Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
solarflyer22
Topic Author
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:32 am

This is a hypothetical question so bear with me as I just recently watched Top Gun for 87th time.

If you wanted to upgrade the F-14 Tomcat to a Gen 4.5 fighter ,assuming money was not a main issue, would it be possible or is the airframe just too outdated? Wikipedia has some interesting notions of what a Gen 4.5 fighter is (think F-18E) and it seems most could be done to the Tomcat with relative ease. Mind you there are upgrades to the F-15 as the "Silent Eagle" as well. My ideas for improvement would be:

1) Cover the "pancake" in between engine nacelles to form a nice internal weapons bay (reduce RCS)
2) Swap out nosecones and wing spars with lighter CFRP (same shape but shed some weight)
3) Radar absorbing skin and re-designed inlets (ala F-18E)
4) AESA Radar and IR tracker. Nose is def large enough.
5) Upgrade engines and add thrust vectoring
6) Add small B-1 type canards to the nose section. I always thought it needed these. Not sure why.
7) Upgrade AMRAAM so it could carry a longer range version in lieu of AIM54.

And there it is, the F-14E model a gen 4.5 fighter. Would this be viable in today's environment as a combat aircraft? Seems like it would be at least as good as a F-18E? Thoughts?
 
Legs
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:08 am

By the time you do all the structural mods to get all those things added on, you may as well have started from scratch.

Canards and thrust vectoring add a huge amount of load to the airframe in places that were never designed to bear it, and would probably mean a completely redesigned airframe.

Then there is a shuge amount of work involved in adapting the airframe to be stealthy, a process which doesn't just involve the skin but has to take into account all of the underlying structure as well.

I'm not sure how well an internal weapons bay between the engines would work aerodynamically, I suspect it may actually add quite a lot of drag, and probably not be worth it either.

The 'easiest' mods, and I use the term loosely, would probably be the nosecone and wing spar. But at that point you may as well completely redesign the wing.

Adding in an AESA radar would be possibly feasible, but its not as easy as just bolting it in under the radome. A sloping bulkhead should be engineered to lower the RCS,and a massive electrical, avionics and cooling redesign would be required to make it all work, which rolls into a cockpit upgrade to feed all the information to the pilot and WSO.

To do all these things would require a staggering amount of money and a huge engineering effort, and would almost certainly be far more difficult than designing a new airframe with those features.

[Edited 2014-01-27 18:39:38]
 
checksixx
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:51 am

Any Tomcat lover would love to see the plane brought back, but it will never happen. As stated above, by the time you take into consideration all the upgrades, you have a new jet...not an upgraded one.

Its a catch-22...'Upgrading' an aircraft and expecting it to perform as a stealthy aircraft is usually not cost effective in the end...nor does it really perform as intended.

Best to design a new aircraft...but then you have people crying about expense.

Sadly, you can have it one way or the other...but not both.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3796
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:52 am

IIRC F-14 came from the factory with a retractable canard but it was deactivated....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11194
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:55 pm

Most F-14s were scrapped to prevent parts from finding their way to the only other customer, Iran. So, I don't know what you are going to upgrade. Most of the gate guard F-14s around today are just shells.

If Boeing cannot get the US to buy the F-15SE, what makes you think they would by a lesser airplane.

Remember, before some became Bombcats, the Tomcat was an interceptor and not a true air supremacy fighter.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:38 pm

Quoting legs (Reply 1):
By the time you do all the structural mods to get all those things added on, you may as well have started from scratch.

Or a modification of another platform.

Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
solarflyer22
Topic Author
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:47 pm

I don't know what this, but it looks about the coolest thing ever. Another mod is the outward canted vertical stabilizers which are stealthier apparently.
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:57 pm

I remember reading somewhere that a very significant amount of the Tomcat's lift came from the pancake. By making a weapons bay between the engine nacelles you might be adversely effecting the aerodynamics.

Also bear in mind an upgraded Tomcat still has all the added weight and complexity that comes with the variable geometry wings. There has to be a pretty good reason nobody has fielded a new design VG combat aircraft for over 30 years now...
 
User avatar
spudh
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:28 am

Just about anything you want to postulate about an upgraded F-14 can be found here:

http://www.anft.net/f-14/

Swing wings still have aerodynamic advantages in some scenarios but the 5th gen design trade offs have fallen in favour of fixed wing. I would imagine that a variable sweep wing could only be stealthy at a specific sweep angle and the hinge point structure and joint at the wing would be very difficult to 'stealthify'.

The other major issue with updating the Tomcat would be the engine intakes. On the B-1B the stealth measures to shield the compressor fans for the podded engines were at the expense of mach 2.0 performance. There is much less room to do anything about shielding the fans on the F-14 than the B-1 and I'm not sure the Tomcat would make as much sense without the high speed capability. Take away its high speed and the Tomcat isn't much more than a better looking superbug,

BTW the F-14 already had IR capability. In its original incarnation in 1972 it was not very successful and was dropped on some of the later build blocks but the version fitted to the F-14D was allegedly extremely capable. Being linked into the AN/APG-71 I believe it was able to give mid course guidance to A2A missiles, so you are potentially looking at a passive guided missile shot back in 1990. I don't know if the F-14D ever went up against the F-117 or F-22 but it certainly had the potential to give stealth opposition a harder time than any of the other fighters in the US inventory at the time.
 
solarflyer22
Topic Author
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:06 am

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 7):

I remember reading somewhere that a very significant amount of the Tomcat's lift came from the pancake. By making a weapons bay between the engine nacelles you might be adversely effecting the aerodynamics.

