Question about F-14&AIM-54

[MBot]

There has been oh-so-much speculation that at least one did, after the Revolution when the Iranians and the Soviets were cuddling up together ;)

 

 

Somewhere there's a Tomcat fansite that talks in detail bout the Iranian Tomcat situation . . . .

 

That is unlikely. The iranian F-14 were equal to USN standart ( except ECCM against US ECM ), this included the top-secret Combat Tree IFF interogator. This system would trick soviet transponders into sending out IDs and flight datas. Combat Tree was used very successfully by IRIAF F-14s against iraqi fighters during the Iran-Iraq war. It would have been very unwise by the iranians to tell the soviets that their IFF codes have been cracked.

 

By the way, an excellent read about the iranian F-14 is 'Osprey Combat Aircraft No. 49: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat'. This is a must have book for every Tomcat fan ( features cool stuff like 50nm AIM-54 kills against fighters, double/tripple kills and much more ). A well written book that is a real eye opener about a subject that has been dominated by missinformation for decades.

[Starlight]

As far as I know no IIAF/IRIAF F-14A ever got into soviet hands. One IRIAF Tomcat defected to Iraq, but the USA took care of that airframe.

 

The pilot defected. It wasn't a government decision. I've also read somewhere (dunno where and dunno if that's true) that seems that the Soviets approached and paid that pilot to defect. But that's just a rumor.

[britgliderpilot]

That is unlikely. The iranian F-14 were equal to USN standart ( except ECCM against US ECM ), this included the top-secret Combat Tree IFF interogator. This system would trick soviet transponders into sending out IDs and flight datas. Combat Tree was used very successfully by IRIAF F-14s against iraqi fighters during the Iran-Iraq war. It would have been very unwise by the iranians to tell the soviets that their IFF codes have been cracked.

 

By the way, an excellent read about the iranian F-14 is 'Osprey Combat Aircraft No. 49: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat'. This is a must have book for every Tomcat fan ( features cool stuff like 50nm AIM-54 kills against fighters, double/tripple kills and much more ). A well written book that is a real eye opener about a subject that has been dominated by missinformation for decades.

 

Hmmn - it's time to roll out that key phrase "accounts vary" ;)

 

"Some accounts" agree with that story, "some accounts" say the F-14 was sabotaged by US-friendly techs before they ran away post-revolution so it couldn't fire the Phoenix, "some accounts" say that seven to ten are operational, "some accounts" say that fifty are still in service with Russian engines and glass cockpits . . . . . .

 

You'll find an account to cover every eventuality, I think.

 

I'll stop short of suggesting the Iranians could have made something up regarding their combat successes.

Hey, that could be seen as inflammatory . . . and we wouldn't want that now, would we?

[MBot]

Hmmn - it's time to roll out that key phrase "accounts vary" ;)

 

"Some accounts" agree with that story, "some accounts" say the F-14 was sabotaged by US-friendly techs before they ran away post-revolution so it couldn't fire the Phoenix, "some accounts" say that seven to ten are operational, "some accounts" say that fifty are still in service with Russian engines and glass cockpits . . . . . .

 

You'll find an account to cover every eventuality, I think.

 

I'll stop short of suggesting the Iranians could have made something up regarding their combat successes.

Hey, that could be seen as inflammatory . . . and we wouldn't want that now, would we?

 

 

One reason more to read Osprey's Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat. Because it also discusses the years long missinformation and lack of scientific approach to Iran's F-14 operations. The book was written baseing heavily on interviews with iranian and iraqi pilots and years of research by the author. I am not saying that it is the only truth, but it is a 'good account' and for sure the first serious one I have yet seen about the iranian Tomcats.

[Pilotasso]

Somehow I think we are going to find out about the F-14 status in Iran soon. They are going to start the uranium enriching process and somehow, something tells me, this has hapened before, and then in the last few days something happens.

[Force_Feedback]

Somehow I think we are going to find out about the F-14 status in Iran soon. They are going to start the uranium enriching process and somehow, something tells me, this has hapened before, and then in the last few days something happens.

