How is f-14 maneuverability?

[outlawal2]

We're moving rather far off topic atm aren't we ? ^^

 

What topic would that be?

:(

[lunaticfringe]

Looking at that I think you are a bit out of your depth on this subject - both VPAF and USAF/USN/MC records have been researched and have been matched up so I have a very good idea of what happened.

 

That's quite debatable, depending on the source you're using from the VPAF side, based on their method of recordkeeping of tracking pilot deaths rather than airframe losses as "kills".

 

The famous shot of the MiG-17 getting shredded (used on the cover of the aforementioned Clashes)? Not a kill by those records.

 

And Combat Tree?

 

1. How many shots do you think from 71-73 were BVR, and

2. How many do you think connected?

 

Combat Tree was a data point; it was not permitted to override other ID methods.

[lunaticfringe]

I cant comment on F-14 maneuverability - would upset too many people :)

 

Yeah, I'm doubting you have anything of substance to present compared to the contents of my bookshelf. It's really hard to get upset over aerodynamic calculations and flight test data.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2340360&postcount=98

[captain_dalan]

 

I cant comment on F-14 maneuverability - would upset too many people :)

 

 

carry on

You can, but unless you can produce more viable data then the ones provided in the flight/performance manuals, i don't think you'd be taken seriously :smilewink:

 

RE Bolo - they had fly predictable large formations because the F-4s were pretending to be F-105s so the MiG-21s would take the bait.......

I think we didn't understand each other well on that one. What i meant was, Operation Bolo was anything BUT your typical turkey flight and it showed just what USAF could do if they had their hand untied :)

[Basher54321]

That's quite debatable, depending on the source you're using from the VPAF side, based on their method of recordkeeping of tracking pilot deaths rather than airframe losses as "kills".

 

The famous shot of the MiG-17 getting shredded (used on the cover of the aforementioned Clashes)? Not a kill by those records.

 

And Combat Tree?

 

1. How many shots do you think from 71-73 were BVR, and

2. How many do you think connected?

 

Combat Tree was a data point; it was not permitted to override other ID methods.

 

 

Well the source has been given - they matched up VPAF losses and claims with US losses and claims based on the available records.

 

Combat Tree was a name for an IFF system consisting of APX-80 - they were allowed to fire without getting visual confirmation.

 

Its not about what I think - there is one account of a kill at night from an F-4 - so in that regards they didn't verify the target visually .

Edited March 20, 2015 by Basher54321

[Basher54321]

Yeah, I'm doubting you have anything of substance to present compared to the contents of my bookshelf. It's really hard to get upset over aerodynamic calculations and flight test data.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2340360&postcount=98

 

 

Okay calm down - am not here to argue - just because something doesn't conform to your assumptions does not make it incorrect.

[lunaticfringe]

Well the source has been given - they matched up VPAF losses and claims with US losses and claims based on the available records.

 

Combat Tree was a name for an IFF system consisting of APX-80 - they were allowed to fire on it without getting visual confirmation.

 

Its not about what I think - there is one account of a kill at night from an F-4 - so in that regards they didn't verify the target .

 

I know exactly what Combat Tree is, champ- I don't require others to do my homework for me.

 

Read the covers. I'll take that evaluation data over Toperczer's (and your opinion) every day of the week. ;)

[lunaticfringe]

Okay calm down - am not here to argue - just because something doesn't conform to your assumptions does not make it incorrect.

 

*My* assumptions?

 

That's a heady call, considering that you'd expect to upset people over data they already have access to- driven by the assumption that they don't have said data.

[Basher54321]

I know exactly what Combat Tree is, champ- I don't require others to do my homework for me.

 

Read the covers. I'll take that evaluation data over Toperczer's (and your opinion) every day of the week. ;)

 

 

I generally like to have both sides of the story not just one side from 1973 - but that's just me ;)

[Basher54321]

*My* assumptions?

 

That's a heady call, considering that you'd expect to upset people over data they already have access to- driven by the assumption that they don't have said data.

 

It was a bit tongue in cheek - so I am guessing English is not your first language?

[lunaticfringe]

What's that you say- you don't like that it was concurrent and discussing the activities and tactics utilized in medias res?