That's correct. I have heard the same thing. I assumed you could retain some lift but I don't know.

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 7):
VG combat aircraft for over 30 years now...

Yeah, you know I thought about this just today as I was looking at the Panavia Tornado. Its funny that they came out not too far from one another but the Tornado is not a naval plane. Tomcat's design makes sense to me because it can perform low speed landings and perform down low in a dogfight. It could sweep back to fly out fast to defend the fleet against approaching bombers but I don't really know if the Tornado was designed with that in mind. I am thinking Tornado had swept wings for low level penetration and strike like the B-1.

Quoting spudh (Reply 8):
BTW the F-14 already had IR capability.

That's also true. I only included IR tracking because wikipedia said Gen 4.5 or 5 fighters had that feature. I still think if you upgraded Tomcat it could be at least as good as upgraded F-18, F-15/F16s. Looks like it maybe isn't easy as I thought though.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:41 am

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 7):
I remember reading somewhere that a very significant amount of the Tomcat's lift came from the pancake. By making a weapons bay between the engine nacelles you might be adversely effecting the aerodynamics.

Also bear in mind an upgraded Tomcat still has all the added weight and complexity that comes with the variable geometry wings. There has to be a pretty good reason nobody has fielded a new design VG combat aircraft for over 30 years now...

The F-14 was also a handful for the pilots if something went wrong. For example, afterburner take-offs from a carrier were prohibited in the versions powered by the GE F110 engines per the NATOPS because if an engine fails on launch, the jet would be uncontrollable. Single engined landings were also extremely difficult on a F-14, because of the asymmetrical thrust. At least one pilot had gone for a blue water landing (ejecting near the ship) after being unable to trap on several single-engine approaches.

The main issue is that the widely spaced engines on the F-14 caused a lot of yaw tendency with an engine out. This would then be greatly exaggerated in something heavy and high powered moving slow or very VERY fast, like with a F-14.

In general, not many in the Navy missed the F-14's departure. The F-14 was a handful for the pilots, and a maintenance nightmare. While the Super Hornet was way less capable, it was a easier aircraft to fly and a easier aircraft to take care of on the flight deck.
 
Legs
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:01 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
GE F110 engines per the NATOPS because if an engine fails on launch, the jet would be uncontrollable.

If that was the case with the GE engines, how bad was an engine out situation with the TF-30s?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:37 am

Quoting legs (Reply 11):
If that was the case with the GE engines, how bad was an engine out situation with the TF-30s?

Just as bad. All versions of the F-14 were extremely unforgiving to fly. Anytime you lost an engine in a F-14, you better have one handle on the ejection seat. At low altitudes with a high AoA, you were very lucky to recover.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:16 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 9):
Tomcat it could be at least as good as upgraded F-18, F-15/F16s. Looks like it maybe isn't easy as I thought though.

The problem with the F-14 wasn't how good or bad it was. Its problem was that even with the near infinite budgets of the USN, it was too expensive to own.
 
as739x
Posts: 5226
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:21 am

Not to start off topic, but

Quoting solarflyer22 (Thread starter):
This is a hypothetical question so bear with me as I just recently watched Top Gun for 87th time.

ONLY??? I'm disappointed

Quoting legs (Reply 1):
By the time you do all the structural mods to get all those things added on, you may as well have started from scratch

Agreed
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:39 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):

The F-14 was also a handful for the pilots if something went wrong. For example, afterburner take-offs from a carrier were prohibited in the versions powered by the GE F110 engines per the NATOPS because if an engine fails on launch, the jet would be uncontrollable

Do you have a source for this statement ?


I have seen the D version on documentaries launch with afterburners

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
In general, not many in the Navy missed the F-14's departure.

I think you are mistaken. The Navy lost a tremendous true long range all weather air to air and air to ground capability when the Tomcat left the fleet. The F18 (any version) does not come close to it's performance.


And Pilots loved flying it.


While it may have required a lot of maintenance, a complete upgrade of it's systems would have resolved that issue.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Ozair
Posts: 5374
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:13 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):

Do you have a source for this statement ?

F-14B NATOPS

http://info.publicintelligence.net/F14AAD-1.pdf

Page 7-20.

Afterburner takeoffs are limited to single−engine, minimum afterburner takeoffs, waveoffs, bolters, or catapult launches. Dual−engine afterburner and single−engine maximum afterburner takeoffs, waveoffs, bolters, or catapult launches are prohibited. Refer to Chapters 4 and 11.

It didn't take very long to find that. Perhaps next time you can take a few minutes and use the power of Google.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:47 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
While it may have required a lot of maintenance, a complete upgrade of it's systems would have resolved that issue.

The problem was that the F-14 became a platform in search of a job after the end of the Cold War. Coupled with the maintainability issues, all caused by the complexity of the systems and the limited production run, doomed the jet to an early retirement. The USN wasn't interested in investing millions or billions of dollars in a mid-life for a platform who's primary mission disappeared, and Congress also wasn't too keen on the same thing.

Notice how the USN was fairly quick in retiring other single mission aircraft where there another platform could do the job. Witness the fairly quick retirement of the A-6 and the S-3 from the USN air wing without replacement in favour of either completely dropping the capabilities or pushing the roles onto multi-role platforms.
 
solarflyer22
Topic Author
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:43 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Witness the fairly quick retirement of the A-6 and the S-3 from the USN air wing without replacement in favour of either completely dropping the capabilities or pushing the roles onto multi-role platforms.

