How is f-14 maneuverability?

[Cobra847]

Yep. The book has no statement of configuration for any of the charts provided, and it has a large volume of them. Figure out the indexing, and you've got a massive amount of goodies for the daily wage the average member of the Workers Paradise.

 

Ouch, had not idea as the book "looks" to have support from the Navy, and it never says the graphs are accurate, but you can't show kind of info and not be able to figure out what's missing. It didn't highlight any frequency or tactics-just performance capabilities that should have told the Soviets "Crap! We must develop the SU-27, MiG-29, and MiG-31 or we're totally hosed!" I figure it might have been an intentional Cold War "oops" to let them know we're not faking a claim here, this jet can do what we say it does.

 

In the present day; couldn't be happier about it being available.

Some very rare information in that book.

[lunaticfringe]

Ouch, had not idea as the book "looks" to have support from the Navy, and it never says the graphs are accurate, but you can't show kind of info and not be able to figure out what's missing. It didn't highlight any frequency or tactics-just performance capabilities that should have told the Soviets "Crap! We must develop the SU-27, MiG-29, and MiG-31 or we're totally hosed!" I figure it might have been an intentional Cold War "oops" to let them know we're not faking a claim here, this jet can do what we say it does.

 

Look at the attached page, and tell me if you can surmise how the attached page is an OPSEC problem.

 

As to JPS, he was editor of the *classified* TOPGUN Journal at the time (the analogue to the FWS's "Fighter Weapons Review" and "Interceptor Weapons Review", which were not classified until 1993). He *knew* better. You never show your hand. Ever.

[captain_dalan]

Look at the attached page, and tell me if you can surmise how the attached page is an OPSEC problem.

 

As to JPS, he was editor of the *classified* TOPGUN Journal at the time (the analogue to the FWS's "Fighter Weapons Review" and "Interceptor Weapons Review", which were not classified until 1993). He *knew* better. You never show your hand. Ever.

If that ain't a wet dream, then i never had one. That was all put in a paperback and made available to the masses back in the 70?? :huh:

[Shaman]

Must share this playlist again! :)

 

 

All about A2A real F-14 combat; seems US pilots do not have much combat experience on F-14s and almost none with Phoenix missiles, so I would change our source ;)

[-Vampire-]

First mistake: expecting someone to *work*.

Great! Be very proud for this! :thumbup:

 

Is the MiG-29 a good dogfighter? I'm not sure. An acquaintence of mine was over in Germany and spent a number of days taking pictures of it in all sorts of compromising positions...

 

:doh:

Well. In my country when F-14D's were here in an exercise -about 10 years ago-, the MiG-29 pilots sad that in a dogfight the F-14 doesn't had a chance. In BVR... well thats another story ;)

 

There are and will be compromising photos about "enemy" aircrafts. Like F-22 vs F/A-18. So? Is this make the F-22 a shitty plane? No.

 

.....

 

Any way, it is fact, that Red Eagles MiG-21's defeated F-14A's, with the oldest and poorest 21 F-13 model (thanx for the correction).

The Bis is the greatest 21 model. Everything is modernized. Think about it.

By the way, it has a limited use of "emergency" afterburner, for some second it has a better thrust to weight ratio than modern fighters.

 

MiG-23 are poorly maneuverable. The MiG-21 were better in a dogfight than the 23. We operated these airplanes, this is what our pilots told.

[Hummingbird]

Hey guys am really enjoying this thread and my input is nowhere near as valid as the obviously very informed posts you have made but-

These two videos are from my youtube channel should put to rest any illusions that the F-14 is not a dogfighter. I filmed and uploaded these a few years ago.

 

The first is one I made that shows the F-16, F/A-18F and the F-22 doing min. radius turns at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon in 2013:

 

HBlP4cCRVmk

 

Now the F-14B of VF-101 Grim Reapers at NAS Oceana airshow in 2002 (take the turn from when the pull starts at 0:57 sec until complete at 1:18 ) :

 

Wopcrm4f5Sk

 

I estimate the times to complete a full 360 degree turn from starting to pull G until back on original heading are roughly:

 

F-16 - 20 seconds

F-22 - 21 seconds

F-14 - 21 seconds

F/A-18F - 22 seconds

 

Probably not uber scientific but it looks cool and shows the F-14 is no slouch and definitely a lot better fighter than some people on this message board seem to think.

