Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on September 15, 2005, 06:45:52 AM
-
From AvWeb.Com newsletter I receive:
Tomcats On Last Tour
The F-14 Tomcat is going down fighting. The last operational deployment of the big swing-wing fighter began earlier this week with the last remaining squadrons VF-31 Tomcatters and VF-213 (Blacklions) flying aboard the carrier Theodore Roosevelt for a tour to the Persian Gulf. "Epic, historic, I'm looking for words," said Cmdr. Rick "Twig" LaBranche as he led the pilots and crew aboard the Roosevelt. "They understand that being the last Tomcat squadron is a historic event." The F-14 first saw service in the early 1970s and has seen action in all major conflicts since. Described by LaBranche as the Harley Davidson of fighter aircraft, it is giving way to the leaner and more efficient FA/18 Super Hornet. For every flight hour, an F-14 needed up to 60 hours of maintenance. The Super Hornet gets by on 10 to 15 hours and takes up a lot less room, with wingspan a full 20 feet shorter than the Tomcat's.
-
Are any of them operational in Iran?
If they are retiering them then why not just leave them for the Iranians when they leave the gulf. Should save the navy some money on mothballing them.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Are any of them operational in Iran?
If they are retiering them then why not just leave them for the Iranians when they leave the gulf. Should save the navy some money on mothballing them.
Better yet. Sell them to the Iranians so we can shoot them down later :D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Better yet. Sell them to the Iranians so we can shoot them down later :D
Thats what im saying.
Better target practise when you dont have to shoot down a stupid drone or worry about an american pilot getting shot down.
Its a win-win situation.
-
"Twig" LaBranche ? it's redundant :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Are any of them operational in Iran?
Yes, they have plenty of them operational.
A Super Hornet will have a hard time shooting one down in a one to one fight.
-
I say remove one of the engines, attach a long range finder on it so our radar sees it as it takes off, and tell them that it's ready for combat with missles that drop off like bombs..
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Are any of them operational in Iran?
If they are retiering them then why not just leave them for the Iranians when they leave the gulf. Should save the navy some money on mothballing them.
US doesnt trade with evil regimes.... so they have to sell them to US company in Quatar first, this one will sell them to SA company.
And lill SA company gonna sell them to iranian... as usualy. :D
However i think that Iranian F14 are already grounded, they might have 1 or 2 whitch can fly..... Anyway they still have dozen of Mirages and some other fighters, whitch SH parked there during 91.
They forgot to give them back.. somehow :)
-
Originally posted by lada
However i think that Iranian F14 are already grounded, they might have 1 or 2 whitch can fly.....
No, they have plenty of them flying, look/search here. (http://www.acig.org/forum/) There's also a picture of a formation of them in an airshow.
-
Sad...
My favorite modern fighter.
Really that the Iran will be the only nation flying them.
-
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/aircraft/f14/tom-sun.jpg)
-
Originally posted by gofaster
From AvWeb.Com newsletter I receive:
I wonder if the Hornets have drip pans under every jet. :)
Was an ongoing joke in our (F14) squardron... the only time a tomcat doesn't leak is when it's empty. ;)
-
I just don't think the Super Chickens will do the job that the Tomcat has done since the 70's. It's a shame to see them go. Yeah they have there quirks.. Like Sandman said the running joke They didn't leak when they were empty..
I know the Super Chickens will be in more need of the AWAX/HAWK EYE's to do there dirty work..
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I wonder if the Hornets have drip pans under every jet. :)
Was an ongoing joke in our (F14) squardron... the only time a tomcat doesn't leak is when it's empty. ;)
Leak what?
-
The Tomcat was the best CAP fleet defender the Navy ever had. With the Chinese picking up Kitchen Missle and Backfire Bomber production there is now a great big huge hole in the fleet defense. Granted the Cat with Two Tails is old and maintenance hungry, there is still nothing in the Inventory that can engage and destroy at the ranges and speeds necessary for modern fleet defense.
As a young man I was awed and impressed by the King of the Cats.. as a old man I mourn the passing of this mighty implement of Fleet Protection and the exceptional company of men that built 'em, maintained 'em and flew 'em for over 35 years.
(http://www.grummanpark.org/images/curren1.jpg)
The Grumman Airpark F-14 Memorial. Calverton, Long Island
-
Yeah, it's my favorite.