 

Let's hope so, then some countries will have an uber hug debt, and will pay for Iran for many years ahead, while extremists can go on their merry way. But that's not the subject of this discussion.

Is it true that the Iranians got their own AIM-54A variant? (in other words, do any of the reliable accounts confirm that).

 

BTW, have you seen how their female police officers look like? They look like suicide bombers armed with MP5s :o

 

 

 

I respect their traditions and culture, but to me, it looks funny. I didn't mean to insult anybody

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

WTF

[Starlight]

BTW, have you seen how their female police officers look like? They look like suicide bombers armed with MP5s :o

 

I respect their traditions and culture, but to me, it looks funny. I didn't mean to insult anybody

 

they look like the SAS who stormed the Iranian embassy in London (1980?)

 

How could that dress be comfortable for operations?

[Starlight]

Is it true that the Iranians got their own AIM-54A variant? (in other words, do any of the reliable accounts confirm that).

 

I've read that Iranians have become monsters in reverse engineering.

some people said that their tomcats used a A2A version of the HAWK SAM.

 

there are some photos too, but I don't know if they do work

[britgliderpilot]

I've read that Iranians have become monsters in reverse engineering.

some people said that their tomcats used a A2A version of the HAWK SAM.

 

there are some photos too, but I don't know if they do work

 

Legend has it that there's a photo of a Hornet with a second cockpit, four missiles, two bombs and three fuel tanks, too, but we think that's held on with duct tape and it's not actually functional.

 

Heh, good thing, because it would turn it into an even more draggy, overweight . . . . oh . . . what's that you say?

 

Hmmn.

 

Scratches example.

 

 

Anyway, I'm sure duct tape isn't on the list of Iran's embargoed items - can hold missiles on their pylons pretty well.

Come to that, that's probably why their Tomcats are still operational. Duct tape.

[GGTharos]

The HAWK thing never worked really well, but it was certainly a nice try!

[Starlight]

Legend has it that there's a photo of a Hornet with a second cockpit, four missiles, two bombs and three fuel tanks, too, but we think that's held on with duct tape and it's not actually functional.

 

Heh, good thing, because it would turn it into an even more draggy, overweight . . . . oh . . . what's that you say?

 

Hmmn.

 

Scratches example.

 

 

Anyway, I'm sure duct tape isn't on the list of Iran's embargoed items - can hold missiles on their pylons pretty well.

Come to that, that's probably why their Tomcats are still operational. Duct tape.

 

Fighter Fling 03 and 04 contain some material about what F-14 pilots think about the SuperBug. And it's a bit different from the well-known "Chunx" POV. :D

[Doug97]

 

Battlenuns rule!!!!!

[Raploc]

The HAWK thing never worked really well, but it was certainly a nice try!

 

 

Is there evidence that the Hawk thingy failed?

[Prophet_169th]

Let's hope so, then some countries will have an uber hug debt, and will pay for Iran for many years ahead, while extremists can go on their merry way. But that's not the subject of this discussion.

Is it true that the Iranians got their own AIM-54A variant? (in other words, do any of the reliable accounts confirm that).

 

BTW, have you seen how their female police officers look like? They look like suicide bombers armed with MP5s :o

 

 

 

I respect their traditions and culture, but to me, it looks funny. I didn't mean to insult anybody

 

I am not Muslim, nor middle eastern. I respect their decision to cover their hair, it is a common tradition among many Christian societies also.

 

And you cant respect them, and make comments like that. You may not intend to, but you insinuate, that is how suicide bombers look.

 

Deductive reasoning, can only lead to so many things that would draw that conclusion in the picture. Is it them repelling? Probably not. Is it them wearing black? Probably not. Is it the MP-5? Probably not.

 

If you didnt intend to insult, but had to let everyone know in the post that you didnt intend to insult, then you knew that some people would be insulted. And then you should have just left what you though was going to be insulting, out.

 

I will leave it at that.

[GGTharos]

Is there evidence that the Hawk thingy failed?

 

How about it isn't being used? :)

 

But note I didn't say 'failed'.

