First flight for the Russian "F-22"

[bozon]

bahh, cool but a waste of money, just like the other F22.
These planes are just clear case of over-specification. The few that will own them, who will they fight against? There are more useful technologies for delivering death that are worth researching and equipping with that money.

[Mace2004]

bahh, cool but a waste of money, just like the other F22.
These planes are just clear case of over-specification. The few that will own them, who will they fight against? There are more useful technologies for delivering death that are worth researching and equipping with that money.

The fact of clear superiority is exactly why they are valuable.  Would you start a knife fight if the other guy has a machine gun?

[Mace2004]

That's really cool.  Did you splash all 6 targets?

The AIM54 and AIM7 missiles had no warheads.  The warheads were replaced with telemetry packages so we could analyse their performance and guidance support from the F14.  The Sidewinder had a warhead but was shot against a towed flare behind one of the targets.  Besides the analysis objective, targets (BQMs) are expensive so you generally want to try to recover and reuse them.  The telemetry and radar tracking determined whether or not a missile guided and fused at the proper time so that's what was used to determine the probability of kill.  With Sidewinders it's easy to see if they're guiding properly which it did.  With the radar missiles, one Phoenix motor failed during launch but my plan was to expend only three so I just launched the spare.  All three of the Phoenix and both Sparrows guided and were scored as "kills".  Overall the score was 7 shots for 6 "kills".  BTW, that one missile shot cost the taxpayer $7 million and I shot about $13 million dollars worth of missiles in my career.  Thank you for your support!  

I used to have a great video taken at China Lake of our low altitude Phoenix and Sparrow shot.  That picture over the desert was during this shot.  The setup was for my wingman and I to enter a long valley at one end as the target approached from the other end.  What was cool is that China Lake ranges have telemetry and cameras (called cinetheodolites) mounted on some of the peaks so we had video that tracked each missile and the target from launch to intercept.  Neither of these missiles had warheads either but the target wasn't a little BQM, it was a QF4 Phantom so it was quite a bit bigger.  Low altitude performance was always a problem for the AWG9 radar in the F14A as ground reflections from AWG9 tended to "jam" itself.  The APG71 in the D was much different and worked great right down to about 40ft so we were simulating a low altitude ingrees.  The planned ingress altitude was so low we had to run simulations to make sure that the Phoenix wouldn't hit the ground before the motor fired.  I launched the Phoenix at long range and my wingman launched his Sparrow at about half the distance.  The Sparrow is much faster than the Phoenix at low altitude so it actually passes the Phoenix, kind of crosses over the nose of the F4 and went straight down the intake taking out the port engine.  A second later the buffalo flew down the starboard side just above the wing and took out the F4's horizontal stab.  F4's make a wonderful fireball when they hit the ground.  I wish I still had that video but it got lost during my last squadron tour.

[Wolfala]

The AIM54 and AIM7 missiles had no warheads.  The warheads were replaced with telemetry packages so we could analyse their performance and guidance support from the F14.  The Sidewinder had a warhead but was shot against a towed flare behind one of the targets.  Besides the analysis objective, targets (BQMs) are expensive so you generally want to try to recover and reuse them.  The telemetry and radar tracking determined whether or not a missile guided and fused at the proper time so that's what was used to determine the probability of kill.  With Sidewinders it's easy to see if they're guiding properly which it did.  With the radar missiles, one Phoenix motor failed during launch but my plan was to expend only three so I just launched the spare.  All three of the Phoenix and both Sparrows guided and were scored as "kills".  Overall the score was 7 shots for 6 "kills".  BTW, that one missile shot cost the taxpayer $7 million and I shot about $13 million dollars worth of missiles in my career.  Thank you for your support!  



I used to have a great video taken at China Lake of our low altitude Phoenix and Sparrow shot.  That picture over the desert was during this shot.  The setup was for my wingman and I to enter a long valley at one end as the target approached from the other end.  What was cool is that China Lake ranges have telemetry and cameras (called cinetheodolites) mounted on some of the peaks so we had video that tracked each missile and the target from launch to intercept.  Neither of these missiles had warheads either but the target wasn't a little BQM, it was a QF4 Phantom so it was quite a bit bigger.  Low altitude performance was always a problem for the AWG9 radar in the F14A as ground reflections from AWG9 tended to "jam" itself.  The APG71 in the D was much different and worked great right down to about 40ft so we were simulating a low altitude ingrees.  The planned ingress altitude was so low we had to run simulations to make sure that the Phoenix wouldn't hit the ground before the motor fired.  I launched the Phoenix at long range and my wingman launched his Sparrow at about half the distance.  The Sparrow is much faster than the Phoenix at low altitude so it actually passes the Phoenix, kind of crosses over the nose of the F4 and went straight down the intake taking out the port engine.  A second later the buffalo flew down the starboard side just above the wing and took out the F4's horizontal stab.  F4's make a wonderful fireball when they hit the ground.  I wish I still had that video but it got lost during my last squadron tour.

Mace,

did you work with Wade Tallman while at VX4? Shouldve been around the same time when you were in.

[bravoa8]

That's Vandy 50, the second production F14D and first of four D's I had at VX4 (Vandy 50-53) for the F14D OPEVAL in 1990.  I was the F14D Operational Test Director and took this shot from Vandy 51.  This was a test flight to check out the missiles and weapon system for the next day's missile shoot where I launched four Phoenix, two Sparrows and a Sidewinder on one run against six targets.  That was the biggest missile shoot the Tomcat did since the 6 Phoenix shot during developmental testing in the early 70's.  It's not often you see a Tomcat fully loaded for air-to-air but, as you can see, you can still use the vertical.  Strapping 5,500lbs of pure air-to-air meanness under your wings sure puts some lead in the pencil.  