Yeah, as a matter of fact I did notice that and I don't think the A-6 or S-3 were really maintenance hounds like the Tomcat was. I commented on the A-12 forum that the A-6 did not really have a true replacement. Even the Corsairs just kind of disappeared from the fleet. Its amazing how diverse the Navy carriers planes were at one point. You had everything from A4, F-4s all the way up to F-14.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:49 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 18):
Yeah, as a matter of fact I did notice that and I don't think the A-6 or S-3 were really maintenance hounds like the Tomcat was. I commented on the A-12 forum that the A-6 did not really have a true replacement. Even the Corsairs just kind of disappeared from the fleet. Its amazing how diverse the Navy carriers planes were at one point. You had everything from A4, F-4s all the way up to F-14.

And engines, parts, maintainers for each type. Now you have carriers floating around with a few flavours of Hornet. Each aircraft type had to be a purebred in its job because of the wide variety of threats. TImes changed, requirements changed. The USN has lost very little that it didnt want to lose. The variety of F/A-18 can perform nearly all USN fighter/bomber missions at levels needed for todays threat environment. The Super Hornet is not a Tomcat as much as a Tomcat is not a Blackbird, different requirements, different threats, different time in history.

The Tomcat was a hangar queen, high maintenance, but the USN needed a champ, and there was a time they were willing to put up with that to get the champ they needed. She did her job, and now the job is done.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:53 pm

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
The variety of F/A-18 can perform nearly all USN fighter/bomber missions at levels needed for todays threat environment.

Its a nice way of putting it. "We can´t do anything anymore what we could do 30 years ago, but what we can do is enough for todays environment" Marketing speech. When you just assume that no-one will make a serious attempt on your fleet units, why bother having that expensive navy in the first place? With the proliferation of rather high end anti-ship missiles i don´t see why the navy doesn´t need something like the F-14/AIM-54 to start thinning those out as far away from the ship as possible anymore. There are a shitload more nations that can loft 100+ ASM at a fleet than in the good old times with Ivan. With less carriers being available to the USN, no nuclear powered escorts left with their speed run capabilities for repositioning, i would rather suspect the average needed range for bombing missions to increase than to decrease.
Todays navy aviation is certainly much more cost efficient than the old "many types" aviation, but i am also pretty positive that a fleet carrier would carry more punch with more variety in its hangers. For prohibitive cost of course.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Oroka
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:33 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 20):
Its a nice way of putting it. "We can´t do anything anymore what we could do 30 years ago, but what we can do is enough for todays environment" Marketing speech.

While the potential is still out there, the staring match has ended, the commies blinked. The US forces, while not at cold war numbers and strength, is still vastly more powerful than anything out there, and unless something big changes, it will stay that way for quite a while.

The new challenger is obviously China, but China is being smart about it. They watched the Soviet Union try to out spend the greatest capitalist nation ever to exist... how did that work out for them? China, while having an ever stronger military, its main weapon is capitalism. It is slowly bleeding the US of the blood that makes it powerful. Money. Im pretty sure China will gladly keep sipping away the wealth until the US is a second rate power and cant afford to match China in military strength. Even if that takes 100 more years. Capitalism made the US great, and without some big change, it will make it weak. Denial of resources is a viable and effective tactic for war.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:32 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 20):
With the proliferation of rather high end anti-ship missiles i don´t see why the navy doesn´t need something like the F-14/AIM-54 to start thinning those out as far away from the ship as possible anymore.

The problem is that the proliferation you speak of is already matched by the increase in the USN's ability to defend itself against such threats. When the F-14 was deployed, the fleet had very limited saturation defence capabilities. With how many AEGIS equipped ships the USN has in its inventory, plus the fact that the bulk of the USN fleet is VLS equipped, the fleet is better able to defend itself, at a longer range than before.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 20):
There are a shitload more nations that can loft 100+ ASM at a fleet than in the good old times with Ivan.

Actually, that number remains the same, which is only one, and barely so. The problem is that many nations lack the launch platforms necessary to launch a massive, coordinated strike against a carrier fleet. The Soviets had their SNA strike regiments, which had about 60 Backfire and Badger bombers supported by Bear strike pathfinders, and that was considered 'sufficient' for a successful strike against a carrier group. The Soviets during the Cold War allocated one SNA regiment against each USN carrier group.

The AS4/6 on a Badger or Backfire in regimental strength backed with Bears in the recon role were and are formidable. In a straight-forward engagement, the issue would have been "in doubt" at best. If a strike regiment caught a carrier by surprise it would have been curtains for a carrier group. An alerted carrier would have a better than even chance of surviving, but probable losses would have been severe. But the Regiment running through fighter opposition to their launch points and then getting back out would have taken crippling losses. They would have not been able to mount a second strike and would have been effectively destroyed if not annihilated. If a missile trap is set so that the regiment is climbing to launch altitude over a missile ship it doesn't know about until the radar comes up and missiles start impacting, the fight will be over before it barely starts. So it was critical for the target to be identified and located prior to the regiment being committed. Hence, the Soviets also made significant investments in their reconnaissance capabilities, with large numbers of Bear recon aircraft, and large investments in satellites and listening posts to try to find and identify carrier groups. Even then, many carrier groups slipped through the cracks during the many exercises the USN would hold. The USN is very adept at being able to hide their carrier groups at sea from detection and identification.

Coupled with the large numbers of cruise missile carrying submarines, the Soviets were the only ones that were capable of launching a large enough attack that could overwhelm a carrier's air defence. No one else is close.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:53 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
The problem is that the proliferation you speak of is already matched by the increase in the USN's ability to defend itself against such threats. When the F-14 was deployed, the fleet had very limited saturation defence capabilities. With how many AEGIS equipped ships the USN has in its inventory, plus the fact that the bulk of the USN fleet is VLS equipped, the fleet is better able to defend itself, at a longer range than before.