Thanks again to some of you guys that are posting here that are obviously very informed on F-14. I am really enjoying this message board lately.

 

I can only second what you write, and infact it has been proven without a doubt that the F-14 is a better dogfighter than most at subsonic speeds, beating both the F-15 & F-18 in this regime.

 

Your videos, like the one I posted in the "F-14 low speed prowess" thread with a recordsetting sub 20 sec turn at Abbotsford, only goes to illustrate what the charts already tell us = The F-14 is a sublime dogfighter.

[lunaticfringe]

There are and will be compromising photos about "enemy" aircrafts. Like F-22 vs F/A-18. So? Is this make the F-22 a shitty plane? No.

 

It doesn't make the MiG-21 a *good* one, either. :P

 

Any way, it is fact, that Red Eagles MiG-21's defeated F-14A's, with the oldest and poorest 21 F-13 model (thanx for the correction).

 

Even a scent-blind dog can find a bone every so often. Especially when it is being guided by a master who knows the prey like the back of his hand.

 

You know who beat up on F-14s in 4477th MiG-21s? F-14 pilots. F-15 pilots. People who had been exposed to the types time and again, and flown it for thousands of hours. And after that first setup, those same F-14 (and F-15, and F-16, and F-4, and F/A-18 ) pilots turned around and stomped on the MiG-21- it's the nature of the beast.

 

But let's dispense with playtime: Iraq claims five F-14s killed air to air by all types. Iran claims 26 MiG-21s killed air to air by F-14s. Care to explain?

 

The Bis is the greatest 21 model. Everything is modernized. Think about it.

 

The aerodynamics are not.

 

By the way, it has a limited use of "emergency" afterburner, for some second it has a better thrust to weight ratio than modern fighters.

 

Translation: "HEY, EVERYBODY- for a few seconds, we can use Chrezvichayniy Rezhim and imagine we're a fourth generation fighter! WHOOHOOO!"

 

MiG-23 are poorly maneuverable. The MiG-21 were better in a dogfight than the 23. We operated these airplanes, this is what our pilots told.

 

*We* (being the United States) have operated them all- the MiG-21, MiG-23, and MiG-29, with pilots holding more hours across all types, and generating more hours *in* those Soviet/Russian types, than crews trained within their own system. You want to quote Davies' book to me- how's about that 4477th pilot on DET saving the MiG-21, sitting in the back seat, from an inept, Soviet-system trained guy in a departure?

 

You *really* don't want to play this game. Especially when the Bis' available G chart looks as attached. Hint: an F-14 turns tighter, and has more G available at Mach 0.5 and 15k than a MiG-21Bis has at sea level and Mach 0.6. I hate to tell you, but that constitutes a bit of a problem for the Fishbed.

 

But hey- tell us about what a great dogfighter it is in comparison to a fourth generation aircraft.

[Dudikoff]

MiG-23 are poorly maneuverable. The MiG-21 were better in a dogfight than the 23. We operated these airplanes, this is what our pilots told.

 

Not that surprising considering your pilots operated only the first generation MiG-23MF's, not later ML/MLD variants which had considerably improved maneuverability (compared to those M/MF's).

Edited March 18, 2015 by Dudikoff

[turkeydriver]

Great! Be very proud for this! :thumbup:

 

 

 

:doh:

Well. In my country when F-14D's were here in an exercise -about 10 years ago-, the MiG-29 pilots sad that in a dogfight the F-14 doesn't had a chance. In BVR... well thats another story ;)

 

There are and will be compromising photos about "enemy" aircrafts. Like F-22 vs F/A-18. So? Is this make the F-22 a shitty plane? No.

 

.....

 

Any way, it is fact, that Red Eagles MiG-21's defeated F-14A's, with the oldest and poorest 21 F-13 model (thanx for the correction).

The Bis is the greatest 21 model. Everything is modernized. Think about it.

By the way, it has a limited use of "emergency" afterburner, for some second it has a better thrust to weight ratio than modern fighters.

 

MiG-23 are poorly maneuverable. The MiG-21 were better in a dogfight than the 23. We operated these airplanes, this is what our pilots told.