-
Beautiful old plane.
if it was given the money for updates it could have done the job as fleet defender for many many years. Nothing lasts forever tho, and its prolly time.
Im sure the makers of the F18E/F and JSF agrees too
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The Tomcat was the best CAP fleet defender the Navy ever had. With the Chinese picking up Kitchen Missle and Backfire Bomber production there is now a great big huge hole in the fleet defense. Granted the Cat with Two Tails is old and maintenance hungry, there is still nothing in the Inventory that can engage and destroy at the ranges and speeds necessary for modern fleet defense.
They had better figure out how to fit an AIM-54 on it.. or buy up some MBDA Meteor's.
-
That is the main reasion there killing the Tomcat, the AIM-54 system has been canceled.
From: http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15422
PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (NNS) -- After 30 years of highly accomplished service, the U.S. Navy retired its first long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-54 Phoenix, Sept. 30.
One of the world's most technologically advanced tactical missiles, the AIM-54 Phoenix was the first operational radar-guided air-to-air missile that could be launched in multiple numbers against different targets from an aircraft, making the Phoenix the Navy's main fleet air defense long-range weapon.
“The heart of the F-14 Tomcat (soon also to retire) weapons system is the Hughes AWG-9 fire control system, capable of tracking 24 targets and firing six AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles engaging six different targets,” said Capt. Scott Stewart, the Navy's program manager for Air-to-Air Missile Systems. “With a range of over 100 miles, the AIM-54 gave the F-14 the greatest stand-off engagement capability of any fighter in the world. For years, Soviet air crews flying Badger, Bear and Backfire bombers feared the unprecedented capabilities of the Phoenix Missile."
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Beautiful old plane.
if it was given the money for updates it could have done the job as fleet defender for many many years. Nothing lasts forever tho, and its prolly time.
Im sure the makers of the F18E/F and JSF agrees too
;)
Different missions... the Tomcat was built to defend against a maritime attack.
The name of the game today is power projection.
-
The Navy has retired the Hughes AIM-54. None are left in deployment.
Zero. Zip. Nada.
Pheonix Retired (http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15422)
Mission has been taken up by the AIM 120 AMRAAM toted by the ChickenHawk or Surface/Ship launched platforms. Rough estimates indicate it'll take 4 Hornets with AIM 120's to do the job of one Tomcat loaded with 6 AIM-54C's. The 4 Hornets also have a lower PK in the role. Not good. If the Chinese get 24+ Kitchens inbound they would quickly overwhelm the point defense and Long Range Air defense of the fleet.
AIM 120 Deployment (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html)
These will be missed...
Tomcat & Phoenix (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html)
-
The Iranian F-14's are not the "same" F-14's that our guys are flying.
First off, they do not have the same avionics, and weapons systems that ours have, secondly, they do not have the maintenance support on em since our techs left.
Sure, a few of em are flying, but as for fighting our stuff.... they'd get tanked easily.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The Iranian F-14's are not the "same" F-14's that our guys are flying.
First off, they do not have the same avionics, and weapons systems that ours have, secondly, they do not have the maintenance support on em since our techs left.
Sure, a few of em are flying, but as for fighting our stuff.... they'd get tanked easily.
I seem to recall they got the full basic F14-A package. Phoenix and all. Was a necessary selling point to stop the USSR MiG-25 recce overflights of Iran.
The newer digital retrofits they didn't receive.
Spot on about the important tech support though. Iran-Contra, I think they were able to procure some spare parts though.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The Iranian F-14's are not the "same" F-14's that our guys are flying.
First off, they do not have the same avionics, and weapons systems that ours have, secondly, they do not have the maintenance support on em since our techs left.
Sure, a few of em are flying, but as for fighting our stuff.... they'd get tanked easily.
What equipment and weapons are the Iranian Tomcats lacking that your original F-14A's had? They do have the same radar and missiles, but they might have lacked some other equipment. Also they are producing all vital parts themselves, and according to some sources, even reverse engineered and improved Phoenix missiles. Most likely they have made upgrades over the years aswell. I wouldn't underestimate Iran, it's a quite advanced country technologically, has a quite a lot of aircraft industry and they aren't shy on spending in defence.
-
Maybe Eagl will drop by and give us the unclassified evaluation of the Iranian AF threat.