Engagement Ranges vs. Sea skimmers are hardly limited by weapons kinetics. The New Threat Upgrade was in the 80s, long time before the F-14 retired. The Cooperative Engagement Capability is sort of cool though, but still, any item in the ships magazine is only available in a limited and finite number, that might be not so impressive with an offensive tasking as they need room for cruise missiles. Having the USN safe, but toothless, is as close to a mission kill you can get w/o shooting. Plus fleets will need more SM3, useless against aircraft and sea skimmers, to defend against ballistic ASM. And a few prayers that China doesn´t start selling those wholesale.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
Actually, that number remains the same, which is only one, and barely so. The problem is that many nations lack the launch platforms necessary to launch a massive, coordinated strike against a carrier fleet.

Well, attacking and destroying a USN CBG in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, after punching through a credible BARCAP between the UK and Iceland and doing all that basically without fighter support is not exactly a current mission profile. Countries able to loft 100+ ASM at a fleet not in the middle of NATO Airbases 500nm off their coast are a some, and with their people trained up they might pull off a 2nd attack before the fleet can return the favor with an Alpha strike. I have doubts that cruise missiles can take a hardened airfield offline for a significant amount of time, and it is unlikely that there will be just "a" airfield.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
An alerted carrier would have a better than even chance of surviving, but probable losses would have been severe

Its all about air superiority, if the Soviets managed to get it partially upon approach and return, they might be able to get most of their bombers back in one piece. They would fire at the brink of the carriers air defenses, fighters would have been busy to go after the missiles and i don´t see any US naval fighter aircraft catch up to a Tu-22M or Tu-160 that kicks in burners and has a head start retreating into a massive jamming environment. I would think they had an even money chance to clear the northern part of the North Atlantic of NATO naval units, forcing them further south and lengthening the NATO supply lines across the pond, which was all the mission they had after all. Not even the sovs would have spend those amounts of money to fly suicide missions.
They would have been able to do so until the Bears & RORSATs where gone.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
Even then, many carrier groups slipped through the cracks during the many exercises the USN would hold.

And you know for a fact that the Soviets didn´t see them and not just acted like they didn´t to deny the NATO information regarding their capabilities how exactly?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
The USN is very adept at being able to hide their carrier groups at sea from detection and identification.

In the middle of the ocean, yes. Close to shore, no. Also more and more nations have or plan recon satellites. Avoiding one is an operational inconvenience, avoiding two might get you to swear from time to time, avoiding three for any length of time would be a miracle. Germany with its 5 radar satellites can maybe track 2 CBG indefinitely. That whole program was just 1 Billion US$. Peanuts.

To make it clear, i am not disagreeing with you in whole, i think a USN CBG is very capable of defending itself, i just think those capabilities would improve with a modern equivalent of an F14 Tomcat, but more a shipborne version of the Raptor than a revamped F-14.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:22 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 23):
Plus fleets will need more SM3, useless against aircraft and sea skimmers, to defend against ballistic ASM. And a few prayers that China doesn´t start selling those wholesale.

Anti-ship ballistic missiles are not as serious as a threat as what most people think it is. The Navy admirals don't think it will be a game changer. The main issue is that you still need live recon that can identify the target conclusively and provide the targeting information from the time the missile is launched to when the missile can provide its own guidance, and the USN will just go out and bag whatever unit you send to find the carrier, be it a surface ship or a recon aircraft. That will be measured in hours, and whatever recon unit you send is more than likely radiating emissions that will be picked up and dealt with. Furthermore, any electronic countermeasure which can disrupt communication between it and offboard sensor platform, or interfere with what its onboard sensors can see, will defeat it. Unless the Chinese plan on fitting high yield nukes on their missiles and randomly bombarding the Pacific Ocean to keep a carrier group away (which would invite a response from the entire US nuclear arsenal), these anti-ship ballistic missiles will be useless without any proper recon assets, and the Chinese don't have the assets or the numbers to do the job.

In the time it takes for the missile to get the targeting communicated to it, lift off, travel the distance, and reach a terminal maneuver, the carrier will have moved a very significant distance at 32-35 knots...several miles. In that sense, the speed of the moving target matters, and it matters a lot, hence the need for accurate and real time targeting information. And until they test anti-ship ballistic missiles to see if they can in fact re-acquire that target after re-entry, and then maneuver to hit... the rest is academic.

In order to hit a maneuvering target at sea, with all of the weather conditions, atmospheric conditions, barometric pressures, humidity, etc. that exist out over the ocean, and against a maneuvering, tens of thousands of ton target vessel on the ocean, will require them to ultimately test it in that environment if they want to ensure that it will do what they want.

They have to do it first in a completely clean environment hitting that maneuvering target at sea... that would be proof of concept. They have not done so as of this time.

Then they have to do it in environments that mimic the EW, anti-air, anti-targeting, etc. conditions they would face in real life. That's called operational testing. They have not conducted any operational testing at this time.

When the Chinese have managed to do both of these tests, and do so successfully, then we can take notice. There is no doubt that they have performed computer simulations and preliminary static testing...but those too are only preliminary to the real world test to verify computer simulations. To get it right, it will take numerous tests.