Here's the original:
(Image removed from quote.)

and on deck at NAS Pt Mugu the next day just before the big shoot:
(Image removed from quote.)

Vandy 52 on our way to a low-altitude combined Phonix and Sparrow shoot over the desert near China Lake
(Image removed from quote.)

Vandy 51 and 52 on our way out to Nimitz for traps.  Look how pretty those brand new puppy's are!
(Image removed from quote.)

That's really cool mace.

[1pLUs44]

From the engines, it looks like a waste of money. Back end doesn't look stealthy at all. It may reduce the radar signature quite a bit, but from the looks of the back itself, it'll show much more dar than the F22.

[MORAY37]

From the engines, it looks like a waste of money. Back end doesn't look stealthy at all. It may reduce the radar signature quite a bit, but from the looks of the back itself, it'll show much more dar than the F22.

Mighty scientific analysis.  

Stealth is way over-rated.  I doubt there is a fighter pilot out there that would give 1 degree per second instantaneous turn rate for an RCS .01% less.  

Stealth is applicable to only two arenas, at least to advantageous use.

  One, is a deep strike mission and only at night.

  The other, at BVR on known targets.

Since BVR range attacks are pretty much completely out the window in a non-sterile, fluid combat environment where you have to worry constantly about fratricide , a fighter with stealth is pretty much damned useless.  Stealth gives modern air to air combat nothing that proficient NOE flying doesn't. Even IFF transponders don't allow for the effective implementation of BVR tactics.

Hinging any fighter's effectiveness solely on its stealth is damned dangerous, when a fighter's mission is not to be invisible.

This is exactly why the AF is looking at cheap, maneuverable drones with a couple of AIM-9x's on them.  If you can buy 40 of them for one F22....you can afford to lose a lot, and put them up front, with the Raptors behind.



 

[Tac]

kind of reminds me of an old anime where one side was deploying high tech piloted fighters and the other side was deploying cheap missile armed remote control piloted air-to-air drones.

the piloted side was winning because they always sent an ewar plane to jam the drones but in the end the drone users won the war because they developed a system where if the drone failed to receive a signal from its remote pilot it would switch to AI control and that AI was programmed to lock on to whatever target it found bigger than a drone and shoot it down then RTB (fire one missile and return).


in real life it makes you wonder with all this stealth and junk... is it really an advantage? numbers always beat superior technology (if used smartly).

[Tango]

numbers always beat superior technology (if used smartly).

umm...........Israel???????

[Tac]

like I said, if used smartly. The way Israel's neighbors tried to invade them was nowhere near smart.

[Strip]

Mighty scientific analysis.  

Stealth is way over-rated.  I doubt there is a fighter pilot out there that would give 1 degree per second instantaneous turn rate for an RCS .01% less.  

Stealth is applicable to only two arenas, at least to advantageous use.

  One, is a deep strike mission and only at night.

  The other, at BVR on known targets.

Since BVR range attacks are pretty much completely out the window in a non-sterile, fluid combat environment where you have to worry constantly about fratricide , a fighter with stealth is pretty much damned useless.  Stealth gives modern air to air combat nothing that proficient NOE flying doesn't. Even IFF transponders don't allow for the effective implementation of BVR tactics.

Hinging any fighter's effectiveness solely on its stealth is damned dangerous, when a fighter's mission is not to be invisible.

This is exactly why the AF is looking at cheap, maneuverable drones with a couple of AIM-9x's on them.  If you can buy 40 of them for one F22....you can afford to lose a lot, and put them up front, with the Raptors behind.

Sorry but your analysis is almost as bad as the one your trying to correct.....

 

Strip

[Cthulhu]

Sorry but your analysis is almost as bad as the one your trying to correct.....

 

Strip

Ain't that the truth.   

But I have a question for someone who's actually been there:


Mace,

Years ago I did Carrier Suitability work on a "not so brightly lit" program.    The Mk 7 Mod 3 gear was state of the art back then, but it still was limited to 50,000 lb max trap weight. I was told by a Grumman engineer at the time that the F-14's couldn't get down to this max recovery weight while carrying 6 AIM-54's, so they typically only flew with four.  Is this true? 

[phatzo]

Australia mght dump their F-35 program if they could get Raptors,

geeez we only just got rid of our F-111's, going to miss their dump and burns at the big events.

[Strip]

Mace,

Years ago I did Carrier Suitability work on a "not so brightly lit" program.    The Mk 7 Mod 3 gear was state of the art back then, but it still was limited to 50,000 lb max trap weight. I was told by a Grumman engineer at the time that the F-14's couldn't get down to this max recovery weight while carrying 6 AIM-54's, so they typically only flew with four.  Is this true?  

I am not Mace, but I am very confident in the accuracy of that statement...

A typical dry F-14 weighed a little over 44,000 lbs and the Aim-54 weighs around 1,025 lbs. Given six missiles on board that would put its dry weight at 50 thousand lbs. By the time you add sufficient fuel reserves your well over the maximum trap.

I am a big fan of the F-14 and have read a lot of info, I am curious to see how my opinion stacks up with Mace.

(Who most certainly would be the best source of anecdotal info I have seen in a long time....)

<S> Mace, I miss your old girl, even if it was just watching from the ground.

Strip

[MORAY37]

Sorry but your analysis is almost as bad as the one your trying to correct.....

 

Strip

Ok.  Correct it then, instead of simply throwing attitude like a 14 year old girl at her freshman dinner dance.

Prove that a single fighter pilot would give up 1 degree instantaneous turn for a .01% RCS difference.