-
Of course they are not a threat to you at all. I'm just saying that all propaganda about them is not true.
-
i heard they converted them to run on camel dung?
-
Originally posted by mora
Of course they are not a threat to you at all. I'm just saying that all propaganda about them is not true.
Oh, I think you're right there. If it ever came to all-out "last man standing" I think it'd turn out OK on our end.
I hope it doesn't, of course.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Different missions... the Tomcat was built to defend against a maritime attack.
The name of the game today is power projection.
I know that you silly little man :D
They have to do the job of the Tomcat.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The Iranian F-14's are not the "same" F-14's that our guys are flying.
First off, they do not have the same avionics, and weapons systems that ours have, secondly, they do not have the maintenance support on em since our techs left.
Sure, a few of em are flying, but as for fighting our stuff.... they'd get tanked easily.
When we(Navy Ships) train for gulf deployment, the F-14 Iranian F-14 is considered a non-factor...not enough that can fly and even fewer pilots who can handle them well...
We actually are more concerned with their F-4's with a modified Chinese C-802 missile.
-
I'm going to miss the Tomcats flying over my house. The superhornet might be a newer plane, but a firend of mine told me that the Hornet can't touch the F-14 in performance
-
VF-2 Bounty Hunters, NAS Miramar 84-86
Bullets (http://www.topedge.com/alley/squadron/pac/vf2hist.htm )
-
One only has to look back to the 1991 Gulf War to see how the Iranian Air Force would likely fare against western opposition. Its never a good thing to underestimate a potential enemy, but in all likelyhood if you are talking air to air combat the Iranians would not fare well.
Despite the Iraqi Air Forces large fighter force, and arguably modern types, including the Mig-29, they were simply out fought. I dont beleive the Iranians are much better than the Iraqis were in air combat, so there is not much reason to think they would fare better.
Training, combat support, strategy, and tactics of western air forces is much higher, and no middle east air arm save Israel has ever demonstrated a real talent for air superiority missions. At least, not to date.
As for the F-14, I saw several at airshows, they were always a most impressive a/c. Pity she has to be retired.
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes, they have plenty of them operational.
A Super Hornet will have a hard time shooting one down in a one to one fight.
yea it's a good thing most modern day air battles aren't 1 v 1 fights. Most of them and future battles are about tactics, projection of power, and logistics.
Keep in mind an air frame is no good as a fighter if it spends most of it's time in the hanger.
I am sorry to see it go though. Its weapon's system was truley revolutionary at the time.
-
Shame to see her go - esp since she could get to Kandahar and loiter without tanking 3 times like the Super Hornet. She gave great service, and fought to the end even when the politicians who didn't have to shoulder the burden her absence would leave.
The AEGIS isn't a solution to the F-14 nor is the Superhornet - they are complementry systems, and the CBG is now the most neutered its been since Pearl Harbor.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I know that you silly little man :D
They have to do the job of the Tomcat.
No... that job doesn't exist any more.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
loiter without tanking 3 times like the Super Hornet.
Wolf
Yep. Naval Air has pretty short legs these days. I'd like to see them change that somehow.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea it's a good thing most modern day air battles aren't 1 v 1 fights. M
Hmmm... when was the last time we actually had a "modern day air battle"?
Speaking of Tomcats... I just noticed that my skipper at VF-51, "Rat" Williard is now the VCNO. He was an impressive man then, but damn... he's travelled far.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=19
-
Originally posted by Sandman
No... that job doesn't exist any more.
So there is no plane that can or has the job to defend the fleet?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So there is no plane that can or has the job to defend the fleet?
LOL yeah it is called the F22!:D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
LOL yeah it is called the F22!:D
I hate to tell ya, there is no Naval version of the F-22. The Navy doesn't like to spend money on just a few expensive planes, we'd rather get alot of less expensive planes.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So there is no plane that can or has the job to defend the fleet?
Defend the fleet against what?
-
Attack from the air?
-
Does any country have the kind of firepower that the USSR used to? Long range tactical stuff like the Backfire, Badger, Blackjack...
With regard to the fleet, the F-14 was the bomber-killer. Long on station time, long combat radius, and long range weapons.
-
China?
-
Don't know... Early this year, Russia was talking about possibly selling TU-22 or TU-95 to China. Not sure what became of that.