Just imagine all of the targeting, surveillance, recon, satellite, sub-surface, airborne, surface sensors, etc. that have to come together to make this work, and all of the software to tie it together. Then the propulsion and particularly onboard guidance and counter measures they will try to build into it. All of it has to work together. The only way to know for sure it is doing that, and has the capability to actually hit a moving ship 1,000 or 1,5000 km away is to actually do it. In numerous ways the C4ISR capabilities required for a anti-ship ballistic missile are even more daunting than those necessary for a carrier strike at sea scenario. There is no way of reliably knowing it is going to work without testing and improving it through numerous such tests... which have simply not happened to date.

In order to fire a ballistic missile into a test area somewhere in the Ocean, they will have to announce the test and have other vessels stand clear. The would create an exclusion zone so they do not accidentally sink a cargo vessel or some other vessel by accident.

That type of ballistic missile test, over the ocean will be detected and tracked. Heck, a long range test like that over land will be detected and tracked. Any time someone tests or fires a medium to long ballistic missile; every nation in the world will know about it in a few minutes.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 23):
Its all about air superiority, if the Soviets managed to get it partially upon approach and return, they might be able to get most of their bombers back in one piece. They would fire at the brink of the carriers air defenses, fighters would have been busy to go after the missiles and i don´t see any US naval fighter aircraft catch up to a Tu-22M or Tu-160 that kicks in burners and has a head start retreating into a massive jamming environment.

An alerted carrier has a lot of options it can take to defend itself, depending on the amount of heads up given. With two hours warning for example, a carrier group could dispatch a surface SAG missile trap 60nm down the threat axis, station the CAP Outer Air Battle Grid, put an AEGIS equipped decoy group stationary, and run another 60nm down range and off axis in silent mode. Then the SNA regiment locates a likely target at the expected point, runs into a missile trap, fighter grid, and a target that can defend itself without ever threatening the carrier. Game over for the SNA regiment as it is now under attack from below via a missile trap, and from the CAP.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 23):
In the middle of the ocean, yes. Close to shore, no. Also more and more nations have or plan recon satellites. Avoiding one is an operational inconvenience, avoiding two might get you to swear from time to time, avoiding three for any length of time would be a miracle.

How about operating in the North Pacific Ocean 200nm away from a Soviet Naval Aviation airfield and within range of Petropavlovsk and the SSBN bastion in the Sea of Okhotsk without the Soviets even knowing a carrier group was in the area for almost a week, while conducting mirror image air strikes? And this was back in the 1980's. Imagine if it was an actual shooting war; the only way the Soviets would have realized a carrier group was in the area was after they had picked themselves out of the rubble after the first strike.

Recon satellites are limited in that they have known orbits, are predictable, and their sensing capabilities known. So, to counter, the track is varied, weather is sought out to hide in when vulnerable, blending into sea lanes (while staying out of visual detection range of ships) and such techniques. Broad surveillance systems are known so any detection method is countered either by denying sensor information, misleading, or providing expected results consistent with something else. Deceptive lighting is used at night so that the obvious "blacked out warship" is instead thought to be a merchant or cruise liner. ESM systems can be mislead by either operating in complete EMCOM silence, or by operating radars that are identical to commercially available sets. Turn count masking is used by the ships. Aircraft maintenance on the carrier and other helo equipped ships is limited to prevent transmissions.

The thing is, a carrier group's ships never operate very close to another. Deceptive formations are used dispersed over a broad area to ensure any detection system does not see the classic "bullseye" formation made famous in countless Public Affairs shots. Sometimes, a carrier group's ships will rarely, if ever see each other while on operations. They will operate far enough from each other to prevent attention being drawn, but close enough to provide mutual support.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 23):
Germany with its 5 radar satellites can maybe track 2 CBG indefinitely. That whole program was just 1 Billion US$. Peanuts.

The Soviets had 30+ RORSAT's in orbit once and they could not track all of the USN's carrier groups around the world.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 23):
To make it clear, i am not disagreeing with you in whole, i think a USN CBG is very capable of defending itself, i just think those capabilities would improve with a modern equivalent of an F14 Tomcat, but more a shipborne version of the Raptor than a revamped F-14.

The Navy's getting that; it's called F-35C.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:16 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Anti-ship ballistic missiles are not as serious as a threat as what most people think it is. The Navy admirals don't think it will be a game changer.

You are correct. You still need a missile to deal with them though, and those are freaking expansive, use up space for four ESSM and are useless for all non-ballistic threat.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
The only way to know for sure it is doing that, and has the capability to actually hit a moving ship 1,000 or 1,5000 km away is to actually do it. In numerous ways the C4ISR capabilities required for a anti-ship ballistic missile are even more daunting than those necessary for a carrier strike at sea scenario.

How does an attack with 20 minutes lead time from target ID to warhead impact require more C4ISR capabilities as an coordinated air strike with upwards of 100 Bombers, Fighter, Tankers, ECM and Recon birds?
If the hardware works, it makes the task a hell lot easier. If not anything else, than by simply not needing to track the carrier group for hours without getting your ass shot off.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
An alerted carrier has a lot of options it can take to defend itself, depending on the amount of heads up given. With two hours warning for example, a carrier group could dispatch a surface SAG missile trap 60nm down the threat axis,

So the SAM trap will be about 200nm away from the Soviets at their nearest point of approach, well out of range for their SAMs, with ASMs flying over their heads at 15nm altitude with Mach 4, where many of their missiles don´t have the kinetic energy to intercept. And only covering a small portion of the potential approach routes. But they would for sure make a good decoy, dying a quick death if they draw a volley meant for a whole CBG as they don´t have enough missiles to stand a chance. Might also very well be outside burn through distance vs. Soviet ECM.
Putting a CAP up 200nm of the carrier is also a gamble vs. fastmovers that might just come from somewhere else.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
How about operating in the North Pacific Ocean 200nm away from a Soviet Naval Aviation airfield and within range of Petropavlovsk and the SSBN bastion in the Sea of Okhotsk without the Soviets even knowing a carrier group was in the area for almost a week, while conducting mirror image air strikes?