 

Hell, considering the fact that the last US kill was January of '73, that's a bit of a hollow complaint.

 

But here.

 

It was a bit tongue in cheek - so I am guessing English is not your first language?

 

It was a bit asinine, and that's a nice attempt at backing away from it, but no dice.

[Basher54321]

What's that you say- you don't like that it was concurrent and discussing the activities and tactics utilized in medias res?

 

Hell, considering the fact that the last US kill was January of '73, that's a bit of a hollow complaint.

 

But here.

 

It was a bit asinine, and that's a nice attempt at backing away from it, but no dice.

 

I love that you have just turned up to have an argument :megalol: - are you the site Troll?

 

I have all those reports - you need to understand this

 

 

Even the US do not know how many kills they really got - pilots never got to see the jet go down in every situation.

 

The VPAF records are just as good as the US records - I am not saying they are 100% but they give a better picture than just the US side.

 

A lot of the Pilots were shot down without trace - nobody saw them get blown out of the sky.

 

Those old reports you have are accurate to the best of their knowledge at the time - but are inaccurate to what may have really happened.

 

Bare this in mind - a lot of aviators had no idea what hit them - they might see a SAM launch sure but it is not necessarily what takes them down. You need to consider what a stressfull environment this is - multiple things to concentrate on suddenly you get hit...............

 

 

Apolgies again to SithSpawn

...................................................................................................

 

 

PS The F-14 was used over SEA and it maneuvered.

[captain_dalan]

*My* assumptions?

 

That's a heady call, considering that you'd expect to upset people over data they already have access to- driven by the assumption that they don't have said data.

Pretty much this....

 

I love that you have just turned up to have an argument - are you the site Troll?

 

 

I am not a member of this site for a long time, but this is the first time i've actually encountered this kind of name calling so far. Shouldn't it be reserved for a moderator to decide who is trolling? And yeah, that was a nice switch from passive aggressive to a more "active" approach.

 

I will try to stay away from any further escalation, until the thread gets sorted out. I just hope someone isn't trying to sabotage it on purpose :noexpression:

[Zooker]

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.

 

AAS?

[lunaticfringe]

Aerial Attack Study.

[Zooker]

Although it got a little heated, I just spent the last 30 minutes at work, mind you, reading this great stuff...We can change the title of thread, but I enjoy seeing what's in the big brains on this forum.

 

Better get back to work...

[captain_dalan]

Although it got a little heated, I just spent the last 30 minutes at work, mind you, reading this great stuff...We can change the title of thread, but I enjoy seeing what's in the big brains on this forum.

 

Better get back to work...

What do you propose we change it into? :)

[dekiplav]

How the F-14 handles F/A-18 in WVR fight? This time the slow turning fight should go in favor to the Hornet, right?

[Zooker]

What do you propose we change it into? :)

 

How about:

 

F-14 Maneuverability, performance chart interpretation, a dissertation on the pros and cons of the Gen 3 US Aircraft vs Gen 2 Russian aircraft, (and to round it all off) a breakdown on Vietnam Airframe Loss Records and the implication for Rules of Engagement, Strategy, Training Standards and Effectiveness of Airframes and Aircrews......maybe? :book:

[captain_dalan]

How the F-14 handles F/A-18 in WVR fight? This time the slow turning fight should go in favor to the Hornet, right?

Both AC clean, or with extremely light A-A ordinance, yes. However with 4 or 8 AAMs, especially in a mixed load, things become less clear. What the Hornet enjoys is a very good nose pointing authority, but there are loads (i.e. 2XAIM-7 & 2AIM-9 in which the F-14 actually has greater ITR all around. The STR difference is also somewhat of a mixed bag and it depends highly on altitude. Generally bellow 180-230KIAS (alt. dependent) the Hornet sustains better. The high subsonic range is also where the F-18 sustains better.

 

How about:

 

F-14 Maneuverability, performance chart interpretation, a dissertation on the pros and cons of the Gen 3 US Aircraft vs Gen 2 Russian aircraft, (and to round it all off) a breakdown on Vietnam Airframe Loss Records and the implication for Rules of Engagement, Strategy, Training Standards and Effectiveness of Airframes and Aircrews......maybe?