-
Dont get me wrong. I don't care one way or another. All im saying is that The fleet needs defence from air attacks and that has been done by the Tomcat, but it cant be done by the Tomcat when its gone... so some plane has to do the job.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
With regard to the fleet, the F-14 was the bomber-killer. Long on station time, long combat radius, and long range weapons.
Say what? You obviously didn't watch Top Gun! ;)
Old joke I used to hear from the USAF fighter guys about the Tomcat:
"You're in a furball and you see an F-14 with his wings swept out. What does it mean?"
"It means an F-14 is about to die."
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Dont get me wrong. I don't care one way or another. All im saying is that The fleet needs defence from air attacks and that has been done by the Tomcat, but it cant be done by the Tomcat when its gone... so some plane has to do the job.
Not really. With our newer missile systems, most of the escort ships can take care of air attacks, hence the shift from requiring an "interceptor" aircraft taking up flight deck space and the move to an all strike capable air wing. Don't get me wrong, a "Super Tomcat" with new airframes and upgraded avionics would have been the better way to go, than that POS Super Hornet, which doesn't bring much more to the table than the regular Hornet except a very little extra payload and an extra half hour on station time.
-
Originally posted by mora
What equipment and weapons are the Iranian Tomcats lacking that your original F-14A's had? They do have the same radar and missiles, but they might have lacked some other equipment. Also they are producing all vital parts themselves, and according to some sources, even reverse engineered and improved Phoenix missiles. Most likely they have made upgrades over the years aswell. I wouldn't underestimate Iran, it's a quite advanced country technologically, has a quite a lot of aircraft industry and they aren't shy on spending in defence.
As far as I remember the D.O.D guys that were stationed there right before the hostage taking disabled all of the flight and guidence systems that were supposed to enable the F-14 to do its job. In essence, they did not have any of the missle guidance, radar, and flight package that it was supposed to have. The Iranians manged to "manufacture" some portions but only the flight package was repairable. It could take off and land and that was it. In 1983 they were scrapped or sold off to purchase the Mirage fighters that made up the larger portion of their Air-Farce. That is what I remeber from a older Discovery Wings episode. I am sure that if someone Googles it they could give you better discriptions.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Not really. With our newer missile systems, most of the escort ships can take care of air attacks, hence the shift from requiring an "interceptor" aircraft taking up flight deck space and the move to an all strike capable air wing.
Out of curiousity, isn't that similar to the arguments made against dog-fight capable aircraft pre-Vietnam? Not trying to be a jerk, I'm just not sure I'm as confident as you in protecting against Exocets and the new supersonic anti-shipping missiles that Russia has.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Out of curiousity, isn't that similar to the arguments made against dog-fight capable aircraft pre-Vietnam? Not trying to be a jerk, I'm just not sure I'm as confident as you in protecting against Exocets and the new supersonic anti-shipping missiles that Russia has.
yup..
anti-missile missiles are getting alot better but so are the asm's.
-
International Air Power Review had a fairly comprehensive writeup on the IRAF. Much of what was disabled was supplemented by COTS stuff with Russian assistance. Even remember seeing a Hawk missile slung underneath the wing pylon in place of a AIM-7 or AIM-54. Wouldn't be difficult - its just a beam rider and the AWG-9 is a great illuminator.
I'll see if I can find the issue. Either that or Combat Aircraft - one or the other.
Also Iran does make AIM-54s, AIM-9s (locally designated Fattar), AIM-7s, PGMs, 3 types of cruise missiles (one has the range of 360 kms and can go mach 1 plus), a locally manufactured version of the AH-1J that has a homegrown avionics suite,cockpit and other upgrades.
They do have an interesting mix of US and ex Soviet equipment.
- F-4D
- F-4E
- RF-4C/E
- F-5A
- F-5E
- F-5F
- SIMORGH
- Azarakhsh
- Saegheh-80
- P-3
- C-130
- F-7
- MiG-29
- SU-24MK
- Mirage F1
- SU-25
- Adnan
- Fokker 27
- Ir.an-140
- KC-707
Iran's air defence consists of
- locally made Ghareh (250 km range)
- Sayad (locally made/upgraded SA-2)
- Misagh-1 (essentially a upgrdaded stinger)
- Shahab Sagheb (Low & very low altitude air defense, all weather operations and multi-target engagement capabilities)
- Rapier
- Tiger II
- locally made triple AAA
- I-Hawk
- SA-6
- ZSU-23-4
- RBS-70
- S-300 (stationed at Iran's nuclaer plant in Bushehr and in Tehran - only 2 batteries to my knowledge)
P.S. They changed the paint scheme within the last 3 years.