[tflash]

The Tomcat and Foxbat where defined in my opninion not based on tactical requirements of he Cold War, but out of a the basic philosophy of capabilities. The whole cold war revolved around strategic capability: by making systems that went further, higher, faster, a capability was created that could gain superiority. Range and speed are essential facts of life. They make THE difference. It was the range of ballistic missiles that explained the whole START treaty discussion.

 

Young academics always look at the details and fail to see the essence. Thats' why current spreadsheet boys misguidedly think that the Tomcat's range, reach and speed where just tactical requirements of the day. Projecting this on today's tactical requirements, they came up with a misfire like the Superbug.

 

Since nature is unforgiving, the day will come to regret this shortsightedness.

 

Indeed, speed is life. If someone comes argue that it's not, just don't believe him. I do not believe everything my young researches tell me either.

 

It's like the whole gun story: in the fifties some smartasses came to herald the end of it. The F-22A still has one, fortunately.

 

The Superbug has no range and no speed. Unfortunately.

[Force_Feedback]

But the US will most likely attack countries with a low quality of military equipment and training (if any, besides AK-47s and RPG-7s), so all it counts is bomb capability, and there will be enough tankers flying around to service the thirsty Super Bugs anyway, so why not let the tanker crew have some work to do?

[britgliderpilot]

The Superbug has no range and no speed. Unfortunately.

 

However, it is easy to maintain and has a superb avionics fit. Means it's cheaper to run, it won't break, and against existing threats is just as good as the Tomcat.

 

As a platform, granted, it's performance is rubbish - but other factors come into play here. You COULD make the PussyCat's avionics up to a similar standard as the Super Airbrake, but it would cost you a lot of money to do so and the thing would still be horrifyingly expensive and difficulty to maintain at the same time.

 

Bear in mind the USN should be getting a true 5th gen CTOL fighter with the F-35 - supercruise, stealth, AND the real avionics. May have a single engine, but I reckon there's a good chance it'll quietly kick the Rhino into the middle of next week.

[GGTharos]

The bug is also good in close air combat ... for long range combat, the amraam will do just fine. That's what I've been led to understand anyway.

[D-Scythe]

The Tomcat and Foxbat where defined in my opninion not based on tactical requirements of he Cold War, but out of a the basic philosophy of capabilities. The whole cold war revolved around strategic capability: by making systems that went further, higher, faster, a capability was created that could gain superiority. Range and speed are essential facts of life. They make THE difference.

 

Care to tell me why MiG-17s made mincemeat out of the faster, longer ranged and higher flying F-4 Phantom?

 

Indeed, speed is life. If someone comes argue that it's not, just don't believe him. I do not believe everything my young researches tell me either.

 

Indeed, speed is life. There is no denying that. But in a tactical situation, where one needs to gain and *maintain* air superiority, maneuverability, avionics and stealth are more important. Sure, you can have all the speed you want to run away from missiles and fighters, but it's meaningless if you can't apply that speed to you're advantage to win a fight, which the F-14 CANNOT simply because it doesn't have any SUSTAINED advantage in speed - it cruises at exactly the same speed as the Hornet.

 

I'm not saying the Tomcat doesn't have an advantage in top speed/acceleration. I'm just saying that one, the advantage is not as great as you make it out to be, and two, there are only limited ways the F-14 can apply this advantage, especially if we're talking about a strike mission scenario where the strikers may have to defend themselves.

 

So yes, with afterburners, perhaps it can run away better, or get to a fight quicker, but that's hardly enough to give the Tomcat such a significant advantage in speed. For example, compare what the F-14 did in Desert Storm to what the F/A-18C did, and tell me that the F-14's top speed/acceleration advantage in acceleration and speed shows up in its combat record.

 

Hint: it DOESN'T. The only thing Tomcats did was shoot down an Iraqi helicopter. The Hornet got 2 MiG-21 kills. A F-14 got shot down by an SA-2. No Hornets were lost, plus they spent far more time in higher-threat airspace then did the Tomcat.

 

Good fighters have both speed and maneuverability, and in the latter, the F/A-18E/F still performs better than the F-14.