Nice little urban legend.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
The thing is, a carrier group's ships never operate very close to another. Deceptive formations are used dispersed over a broad area to ensure any detection system does not see the classic "bullseye" formation made famous in countless Public Affairs shots. Sometimes, a carrier group's ships will rarely, if ever see each other while on operations. They will operate far enough from each other to prevent attention being drawn, but close enough to provide mutual support.

That was true until sometimes in the late 70s, when someone had the idea to fast forward radar tapes.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
The Soviets had 30+ RORSAT's in orbit once and they could not track all of the USN's carrier groups around the world.

And you know that for a fact why exactly? Because you worked for GRU or were an admiral in their navy and have access to the full information? Russians invented secrecy and deception.....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
The Navy's getting that; it's called F-35C.

How would the Soviets have loved that plane, their Tu-22M and Tu-160 having 100% certainty that they can disengage at will by simply being faster and not having to worry about being intercepted on the return leg....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):

Recon satellites are limited in that they have known orbits, are predictable, and their sensing capabilities known

Their sensing capabilities are estimated, not known. When you are on a quasi stationary target (aka a ship) you might very well know exactly where the satellites are at any given moment, you still don´t have the speed to avoid 3 for long. After all there are just few ports where CBGs form and leave, finding a carrier on an ocean ain´t easy, tracking one is just a matter of diligence.

In the real world i would assume the Soviets would have waited to get a location fix by either submarine, intelligence, Bears or RORSAT and plan the attack to be covered by one or more Rorsats plus optical bird, if cloud cover permits, for real time data, use their knowledge about NATO satellite orbits to sneak the attack out to minimize raid warning and loft their AS-4 in at maximum Range, with a decent chance of remaining even under the radar horizon of the Hawkeyes. Each hit will be a kill, only a carrier or battleship might survive one disabled, Phalanx getting one of those on the short final might save the target, but still has a good chance of disabling the vessel or its electronics at least for a while.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Oroka
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:00 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 25):
How would the Soviets have loved that plane, their Tu-22M and Tu-160 having 100% certainty that they can disengage at will by simply being faster and not having to worry about being intercepted on the return leg....

And if the Soviets were still around, the sky would be filled with F-22s and some navalized equivalent. The JSF would have probably taken a different direction, but it would be a secondary filler, the low in the mix. Thankfully Ivan's out of the superpower business.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:10 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 25):
How does an attack with 20 minutes lead time from target ID to warhead impact require more C4ISR capabilities as an coordinated air strike with upwards of 100 Bombers, Fighter, Tankers, ECM and Recon birds?
If the hardware works, it makes the task a hell lot easier. If not anything else, than by simply not needing to track the carrier group for hours without getting your ass shot off.

Because to coordinate a bomber strike, the bombers would already be in the air and would be communicating directly with the strike pathfinders. The chain of communication is much shorter, and is a method that has been extensively tested and used.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 25):
Putting a CAP up 200nm of the carrier is also a gamble vs. fastmovers that might just come from somewhere else.

You don't get it do you? I place a SAM trap along the expected route your forces will take, under complete EMCOM silence. This is then backed up and coordinated with a CAP, which is all coordinated by an E-2. The E-2 will coordinate the defence, and adjust everyone's position as necessary to coordinate the strike. I then place another SAG in the place where you think my carrier is located, and run my carrier in the opposite direction from the threat axis.

And the carrier will still be able to reinforce the CAP or expand it by launching more fighters as necessary.

The thing is, in order for your SNA regiment to hope to even send missiles in the right direction, the strike pathfinders need to use their radars to transmit, and I will know where your strike pathfinders are, and destroy or mislead them before you have a chance to actually find the carrier. If your Bear recon aircraft don't turn on their radars, they will have to search the ocean visually, 10sqnm at a time.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 25):
Nice little urban legend.

It actually happened during the NORPAC 82 exercises. I can also direct you to someone that has also served in the USN for 20 years and served on 15 carriers.

And, also, the official ship histories of the carriers involved (USS Midway and USS Enterprise) bears this out. The Enterprise received the most attention as she was operating openly. Midway wasn't.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 25):
And you know that for a fact why exactly? Because you worked for GRU or were an admiral in their navy and have access to the full information? Russians invented secrecy and deception.....

The fact that the Soviets didn't know that USS Midway was conducting freedom of the seas operations in the Northern Pacific until the USN deliberately tipped their hands?

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 25):
In the real world i would assume the Soviets would have waited to get a location fix by either submarine, intelligence, Bears or RORSAT and plan the attack to be covered by one or more Rorsats plus optical bird, if cloud cover permits, for real time data, use their knowledge about NATO satellite orbits to sneak the attack out to minimize raid warning and loft their AS-4 in at maximum Range, with a decent chance of remaining even under the radar horizon of the Hawkeyes.

Ok, I will counter with my fighters bagging your Bear recon and pathfinder aircraft if they radiate any emissions, with my ships operating in EMCOM silence, and your subs every time they poke their masts out to transmit, I put a S-3 on top of them to keep them down. With your satellites, because I know their orbits and their capabilities, I can move my ships out of the way, or provide a false target to you, or blend in with the general sea lanes to hide among neutrals.