Wolf
(http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2004/09/102721_orig.jpg)(http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2004/09/102731_orig.jpg)
-
Well there is that one missile, I think it's called "Sunburn" by NATO, we can't defend against it right now, but we are close.
It doesn't fall for decoys, and It flys a flight profile that doesn't give enough doppler shift (kinda winds like a snake) for our systems to lock on.
But we could and would "shoot the archer"
Lucky for us it's a SSM and not an ASM
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Well there is that one missile, I think it's called "Sunburn" by NATO, we can't defend against it right now, but we are close.
It doesn't fall for decoys, and It flys a flight profile that doesn't give enough doppler shift (kinda winds like a snake) for our systems to lock on.
But we could and would "shoot the archer"
Lucky for us it's a SSM and not an ASM
Ahem... Beadwindow?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... Beadwindow?
If it was a beadwindow which would it be? However it's not classified. You can find info on it on the FAS website.
and found this here http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
Quote :
The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun
that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."
I also found out while looking this stuff up, aparently there is an air launched versuion...YIKES!
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Well there is that one missile, I think it's called "Sunburn" by NATO, we can't defend against it right now, but we are close.
It doesn't fall for decoys, and It flys a flight profile that doesn't give enough doppler shift (kinda winds like a snake) for our systems to lock on.
But we could and would "shoot the archer"
Lucky for us it's a SSM and not an ASM
The USN was trying to purchase the SS-N-22 Sunburn back in the mid 90's to use as live targets, obviously to see if they could penetrate the AEGIS screen with the lack of the Tomcat. Vice Admiral Bowes was negotiating the Admiral Felix Gromov informing him the USN was trying to purchase the missiles directly from the manufacture Arsanjav Aviation COmpany and support equipment from Vector Microwave Research Corp.
I'm not sure if the deal went through, but in 1999 the Chinese got 8,480-ton Russian Navy Project 956A. Additionally, Raduga developed the widely exported SS-N-2 Styx missile which sank an Israeli destroyer during the six day war.
The Raduga Moskit anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world. The MOSKIT is designed to fly as low as 9 feet at over 1,500 miles per hour, faster than a rifle bullet. The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other anti-missile defense.
So, conclusion is the USN was trying to develop an effective countermeasure to the SS-N-22 and others before they became a problem for CBG's.
Where it stands? Who knows. But China loves Taiwan and has been upgrading the **** out of their 1960's forces to a respectable threat level. And their joint ops with the Russian navy last month in the South China sea with the Vladvostok fleet seems to be in response to our sending 6 CBG's over their way and they're being able to do nothign about it for years.
Wolf
-
Hopefully we will never find out, but my personal opinion is that a modern asm is and will always be ahead of the defencive systems.
-
Found the article depicting what went down in the mid 90s' and how it panned out:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/22/190620.shtml
Al Gore's agreement with Moscow in 1995 allowed Russia to continue arms sales to Iran. However, recently declassified documents forced from the Clinton administration now show that the historic Russian-U.S. agreement did far more than keep the former Soviet war machine alive. The newly declassified documents show that America actually helped Russia improve its weapons.
In 1995, McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, successfully lobbied the U.S. Navy to buy a Russian weapon, the Zvezda Ma-31 "Krypton" missile. McDonnell Douglas intended to modify the small, 1,500-pound Krypton missile to act as a supersonic target for U.S. Navy Aegis warships. Ironically, the Russian Krypton was intended to simulate the real threat to U.S. warships, a much larger Russian weapon called the "Sunburn."
The Krypton is also designed to attack Navy warships using sophisticated electronics to home in on Aegis radars. Yet the Krypton missiles supplied to the American Navy contained none of the weapon's critical radar seeking electronic systems. According to one Russian defense source, the Krypton supplied to the U.S. Navy is a little more than a "hollow target shell."