 

 

Please understand this one very important fact.

 

You pilots fought pilots, your jets did not fight jets. What I mean by this, is the US Navy very specifically ensures that the tax dollars spent on training are used efficiently. That means, every time we set up an ACM det, its not to schedule the two top pilots to fight and see who wins. It schedules and prioritizes the new guys to go get humbled by being beaten, and then learn how to overcome that by the end of the detachment. The same scenario happened when VF-32 fought the Israeli F-16s and the ignorant air combat magazines reported that the F-14s were trashed. The reality was, the nugget pilots got good experience. A verteran LCDR fought the best Israeli in a clean F-16A with his bagged out F-14B and fought him neutral for 5 minutes until the F-16 had to bug out for bingo fuel. The F-14 always wins the fuel fight-something every MiG besides the Foxhound has very little of. So while your statement about your MiG drivers beating F-14D crews is correct. It is only from a training perspective-to give experience and humility to the Tomcat drivers that need training, and to reinforce cohesion between allies. VF-211s F-14A had no problem beating JG3s MiG-29s on det in ACM in their 6.5g jets. Don't be surprised how nice this computerized F-14A and F-14B handle, I imagine a lot of the uninformed armchair commandos will cry foul, because they don't understand that much of the difficulty in flying the F-14 is moving an 80lb stick when under G. Computer pilots don't ever feel that.

[turkeydriver]

Not that surprising considering your pilots operated only the first generation MiG-23MF's, not later ML/MLD variants which had considerably improved maneuverability (compared to those M/MF's).

 

I love the non-export MLD, the definitive Flogger and wish we had a maneuver comparison, but all the aerodynamic improvements really did was to eliminate horrible characteristics at AoA levels experienced during ACM- it could not technically maneuver.

 

Of note was that one of the frontline units of the USSR in Germany at the time the Wall fell was still operating the MiG-23MLD and their pilots considered it better than the MiG-29 in some ways- most likely high speed interception.

[BlackLion213]

Great! Be very proud for this! :thumbup:

 

 

 

:doh:

Well. In my country when F-14D's were here in an exercise -about 10 years ago-, the MiG-29 pilots sad that in a dogfight the F-14 doesn't had a chance. In BVR... well thats another story ;)

 

There are and will be compromising photos about "enemy" aircrafts. Like F-22 vs F/A-18. So? Is this make the F-22 a shitty plane? No.

 

Are those the same MiG-29 pilots that got waxed by F-14As from VF-14 and VF-41? Pilots like to talk - MiG-29 pilots included.

 

A lot of pilots feel insecure about their vulnerability to the Tomcat in BVR, they try to make up for it by claiming that the F-14 is out of luck after the merge. This is simply not the case.

 

-Nick

[Dudikoff]

I love the non-export MLD, the definitive Flogger and wish we had a maneuver comparison, but all the aerodynamic improvements really did was to eliminate horrible characteristics at AoA levels experienced during ACM- it could not technically maneuver.

 

Please read my post more carefully - I said ML/MLD had considerably improved maneuverability compared to the M/MFs.

 

And ML did this first by strengthening the airframe, reducing weight, fin size and a adding a stronger and more reliable engine. MLD added some more aerodynamic refinements to that (vortex generators).

 

This was all in the context of MiG-21 (probably MF or bis) having superior maneuverability to 23's. Since those 21's themselves are not exactly acing that department in all aspects, it felt needed to be pointed out that it's pointless to consider the early MiG-23's as representative ones when discussing maneuverability.

 

Of note was that one of the frontline units of the USSR in Germany at the time the Wall fell was still operating the MiG-23MLD and their pilots considered it better than the MiG-29 in some ways- most likely high speed interception.

 

IIRC, there was mention of a better performing (more reliable) radar, albeit shorter ranged.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Dudikoff

[MBot]

Of note was that one of the frontline units of the USSR in Germany at the time the Wall fell was still operating the MiG-23MLD and their pilots considered it better than the MiG-29 in some ways- most likely high speed interception.

 

Indeed, 833th IAP was the only fighter regiment of the 16th Air Army in Germany to not switch to the MiG-29, in order to retain one unit with more range than the short legged Fulcrum.

