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.

Yep. I would argue that the F-14D WAS a 4th Gen aircraft, the F-14A was not, and the F-14B was pushing 4th Gen.

It was also from a time when spare parts were plentiful and work-to-flight hours werent a huge concern as the Navy had more than enough people they needed and massive budgets. It's not fair to blame Cheney for it, as it wasnt just him. There was a massive push for a updated Hornet (todays Super Hornet), even when the debates about continued Tomcat production were going on. The fact is, the legacy hornets are easier to work on, as are Super Hornets. And 5th generation? I wouldnt say that. I would say that an updated F-14D+ (F-14E/F?) would have been a Gen. 4.5, but there is only so much you can do with an airframe from 1969/1970. The USAF is facing the same problem with the A and C F-15's. As with everything, the truth is not so simple.

The Six on Six test did indeed show a great range of different targets. At least one was set to simulate a moderate speed bomber, a mach 2 cruise missile, 2 fighters that were manuvering and two more slower speed aircraft/cruise missiles. 5 direct hits and 1 close enough that a proximity detonation would have destroyed it. While no US Aim-54's ever scored a direct-explosion-kill, VF-213's (or it may have been VF-2's) F-14D's did pop off -54's at MAX RANGE at a MiG-25 in 1998. The -25 turned tail and burned ass away, when it landed it either crashed or it's engines were useless as was the airframe damage. Quoting one person involved in the encounter: "Screw that, a kill is a kill" Almost to a man, the F-14 crews wished the funds were available for both LANTIRN and the AMRAAM. With the Phoenix retired in 2004, that left the Aim-7 as the Tomcats longest stick.

The F-14A was NO slouch in A2A combat, yes it's engines didnt do everything the Tomcat could have, it was still very formidable. VF-14 F-14A's scored simulated "kills" against some of the Luftwaffe's best MiG-29 pilots in the 90's, including gun kills. I've got footage of F-14As scoring kills on F-16's, F-15's, Hornets, MiG-21's etc. Just in the Alpha, you had to fly the engines, not the aircraft. One of the reasons the Tomcat was and is so loved is partly due to the fact that it was the first US aircraft to score an A2A kill since Vietnam. Now, F-16's and -15's did very well in Israeli hands, but not with US pilots, where the F-14's were US flown. People like to bash the Tomcat, citing it's "6.5 G limit", thats bull pucky, frankly. The 6.5 G limit was placed on the airframe because it was not getting any younger, and the Navy needed to make them last as long as possible. When new and easily replacable, the F-14's airframe was 9G+. During the engagement with the SU-22's, a VF-14 Tomcat had to unload to avoid a possible missile attack, and put on 10 or 12 G's on the airframe with no negative results. The simple fact is, with the end of the Cold War, the ending of the A-12 project and the A-6F program, choices had to be made. The funds were available for LANTIRN/PGM/etc intergration into the Tomcat community and roll the former A-6 crews into the Tomcat community, OR, for Aim-120 AMRAAM clearance. THE CORRECT CHOICE WAS MADE. With the AMRAAM, the Tomcats would have maybe survived until 2000. With the LANTIRN and PGM's, the Navy gained a suitable step-in for the A-6, while retaining a capable Fleet Defense Interceptor/ Fighter and recon. As a strike fighter/bomber, the F-14A/B/D was more capable than the F-15E, with sharper displays and better range. When there were "tough to crack" targets, commanders on the ground requested Tomcats. The B and D Tomcats were very capable ACM aircraft, infact, during RedFlag exercises, no aircraft had run down USAF F-111's on the deck..until the F-14B's showed up to play. The F-14B's and D's could kill F-16's in 1 and 2 turn fights, and could hang with F-15A's and C's in the vertical. The F-14B's and D's had tremendous power, and were superior to the TF-30's in every single way except for high altitude mach speeds. Pratt and Witneys traditionally like high speeds and high altitudes. Up high and fast, the TF-30's would likely have a bit of an edge on the GE F110's. F-14's trained in ACM and DACT right up until the end, and still regularly got the better of F-5's and Hornets.

In a short phrase...yes it was that good and was it any good? hell yes. I'll give a more detailed answer later.

Block 15 Vipers may be old avionics wise, and systems wise, but they are one thing... Sierra Hotel turn and burn wise..light and fast. Obsessions with avionics and technology can be dangerous..F-4 pilots learned that while being gunned by MiG-21 and 17's. Anyone who disregards the Jas-39 is a fool, as are anyone who does the same with the Viper. I'd actually par a Block 50/52 Viper with a JAS-39C.

I think it was actually closer to a F-22ized F-14. It would have retained the WSO/RIO and the same basic layout of the F-14. Ultimately it would have been even more expensive than the F-22. Still, the (N)ATF would have been cool.

One thing that Falcon has on Lock On is the dynamic camp. However, I agree, engine models are most definately porked in both, the F-16 behaves like a T-38 and a F-15 like a F-4. Mind you, the F-4 was very fast, but the F-15 is faster in acceleration and such.

And people say the F-22 is huge? The F-23 was much larger. Personally I feel the proper choice was made.

I know, but tell that to some of the rapidly breeding fanboys.