In 1995, the U.S. Navy also determined that the Russian Krypton missiles did not include the all-important radar "seeker" and guidance electronics from the weapon version. "Removal of the seeker will preclude use of the MA-31 for testing the effectiveness of soft-kill EW [electronic warfare] systems and decoys," states a 1995 Navy report.
In addition, the U.S. Navy also quickly found that the Russian Krypton missiles would not fly. According to the 1995 report, "all simulations to date have resulted in failure." In response, U.S. Navy and McDonnell Douglas engineers began a series of "P3I" or "pre-planned product improvements" to make the Russian weapon work.
In 1995, U.S. Navy and U.S. defense contractors directly assisted Russian missile engineers by testing and improving the Krypton missile. One U.S. Navy "improvement" given to the Russians increased the range of the Krypton from an ineffective "15 miles" to more than 40 miles.
According to a 1995 McDonnell Douglas review report, the "extended range option adds an auxiliary fuel tank, a reduced drag nose cone, changes the fuel to JP-10 (which has a higher specific energy content than the Russian fuel), and modifies the ramjet nozzle. The extended range modification is intended to increase range to approximately 42 nm (nautical miles) at 10m (meter) altitude."
Another crucial design improvement given to Russia involved emergency "Jettison Testing" of the weapon. According to the 1995 program review document, the Russian missile contained a fatal flaw that could destroy the firing plane and kill the pilot. In response, U.S. weapons engineers determined the exact fix required to correct the fatal flaw and turned the problem "over to the Russians for resolution."
Moreover, the troubled Krypton project has been dogged by allegations of improper financial activity. In 1999, Janes Defense reported that each MA-31 missile purchase also includes a 28 percent "fee" given directly to Russian generals. According to the Navy documentation, each Krypton costs $910,000, almost twice the price of U.S. target missiles. The 28 percent fee paid directly to the Russian generals amounts to more than a quarter million dollars charge per weapon.
Despite the public allegations of kickbacks for the Russian generals, according to the U.S. Navy, "the prime contractor with McDonnell Douglas, now a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company, does not include, and is not required to include any clauses specifically addressing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."
"We send the money to the Russians," stated G. Hotze, the program manager for the U.S. Navy Krypton project. "What they do with it is their business."
The American engineering and financial assistance has also paid off for Moscow. Once the U.S. engineers successfully modified and tested the Krypton, Russia began an aggressive marketing effort to sell the anti-radar missile to Vietnam, India and China. The Russians, according to defense analyst Richard Fisher, have sold the improved Krypton to China.
"China recently signed a deal with Russia to co-produce the extended-range version of the Krypton," said Richard Fisher, a fellow at the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation.
"The Chinese intend to produce the KR-1 their own version of the Kh-31p improved Krypton. In addition, the recent sale of Russian Sukhoi SU-30MK supersonic strike bombers to the Chinese Air Force also includes Krypton missiles. We can expect to see the Krypton to proliferate to Iran and other hostile customers."
At the same time American engineers and Russian engineers improved the Krypton, the Clinton/Gore administration turned down a Russian offer to buy all of its SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic cruise missiles. The SS-N-22 Sunburn is considered "the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world" and the No. 1 threat to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The improved Krypton was intended to simulate the SS-N-22 Sunburn.
The U.S. effort, code-named project "Ballerina," used American business contacts inside Moscow to buy Sunburn missiles directly from the Russian Navy. A 1995 status report prepared for the Navy, states that U.S. defense contractor Vector Microwave had "reached a basic agreement with the Russian manufacturer of the SS-N-22 (Arsenjev Aviation Company 'Progress') on the concept of acquiring the SS-N-22 missiles as targets."
According to a signed letter of intent, the 1995 Sunburn purchase offer included 100 conventional missiles drawn directly from the Russian Navy inventory with an option to buy the entire remaining Russian inventory. Unlike the Krypton deal, the Russians offered complete Sunburn missiles to the U.S. Navy, including "active" warheads and the critical electronics such as the "radar seeker" and "radio altimeter."
The July 1995 status report written by Vector Microwave noted that the Russians had agreed to the Sunburn sale and that a "letter of 'bona fides' from the U.S. government would be necessary" in order to enter into formal negotiations. The 1995 report also warned "the Russians felt that strict confidentiality of such an acquisition program should be maintained."