 

Supercruise is the ultimate application of speed, and since the F-35 would most likely have it, I fail to see how the Navy is losing anything in terms of speed with the retirement of the F-14.

 

Since nature is unforgiving, the day will come to regret this shortsightedness.

 

Ah, so I assume you've been talking with nature then? Hmm, interesting you're not already in the Pentagon or something then, cause you obviously know something they don't when it comes to winning future wars.

[tflash]

I agree, my main point is: look more at your capabilities than at the threat. If the SH's serviceability means being longer in the air, bearing payload onto the targets with superior SA, than this is a capability. If on the other hand it means looking for tankers and being late on the target, all that sophistication is no good.

 

Even if the Tomcat didn't really use its Phoenix system in anger, at least not in USN service, I think anyone agrees it was a capability that enabled tactics, that defined the battlespace: It was anyway a force to reckon with and few took the chance to get close enough to test it. So, by having this capability you force tactics on others.

 

I have the impression the SH's requirements where defined otherwise: what are the likely conflicts and likely threats, and what is the cheapest way to counter them. As such, the SH's a bargain. But it's not very much more than that.

 

In nature, they speak about "dominant species" in a habitat. A shark is such a species, or a gator. They impose the rules on everyone else in the ecosystem, not because they are adapted (they are million year old creatures that didn't evolve much), but because they are so strong.

 

The Tomcat was by all means a dominant species. The Sh is just a very good airplane. In the supercruise era it will be weak. It will be on the defensive. It will damn need all its systems to survive, that's for sure.

[GGTharos]

Currently, the Hornet's main opponents would be the MiG-2x (x= 1, 3, 7, 9) series, and it outperforms all of them ... perhaps not in speed, but that isn't all that significant when the avionics are superior. It's a LO aircraft, and will likely get the first shot, and thus the kill; it is also more maneuverable at slow speeds than a 29, and possibly can outperform a 21 ... the fun part is that it's fuel economy is probably better then the 21's at any rate, and potentially no different from the 29's.

 

 

It's the other little 'bits and pieces' that start giving it a rather sharp edge.

 

And don't think the 54C was everything: The 120 has PROVEN itself to be a rather formidable weapon. When that thing is fired at you in -real- life, you -have- to respect it. Not like LOMAC ;)

[tflash]

Care to tell me why MiG-17s made mincemeat out of the faster, longer ranged and higher flying F-4 Phantom?

 

I think that had more to do with the misison and the fact the Phantoms in question where bombtrucks, no?

 

Ans some very smart Pentagon people decided that it didn't need a gun?

 

 

which the F-14 CANNOT simply because it doesn't have any SUSTAINED advantage in speed - it cruises at exactly the same speed as the Hornet.

 

 

I can accept the rest of your arguments, but here I'm not so sure: there are numerous accounts of the 2003 Iraq campaign where in mixed Tomcats/Hornet flights the Tomcats had to WAIT at every WP for the Hornet to rejoin.

 

I agree max performance is rather academic, but I just think the Tomcats flies faster throughout the envelope, no? I thought it just more easily took speed, like a slick aerodynamic car speeds up easier than a hummer.

 

 

Ah, so I assume you've been talking with nature then? Hmm, interesting you're not already in the Pentagon or something then, cause you obviously know something they don't when it comes to winning future wars.

 

There is no doubt they have more than an edge on this, but this doesn't mean you could differ on opinion. I wasn't there when they decided the gun was obsolete. And maybe they didn't go for the best, but for the cheapest solution, as you said, because the F-35 will be there anyway?

 

If something interesting comes out of my talks with nature, this forum will be the first to know :=)

[GGTharos]

The superbug wasn't exactly cheap ... and it is a -very- good aircraft. ;) The F-14 has speed for a good reason: It needed to get from point A to point B quickly, and also to maximize it's launch envelope. The F/A-18 however needn't worry about either of these things. How intercepts are done and when you need (or will) intercept something has changed with time.

 

Sure, if it could go farther and longer that would be certainly better ... but the entire point is, not being able to do that doesn't make a particularely bad aircraft - in fact, it isn't even an average aircraft ... it has some rather distinct advantages in a number of areas ;)