That actually describes it quite nicely

[turkeydriver]

How about:

 

F-14 Maneuverability, performance chart interpretation, a dissertation on the pros and cons of the Gen 3 US Aircraft vs Gen 2 Russian aircraft, (and to round it all off) a breakdown on Vietnam Airframe Loss Records and the implication for Rules of Engagement, Strategy, Training Standards and Effectiveness of Airframes and Aircrews......maybe? :book:

 

add "based on much fact and evidence doused with a lot of biased naysayer opinion" to the end LOL.:D

[turkeydriver]

I generally like to have both sides of the story not just one side from 1973 - but that's just me ;)

 

Congratulations on defining yourself as a late GenX/early millennial that has been programmed to doubt everything except your own opinion. There are strengths and weaknesses to that.....

 

The APX-80 shot was early on in the war and not repeated once we shot down one of our own F-4s trying to get a BVR shot on a MiG-17. Also, I find it humerous that you give complete factual evidence to a report from the opposite side without researching further to prove its validity. This is evidence that your self-proclaimed, informed opinion, due to "getting both sides of the story" is really nothing more than an action to satisfy a mental need to feel superior, like you have the answer, as opposed to finding facts, you've spoken up here only to dispute the facts stated, never to agree or further the discussion.............I'm an "old" genXer but I think you have defined yourself as a troll of the interwebs.....

[Solty]

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.

LOL?!?!?!

 

F5? Even modernized. That thing would be falling of the sky in numbers that US couldn't sustain :D The plane would be seriously hit by the even primitive SAM sites and more important MANPADs.

 

If you think those jets are good enough to carry out some precision bombing... probably average. F-16 though could get a new life with F-16C Block 52+ it is a realy good plane.

 

BTW. You think that US can dictate something to Russia? LOL. Air combat now realy relies on modern avionics and ECM, Radar systems. You can't just assume USA will not start war, maybe someone else will start war with NATO and USA is needed. You never know.

 

I still think that cancelling F-22 was a bad move. The plane is amazing and it could be a very good replacement for F-15. F-16 needed just an upgrade. Nothing else. If anything a new concept for multirole fighter should have been built.

[turkeydriver]

I love that you have just turned up to have an argument :megalol: - are you the site Troll?

 

I have all those reports - you need to understand this

 

 

Even the US do not know how many kills they really got - pilots never got to see the jet go down in every situation.

 

The VPAF records are just as good as the US records - I am not saying they are 100% but they give a better picture than just the US side.

 

A lot of the Pilots were shot down without trace - nobody saw them get blown out of the sky.

 

Those old reports you have are accurate to the best of their knowledge at the time - but are inaccurate to what may have really happened.

 

Bare this in mind - a lot of aviators had no idea what hit them - they might see a SAM launch sure but it is not necessarily what takes them down. You need to consider what a stressfull environment this is - multiple things to concentrate on suddenly you get hit...............

 

 

Apolgies again to SithSpawn

...................................................................................................

 

 

PS The F-14 was used over SEA and it maneuvered.

 

No need for the PS, you're preaching to the choir and asking us to sing the DUH song....

Only thing I've found that I give credibility to that defies the old record is that Duke and Willie's F-4J was hit by an Atoll, not a SAM as Duke claimed. No SA-2 emitting in the area, no known SA-2 site established in the area, and the last MiG-17 fight(5th kill, not a famous Colonel Toon/Tomb) was to delay that F-4 and ensure a kill after MiG-21s showed up. Duke got the kill and was headed home when a MiG-21 took an easy shot an hit him, but you've probably read all this....

[turkeydriver]

Both AC clean, or with extremely light A-A ordinance, yes. However with 4 or 8 AAMs, especially in a mixed load, things become less clear. What the Hornet enjoys is a very good nose pointing authority, but there are loads (i.e. 2XAIM-7 & 2AIM-9 in which the F-14 actually has greater ITR all around. The STR difference is also somewhat of a mixed bag and it depends highly on altitude. Generally bellow 180-230KIAS (alt. dependent) the Hornet sustains better. The high subsonic range is also where the F-18 sustains better.

 

 

That actually describes it quite nicely

 

Ordinance and ordnance...........one is a rule and one is a bomb......thanks for the excellent explanation.