In September 1995, U.S. Navy Principal Deputy Vice Admiral W.C. Bowes provided the letter of "bona fides" to Admiral Felix Gromov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy. Bowes advised the Russian Navy that America intended to purchase the Sunburn supersonic cruise missiles.
"I appreciate the opportunity to convey to you the United States Navy's interest in acquiring all variants of the SS-N-22 'Sunburn' Anti-Ship Supersonic Ship-to-ship missile for test and evaluation," wrote U.S. Admiral Bowes to Gromov in a September 1995 letter.
Amazingly, the U.S turned down the Russian Sunburn offer. Defense Department run by then Secretary William Perry. According to one Pentagon source, the administration balked at the Sunburn price of nearly "a million dollars" a missile.
Without the 1995 U.S. Navy sale, the hard-pressed Russian contractor instead cut a deal with Beijing 12 months later, agreeing to supply the inventory of Sunburn missiles to China. In 1996, China purchased the Russian Sovremenny destroyer Yekaterinburg and second warship, the Alexandr Nevskiy. Each Chinese warship is armed with eight nuclear-tipped Sunburn missiles. China took possession of the Yekaterinburg in November 1999. The Alexandr Nevskiy is under way with a joint Russian-Chinese crew and will join the Yekaterinburg in the Taiwan Straits this month . Official Navy documentation notes that the Sunburn missiles are armed with a "nuclear" warhead equal to more than 200,000 tons of TNT. The Sunburn is more than four times larger than the Krypton, weighing nearly 8,000 pounds and carries a nuclear punch 10 times as powerful as the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima. The Sunburn also flies to its target at more than 1,500 miles an hour, as fast as a rifle bullet, skimming the water at only a few feet over the surface.
In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Sunburn. Fisher reported that the Sunburn is capable of a dive speed of nearly 3000 miles an hour, helping it evade U.S. naval defenses.
"The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy.
"The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Sunburn, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution - not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750 lb. warhead." The Clinton-Gore administration could have bought the entire active inventory of deadly Sunburn missiles in 1995, ending forever a deadly threat to our allies and U.S. Navy warships. Today, the Navy is still interested in buying Sunburn missiles from Russia. In August 2000, the U.S. Navy quietly issued a defense contract proposal on its Internet site to "evaluate the feasibility of obtaining" Sunburn missiles from Russia. According to the new proposal, the Navy is now willing to pay $2 million a Sunburn, more than twice the price of the 1995 Russian offer.
-
The Krypton and Sunburn are part of an overall failure of the U.S.-Russia military purchase program. The intention was to simulate the threat with the real thing from Russia. Instead, the policy forced the Navy to shut down U.S. missile factories in favor of Moscow. The Navy has exhausted its supply of aging U.S.-made target missiles and the factory has closed forever. A new "all-American" target made by Orbital Sciences Corp. will not be available for at least three years.
The Clinton-Gore administration elected to rely on the good graces of Moscow to test our billion-dollar Aegis warships. U.S. defense contractor Boeing has a contract with Russia to supply up to 300 "improved" Krypton missiles over the next three years, 28 percent fee included.
The Navy has a missile gap. After a decade of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. Navy still has no new target missiles and no old ones left. Over 10 years the threat has grown. Sunburns and improved Kryptons are deployed within striking distance of the U.S. Seventh fleet, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Instead of turning their swords into plowshares, the Russians continue to make the best weapons in the world - with our help.
-
Whoops.
BTW, a quick diversion from the subject of anti-ship missiles, is everyone here familiar with the Schkval? It's a torpedo that travels at 230+ mph. No defenses against it once fired. The newest version supposedly goes even faster and can home in on a violently maneuvering ship. Oh, and an available nuclear warhead means it could take out... just about anything.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm
-
Shkval is a dumb fire torpedo that is made so the other sub has to maneuver violently and break the guidence wires on his weapon - hence anabling the Shkval boat another shot.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
If it was a beadwindow which would it be?
02
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Shkval is a dumb fire torpedo that is made so the other sub has to maneuver violently and break the guidence wires on his weapon - hence anabling the Shkval boat another shot.
The original Shkval is like that, the newer Shkval supposedly has longer range and homing capability.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The original Shkval is like that, the newer Shkval supposedly has longer range and homing capability.
