break and make a 40 million dollar, vitally needed aircraft unflyable :thumbup: The F-16 is artifically limited to 9G's. Typically F-15's pull between 6.5 and 8, after that you're starting to Over-G the airframe with continued stress, that and the human body cant keep pulling 9G's and not start to loose all resemblence of strength.

All the supercruising in the world doesnt mean anything if you cant land onboard the boat again when you get home, thats assuming you didnt get to pop off your Fox 3's. Thats 4 very heavy, Mk. 54 drag slugs you're hauling back, figure thats in excess of 4000 pounds of dead weight you're bringing back. There's a limit to how much weight you can bring back aboard the boat, and 4000 pounds of weight is quite a bit of fuel. So..assume you're already somewhat fuel critical...now, you're bringing back 4 unused -54's that are holding up alot of weight. See the picture? The F-14D (CLEAN) may have been able to supercruise once the burners pushed it past Mach 1, but true supercruising implies being able to break the speed of sound without AB. No aircraft, thus far, besides a VERY clean (IE no pylons and very low fuel) F-15A(barely past Mach, like Mach 1.05), T-38(same) , F-22 or Typhoon can do. But, with a aircraft launch weight of in excess of 68,000 pounds, it would take insane kinds of engine power to get that to super cruise. Dont get me wrong, the F-14B and D were very fast and very capable, but it wasnt the invincible god some claim it to be.

They also werent configured for a max-range engagement. IIRC, the 1989 Tomcats didnt launch with a full load, which would have likely been 4X Sparrow and 4X Sidewinder. Even 2 Aim-54's was a massive weight and drag penalty.

If you ask me, the ROE's with Libya were just fine. The Tomcat crews fired when they felt they were in danger of being fired upon. Warning Yellow, Weapons hold does NOT mean "do not fire until fired upon" it means "you MUST fire if you feel you are going to be attacked" Also, the AIM-54 wasnt meant as a fighter killer, but meant to be shot at targets the size of a TU-95. Now, the Iranians did obtain fighter kills, as did the US against manuvering drones and targets, but it wasnt ideal for it at all. The Tomcat is indeed only slightly younger than the Eagle, but enough to make a difference. Tomcats entered squadron service in 1973 (Flying Top-cover for Frequent Wind, the evacuation of Saigon which TECHNICALLY makes the Tomcat a vietnam /veteran/era airframe) with Fighter squadrons 1 and 2 (Wolfpack and Bounty Hunters) and were still gaining strength up until 1988 or so. F-15's entered squadron service in 1975 (IIRC) and were still expanding up until the late 80's. F-16's went on-line in 1978 or 79 (IIRC) and the F/A-18's in 1983.