To add even more confusion, I can intercept your Bear recon aircraft at extended range off-axis and move the carrier at high speed in the opposite direction.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:17 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
Because to coordinate a bomber strike, the bombers would already be in the air and would be communicating directly with the strike pathfinders. The chain of communication is much shorter, and is a method that has been extensively tested and used.

Coordinating a strike begins when the planes are well on the ground. Stating that firing a missile at a target that will hit it in 10 minutes from take of is more complicated that coordinating a strike or 100+ aircraft several hours out is just plain ridiculous. If one of the Pilots in the Bomber strike calls his target when he is about to fire, the ASBM will still beat his missiles to the punch.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
You don't get it do you? I place a SAM trap along the expected route your forces will take,

Ok, you math genius, explain how with 2 hours raid warning (your example) your SAM trap gets 300 miles down the thread axis before the bombers fire. Do you have any secret knowledge about USN escorts being able to go 150 knots?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
under complete EMCOM silence. This is then backed up and coordinated with a CAP, which is all coordinated by an E-2. The E-2 will coordinate the defence, and adjust everyone's position as necessary to coordinate the strike. I then place another SAG in the place where you think my carrier is located, and run my carrier in the opposite direction from the threat axis.

Ok, so you obviously have the ability to make your ships disappear and reappear where you like them to be or it least you can reposition your 30 knots ship faster than the Soviets their 600 knot Bombers, no, your fleet is also capable to track targets and coordinate defense under complete EMCOM... you know, without any Radios and Radars ..... impressive, is the Hawkeye using flags or light signals to talk to the fighter pilots?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
And the carrier will still be able to reinforce the CAP or expand it by launching more fighters as necessary.

Of course they can, if you completely ignore that the the Bombers can fire their missiles outside even the Hawkeyes radar horizon that is. Based on what will the CAP be expanded? By not having anything on the radar?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
The thing is, in order for your SNA regiment to hope to even send missiles in the right direction, the strike pathfinders need to use their radars to transmit, and I will know where your strike pathfinders are, and destroy or mislead them before you have a chance to actually find the carrier. If your Bear recon aircraft don't turn on their radars, they will have to search the ocean visually, 10sqnm at a time.

Because there is only one Bear, and of course, because everyone in uniform w/o a US flag on it acts completely stupid? A bear would turn its radar off the moment they have a possible identification of the CBG, go below the radar horizon (that still is 10k feet or so above the sea at relevant distances vs. an E2 in 25k feet orbit) and run. Even at their low speed that makes the volume your fighters have have to search enormous and gives the bear a chance, only a small one, to get away clean. At the same time a 2nd bear rises over the radar horizon at a very different location, takes a snap, and runs. Repeat. The Russians could trade a lot of bears for a carrier group. Even if you get every single bear coming close to your CBG, you still accomplish nothing, they still develop a target track.
Oh, and in case of an ASBM the warhead strikes the target before a 100nm CAP can even get to the bear relaying target information....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
It actually happened during the NORPAC 82 exercises. I can also direct you to someone that has also served in the USN for 20 years and served on 15 carriers.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):

And, also, the official ship histories of the carriers involved (USS Midway and USS Enterprise) bears this out. The Enterprise received the most attention as she was operating openly. Midway wasn't.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
The fact that the Soviets didn't know that USS Midway was conducting freedom of the seas operations in the Northern Pacific until the USN deliberately tipped their hands?

Damn, i sure hope the US military is not that naive. If your enemy figures out what you want them to see and what you don´t, they have to show you the reaction you want to see because its the only way to deny information about their own sensing capabilities. That kind of deception is one of the oldest in the book.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
Ok, I will counter with my fighters bagging your Bear recon and pathfinder aircraft if they radiate any emissions, with my ships operating in EMCOM silence

And just for kicks i throw in a tanker and a couple of fighters to ambush your fighters trying to catch the bear. Plus a RORSAT is on your CBG, so you can kill all the bears you want. Oh, in case you didn´t know even shooting down a recon bird is giving information to the enemy. ...

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
With your satellites, because I know their orbits and their capabilities, I can move my ships out of the way, or provide a false target to you, or blend in with the general sea lanes to hide among neutrals.

You are not getting away from a constellation with 3 or more satellites. You don´t have the speed. Since any ship on the north Atlantic would have been fair game, there is not much in the way of hiding either. And since in time of war they would all be carrying supplies desperately needed in Europe doing so might save the unit, but still kill the mission.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
and your subs every time they poke their masts out to transmit, I put a S-3 on top of them to keep them down.

On a directed VHF burst transmission from a low side lobes antennae? If you can track, identify and localize that, they can track, identify and localize the tasking order to your S3 too. Attacking any sub that peaks up his head is also giving information to the enemy. Oh, and the message is already of at that time of course. You are just shooting the messengers, the message is still out....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
To add even more confusion, I can intercept your Bear recon aircraft at extended range off-axis and move the carrier at high speed in the opposite direction.

And how exactly do you do that without radars or radios? You can not have it both ways at the same time....

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:07 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 28):
Ok, you math genius, explain how with 2 hours raid warning (your example) your SAM trap gets 300 miles down the thread axis before the bombers fire. Do you have any secret knowledge about USN escorts being able to go 150 knots?

You misread the original statement:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
An alerted carrier has a lot of options it can take to defend itself, depending on the amount of heads up given. With two hours warning for example, a carrier group could dispatch a surface SAG missile trap 60nm down the threat axis, station the CAP Outer Air Battle Grid, put an AEGIS equipped decoy group stationary, and run another 60nm down range and off axis in silent mode. Then the SNA regiment locates a likely target at the expected point, runs into a missile trap, fighter grid, and a target that can defend itself without ever threatening the carrier. Game over for the SNA regiment as it is now under attack from below via a missile trap, and from the CAP.