Ive heard that too. Have no idea on how such a noisy weapon would manage to home in on anything tho.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Ive heard that too. Have no idea on how such a noisy weapon would manage to home in on anything tho.
Paging Dr. Bororda
-
we're screwed.... the fleet has lost it's long range 'archer' killer with the demise of Phoenix and the Tomcat, the task groups close in defenses are easily overwhelmed by multiple asm's and our asw defenses are vulnerable to lurking kilo's in shallow water.
gonna be a heluva price to pay for this... we lose a task force or two and the response will most likely be a very big light in the sky over some capital cities.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
w our asw defenses are vulnerable to lurking kilo's in shallow water.
gonna be a heluva price to pay for this... we lose a task force or two and the response will most likely be a very big light in the sky over some capital cities.
No sub will get through on my watch:aok
ASTAC= Anti-Submarine/Surface Tactical Air Controller.
I seem to have a knack for getting the A/C in the right place using the right search pattern....I'm 11 for 11 against the Type 206, even found a Seawolf once (It's not as hard as you think, just track the super quiet hole in the ocean)
As for fleet air defense, since the nuetered the S-3 into nothing but a tanker, as long as they are nearby the F/A-18 E/F Should do a pretty good job.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
02
Right:aok
Beadwindow Reports (http://www.tpub.com/content/istts/14226/css/14226_45.htm)
BT
"Gingerbread Gingergread Gingerbread....
Gingerbread callsign Sandman":D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Say what? You obviously didn't watch Top Gun! ;)
Old joke I used to hear from the USAF fighter guys about the Tomcat:
"You're in a furball and you see an F-14 with his wings swept out. What does it mean?"
"It means an F-14 is about to die."
Funny, I saw/heard a quote from an F-15 jock: " When the fight gets low and slow, we don't mess with the gents in the cat."
-
Saburo an F-15 pilot would say the same thing about an F-16 and F/A-18. But if he/she is packing JHCMS then they might think again about getting low and slow with them. The F-15 was made for high speed engagements.
-
Sure, but part of the swingwing design of the F14 was to allow it very large maneuver envelope. The Shah of Iran (former fighter pilot) was sold on the F14 after he saw a demonstration of its aerial performance. It was something the F15 couldn't match IIRC.
-
As weapons platforms the f-15 and f-14 both can 'reach out, reach out and kill someone'.. the BVR capabilities are top notch.
In a knife fight, the advantage goes to the guy that can turn better, climb/accel faster, employ his guns most effectively.
This kind of fighting is all but non existant in a 'Fleet Defense Role', the name of the game is 'reach out and touch'.
It's a moment Tomcat pilots dream of.. and they unquestionably have the superior mount for for the knife fight. As always, the Navy's planes were desigined for the previous war. Imagine what Duke Cunningham coulda done that day with a Tomcat instead of a gunless F4.
-
I just went to the NAS Oceana Air show yesterday, and I saw the last flight demonstartion of the F-14 Tomcat. I saw the F-18 superhonet about half an hour before it, and I think the Tomcat being retired is a mistake. It looked a lot better in the turns than the Hornet did, and the climbing part looked like it was faster too.
-
yup. and therin lies the big hole.. the big kitty does everything better than the insect other than cost less.. the cat could make the long distance calls and whup bellybutton or work in close to tap a commie on the shoulder and smile that big bad cat smile.
The fleet's gonna miss it... the interim insect is not a replacement.
So when's it been policy to accept a poorer plane in the role filled by a better one, regardless of age?
(lessee.. A-10, F-8, Intruder, F-111.. nevermind)
penny pinching bean counters making the Navy a hollow shadow of it's former self.. business as usual.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I hate to tell ya, there is no Naval version of the F-22. The Navy doesn't like to spend money on just a few expensive planes, we'd rather get alot of less expensive planes.
LoL the joke flew right over your head!
The implication was the airforce would be doing the job.:D
-
Originally posted by dmf
I just went to the NAS Oceana Air show yesterday, and I saw the last flight demonstartion of the F-14 Tomcat. I saw the F-18 superhonet about half an hour before it, and I think the Tomcat being retired is a mistake. It looked a lot better in the turns than the Hornet did, and the climbing part looked like it was faster too.
CLOSE OCEANA!!!!
Put the jets where they belong!...Cecil Field...at least the community will appreciate them:D