Blackhawks.
- Thread starter Swanson10
- Start date
Performance wise, the MiG-29 Fulcrum is comparable to a F-16 Fighting Falcon, MiG-29's had a distinct advantage though with the helmet mounted IRST sensor to fire an AA-11. If I remember right, the Fulcrum even had intake grates and beefed up gear so it could land on some pretty dicey air strips. Crude, but the Russians love em.
I'd take the Gloster Meteor.
Even though its guns jammed more often then they worked?
They were tested and fired (on Vandy 9), but never fielded fleet-wide. For the last 2 years of the F-14's life it didn't carry any AA missiles aside from AIM-9 and AIM-7.
True, it didn't but could have:
File:F-14 carrying AMRAAM.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
I know this picture is from an earlier date, but the F-14D could have had that weapon if the USN wanted to spend the cash. But knowing that the Tomcat was a dying bird, they didn't and handed off the fleet defense capability to the F/A-18C,D,E,F with the AIM-120/AMRAAM. There still is no direct replacement for the range the AIM-54 Phoenix missile had.
That picture is from 82 or 83 when they were developing the AIM-120.
And there is not much use for the AIM-54 at that range. Had there been, the Navy wouldn't have been content to let the weapon system sunset.
The reported range of the AIM-120C is apparently good enough for what the Navy needed the platform to do.
Very long range, air launched missiles are somewhat overrated.
Aren't most modern threats now in the form of Cruise missiles/anti-ship missiles rather than bombers?
My understanding is the F-14 wasn't even fulfilling the role of long range interceptor the last few years it was in service, which would indicate to me that the role isn't as neccesary as it once was
My understanding is the F-14 wasn't even fulfilling the role of long range interceptor the last few years it was in service, which would indicate to me that the role isn't as neccesary as it once was
The AIM-54C had an anti-cruise missile defense role, though I don't honestly know much about it and how capable it was. The APG-71, while probably a better radar than the original AWG-9, couldn't possibly have been as good as the new AESA radars that are showing up on the Super Hornet, no matter how good the missile was (and I don't suspect that the AIM-54 was that great compared to the AIM-120 for that particular role).
The finances of flying a 40 year old, very mechanically complex airframe with basically no commonality with anything else in the DoD and that offered very little in terms of actual advantage in combat is what finally did the F-14 in.
The super hornet does all the relevant things that the F-14 did from an airframe perspective, has a 1-2 generation newer and better radar, and is way more stealthy than the tomcat. Plus it's a LOT cheaper to operate and at least has some commonality with the A/B models.
I have some issues with the way the Navy went about buying the thing - it's basically a whole new airframe and should have been acquired as such - but it's a fantastically capable aircraft for what it is, and was probably the right plane for the Navy. I sort of wish the Air Force would do something similar with the F-16. It's clear that the F-35 and F-22 will never be purchased in the numbers to replace the F-16 and F-15s that currently serve the homeland defense role. Even though the 5th gen fighters are vastly superior to the 4 gen ones in a lot of ways, they still can't physically be located in as many places, and that's a bit of an issue if you're trying to defend the whole country.
A cheaper alternative 4.5+ gen F-16 with conformal fuel tanks, upgraded avionics and such would be much less expensive and almost as capable - clearly capable enough for the HLD role, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
At any rate, the F-14 was a great plane in it's day. It's day has just come and gone.
Looks, not overall performance. On both accounts. I know the MiG isn't going to get too many votes, but something about the lines of it I have always liked, curvy and edgy at the same time. Admittedly a bit crude though.
I suppose if you talk WWII performance records (victory totals), the Bf-109 is the best... If you are talking a one-on-one match, Me-262 would whup em' all. (had to be a smart ***:wink
Bf 109 had one distinct advantage: Going after a metric butt-load of really bad aircraft which were 20 years out of date, and flown by some gawdawful pilots, with poor tactics and preparation.
At least until 1943 or so....
Don't forget they were also flown by the best trained and experienced pilots.... Until 1943 or so.
Although it was outdated by the later years in the war, Germany's top ace preferred it over the FW-190, along with many/most of their other aces.
There is a paper I've been playing with since about 1988; thinking about writing, that compares and contrasts the concept of "sport fighters" versus "heavy multirole fighters". You might be interested. Bf 109 v. FW-190 is a decent comparison.
Basically, the Bristol Fighter was the first "heavy fighter", and the history of fighters since then has slowly, surely and inexorably evolved in favor of the heavy, multirole fighter.
But the air forces continue to go back to the well, design-wise to the "sport fighter". The Bf 109 and Spit were both "sport fighters", for instance. Very, very difficult to add capability due to diminishing returns toward the airframes.
Perhaps with stealth and greater automation, neo-sport fighters like the F22 might make a comeback, but somehow I don't see serious multi-role aircraft going away.
Which brings to question the two false assumptions that the Air Force was founded on. Pursuit aircraft and strategic bombing. Neither one has proven to be a central, decisive role of airpower. (Despite what the official Air Force history likes to say). Instead, strategic lift and CAS are where our Air Force shines.
Last edited:
Hater....:wink:
The post I was refering to got deleted :wink:
Though I am a much bigger fan of jets from the 70's on than I am of pre-WWII fighters...
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Guess I'm just showing my age... or relative lack of it
That works. Or a failure to have that sort of knowledge just ready to roll out.:wideeyed:
In related news, my daughter just talked to the Air Force recruiter yesterday. Pappa = proud of her.
Me, too.
Despite the "Snoopy v. Red Baron" myth, the Brit Air Arm designated Camels as low level ground support aircraft, and the RAF SE-5 as a high level intercepter. And the Bristol fighter, or "BrisFit" kind of filled in the seams in between.
Despite it's awkward looks and relatively large size, the BrisFit was a nimble fighter and took German pilots, who thought they were intercepting a pure bomber type by surprise with it's speed, maneouverability and armament and the aggressiveness of its pilots.
The Brisfit served on throughout the 1920s, until it was replaced by the Hawker Audax and Hart.
For pure beauty, the Hawker biplanes were hard to match.
Audax
Fury
Hart
Not only are they quite beautiful, but were top-notch performers in their day.