[captain_dalan]

 

This was all in the context of MiG-21 (probably MF or bis) having superior maneuverability to 23's. Since those 21's themselves are not exactly acing that department in all aspects, it felt needed to be pointed out that it's pointless to consider the early MiG-23's as representative ones when discussing maneuverability.

 

 

I'd love to see someone do a 21/23 side by side comparison. We've seen plenty of F-4 on MiG-21, but the 23 just doesn't seam to get the love it deserves quite as often...

 

Don't be surprised how nice this computerized F-14A and F-14B handle, I imagine a lot of the uninformed armchair commandos will cry foul, because they don't understand that much of the difficulty in flying the F-14 is moving an 80lb stick when under G. Computer pilots don't ever feel that.

 

And those are 80lbs at 8g. If you try to pull more, they would go even higher. People often forget the other great thing about FBW (aside from not letting you kill your self), that lets you drive things with less effort...

 

 

You know who beat up on F-14s in 4477th MiG-21s? F-14 pilots. F-15 pilots. People who had been exposed to the types time and again, and flown it for thousands of hours. And after that first setup, those same F-14 (and F-15, and F-16, and F-4, and F/A-18 ) pilots turned around and stomped on the MiG-21- it's the nature of the beast.

 

Not to mention there are reports that even F-5's every now and then get a kill on a Raptor..... Are we suppose to shelf the Raptors and replace them with F-5s? :)

Edited March 19, 2015 by captain_dalan

[King_Hrothgar]

Not to mention there are reports that even F-5's every now and then get a kill on a Raptor..... Are we suppose to shelf the Raptors and replace them with F-5s? :)

 

Actually, that would be a very practical thing to do. F-22's and F-35's serve no purpose in the USAF/USMC/USN. They were built to fight the Russians and Chinese, countries the USA will not go to war with in the next 20-30 years. Against the countries we will fight, some modernized F-5's (F-20 would be a good pick) are more than sufficient. And don't forget what Stalin said, "quantity is a quality all of its own." Between our vast numerical advantage, better training and better support (such as AWACs and satellites), a near 0 loss victory against any nation other than Russia or China would still be assured in the air.

[GGTharos]

Actually, that would be a very practical thing to do.

 

Actually It would be an incredibly silly thing to do.

 

F-22's and F-35's serve no purpose in the USAF/USMC/USN. They were built to fight the Russians and Chinese, countries the USA will not go to war with in the next 20-30 years. Against the countries we will fight, some modernized F-5's (F-20 would be a good pick) are more than sufficient. And don't forget what Stalin said, "quantity is a quality all of its own." Between our vast numerical advantage, better training and better support (such as AWACs and satellites), a near 0 loss victory against any nation other than Russia or China would still be assured in the air.

 

This is the kind of thinking that causes you to lose the edge.

[lunaticfringe]

Between our vast numerical advantage, better training and better support (such as AWACs and satellites), a near 0 loss victory against any nation other than Russia or China would still be assured in the air.

 

Who is annexing the Ukraine?

Who has a military officer class planning a war with the United States for the Pacific within the next fifteen years?

 

Yeah, let's see how practical a wing of F-20s are at threatening a reprisal against Russian or Chinese aggression. Can't get them to the theatre, can't operate over contested territory once they've arrived, and can't launch or recover them by CV.

 

I've seen some funny stuff this week, but that takes the cake.

[King_Hrothgar]

Who is annexing the Ukraine?

Who has a military officer class planning a war with the United States for the Pacific within the next fifteen years?

 

Yeah, let's see how practical a wing of F-20s are at threatening a reprisal against Russian or Chinese aggression. Can't get them to the theatre, can't operate over contested territory once they've arrived, and can't launch or recover them by CV.

 

I've seen some funny stuff this week, but that takes the cake.

 

How many planes has the USA deployed against Russia to defend Ukraine? As for Chinese aggression, have they actually attacked any neighbors yet? Or are they just flying about over international waters? I suggest paying less attention to the propaganda. The simple fact is the only thing Russia, China or the USA cares about is whether or not the other guy has nukes and the means of delivering them. If the answer is yes, everyone plays within certain boundaries.

 

Edit: should probably put this back on track. I think the F-14 will fair reasonably well in a dogfight. The poor roll rate may be an issue at times but overall I don't think it will be a problem. The DCS AI is far too stupid to take advantage of that weakness and players are generally so inept at dogfighting that it won't be an issue there either. Not that DCS encourages dogfighting, plane visibility is rather problematic and no one turns on icons. So anything beyond a simple flat turn is basically impossible atm, which the F-14 should do fairly well.

Edited March 19, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[Dudikoff]

Actually, that would be a very practical thing to do. F-22's and F-35's serve no purpose in the USAF/USMC/USN. They were built to fight the Russians and Chinese, countries the USA will not go to war with in the next 20-30 years. Against the countries we will fight, some modernized F-5's (F-20 would be a good pick) are more than sufficient. And don't forget what Stalin said, "quantity is a quality all of its own." Between our vast numerical advantage, better training and better support (such as AWACs and satellites), a near 0 loss victory against any nation other than Russia or China would still be assured in the air.

 

Surely, you can't be serious? Modernized F-5's? Perhaps you forgot a digit there?

 

I could dig that the F-35 program is somewhat of a fiasco given the plane was severely limited by the stupid requirement that it has to share a common design with the Marine STOVL variant and that the number of F-22's was cut down way too much, but this? Wow :)

[captain_dalan]

I'm only partially informed on the subject, but just because you may not need jets now, doesn't mean you won't need them in the future. Maybe 10-20 years in the future. And waiting for that future to materialize until you start R&D or manufacture of new planes, might cost you. In fact, it probably will. Even in the 70's it took at least half a decade from the prototype to the first operational squadrons, not to mention any previous studies.

 

How is the visibility a problem in DCS? HAT panning and Track IR, can't be calibrated well? Or is the visibility in the distance hampered in some way? In Falcon there was a system called smart scaling or similar, that made it possible for the sim to somewhat offset the pixel limitation of representing the distant view objects.

[lunaticfringe]

How many planes has the USA deployed against Russia to defend Ukraine? As for Chinese aggression, have they actually attacked any neighbors yet?

 

Ukraine? None- it isn't a member of NATO. NATO nations bordering it? Rotating squadrons.

 

"...have they actually attacked any neighbors yet?"

 

Funny thing about that- the instant the attack starts is when you need the tools in hand. You don't have three to five years for a crash development program, another five for construction, test, and supply, and five more for training and tactical doctrine creation.

 

These things don't simply become available overnight.

 

I suggest paying less attention to the propaganda.

 

I skip propaganda and go by history. There is nothing new under the sun, and we are not in some enlightened new age. Voids caused by apparent weakness have always been filled by those with the will to play strongman; the only difference is who is rising to the challenge.

 

The simple fact is the only thing Russia, China or the USA cares about is whether or not the other guy has nukes and the means of delivering them. If the answer is yes, everyone plays within certain boundaries.

 

That's rather funny, considering how many nations have gone for accelerated NATO alliance membership over the last decade-plus. You think it's hollow to the Vilnius group?

 

Not so much from where they're sitting.

[AFAlinebacker42]

How many planes has the USA deployed against Russia to defend Ukraine?

 

As of March 19, 2015:

 

USAF - 23rd FS, 493rd FS, 555th FS

USN/USMC - CVN-71/CVW-1

 

That's more than 100 operational fighter aircraft.

 

 

F-14 was not designed as a dog fighter. It can do it, but there are other jets that do it much better. For some history, I recommend the book, "Boyd."

[captain_dalan]

 

F-14 was not designed as a dog fighter. It can do it, but there are other jets that do it much better. For some history, I recommend the book, "Boyd."

For some history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TRBHLO--pE

 

I guess the Tomcat was designed as a dogfighter...... probably the first plane in quite a while that has been... :book:

[lunaticfringe]

For some history, I recommend the book, "Boyd."

 

I'd have recommended Coram do his homework with regards to how TAC considered Boyd's work (AAS being the syllabus at the FWS as of 1965), but that didn't work to his meme.

 

Neither did that part where the jet he hated even after he fixed it (the F-15) blows the doors off the F-16 in the job he built the latter for with regards to kill ratio.

[Basher54321]

Boyd is a good read - but there are a few hmmm moments in there.

 

Kill ratio also can be put down to opportunity - so can probably forgive him for that.