Re-read it again and tell me where I said 300 miles.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 28):
Ok, so you obviously have the ability to make your ships disappear and reappear where you like them to be or it least you can reposition your 30 knots ship faster than the Soviets their 600 knot Bombers, no, your fleet is also capable to track targets and coordinate defense under complete EMCOM... you know, without any Radios and Radars ..... impressive, is the Hawkeye using flags or light signals to talk to the fighter pilots?

The E-2 will be using its radio's, but one can disguise or mislead where the carrier is, for example, the E-2 could instead orbit over a false data point (such as a neutral, or even a escort).

The capacity the USN has to operate in a passive mode while receiving the complete tactical picture from off-ship has been expanded and refined to an extraordinary degree. All of the vulnerabilities to detection of the force are also its strengths in tracking everyone else. The complete range of overhead and other sensors are downlinked to every ship and many aircraft. If one system in the USN or Space detects a contact, everyone receives it. One could, with training and discipline, sail a complete 6 month deployment and merely listen to all of the other sensors, and strike without warning if need be.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 28):
Of course they can, if you completely ignore that the the Bombers can fire their missiles outside even the Hawkeyes radar horizon that is. Based on what will the CAP be expanded? By not having anything on the radar?

Except a E-2 can see just as far as the AS-4 Kitchen and the AS-6 Kingfish missiles. And if I position the E-2 far enough around the carrier, and use multiple E-2's in the air, I can extend the sight picture for hundreds of miles.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 28):
Because there is only one Bear, and of course, because everyone in uniform w/o a US flag on it acts completely stupid? A bear would turn its radar off the moment they have a possible identification of the CBG, go below the radar horizon (that still is 10k feet or so above the sea at relevant distances vs. an E2 in 25k feet orbit) and run.

Couple of issues:
1. A Bear without radar is a Bear searching visually 10 square nautical miles at a time. Visually. That's a very slow search.
2. The Bear will need to get positive identification that whatever radar target it spots is a carrier. For all the Bear knows, it might actually be the carrier, but it might also be a civilian merchant ship, a neutral, or something else that's not important, or it may even be a friendly. Therefore, the Bear recon aircraft needs to get closer to verify the target, and by then, if the Bear recon aircraft is a threat, I can send a fighter up and kill it, or I can come in off-axis and bag the strike pathfinders and present a false target.
3. I can also give you a false contact reference. If a searching aircraft is intercepted they can draw an operational radius of previously observed intercepts and conclude the carrier is in that area. That allows a concentrated search. Now if one had deliberately intercepted him at an extended range and then moved the carrier at high speed in the other direction the search effort is concentrated at the wrong point.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 28):
Even at their low speed that makes the volume your fighters have have to search enormous and gives the bear a chance, only a small one, to get away clean. At the same time a 2nd bear rises over the radar horizon at a very different location, takes a snap, and runs. Repeat. The Russians could trade a lot of bears for a carrier group. Even if you get every single bear coming close to your CBG, you still accomplish nothing, they still develop a target track.
Oh, and in case of an ASBM the warhead strikes the target before a 100nm CAP can even get to the bear relaying target information....

Even if you do that, you need to verify that the radar target is the carrier. Both aircraft need to get closer, or have more certainty that whatever they picked up is the carrier.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 28):
Damn, i sure hope the US military is not that naive. If your enemy figures out what you want them to see and what you don´t, they have to show you the reaction you want to see because its the only way to deny information about their own sensing capabilities. That kind of deception is one of the oldest in the book.

It's training for the USN, and they weigh any training that's done close to a potential adversary very closely to monitor their responses (i.e. what are their tactics if they respond and what can we learn about the opponent and how they operate) to make sure that they receive the most benefit out of that training.

The Soviets did the same thing as well in the Arctic, sending bombers to probe NORAD's air defence network.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 28):
You are not getting away from a constellation with 3 or more satellites. You don´t have the speed. Since any ship on the north Atlantic would have been fair game, there is not much in the way of hiding either. And since in time of war they would all be carrying supplies desperately needed in Europe doing so might save the unit, but still kill the mission.

I do have the random and dynamic option. Satellites only present information as to what's happening at a particular snap shot in time. That information may well be out of date by the time it reaches the launch platforms and of limited usefulness for any actual targeting purposes.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 28):
On a directed VHF burst transmission from a low side lobes antennae? If you can track, identify and localize that, they can track, identify and localize the tasking order to your S3 too. Attacking any sub that peaks up his head is also giving information to the enemy. Oh, and the message is already of at that time of course. You are just shooting the messengers, the message is still out....

However, you still need to maintain the track for a successful engagement. A submarine poking it's mast up needs to be able to track and transmit targeting data until the launch platform is able to launch its weapons.

FYI, most of the details on tactics is still considered OPSEC and thus classified. You may have the questions, but if you don't have the security clearance, you won't get the information no matter what. What I have done is to try to give you a somewhat top level big picture of how things are done. But if you want more information that's not classified, I can direct you to sites and people that know a lot more and can give you more information that can be released. However, I don't think you fully understand what's being discussed here, as your responses are extremely naive and elementary in nature.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:29 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
Re-read it again and tell me where I said 300 miles.

I said they fire their missiles 300nm out, you said they will be over a SAM trap, i said the SAM trap will be 250nm away from the bombers, you insisted the SAM trap is under the bombers, therefore you said they can move 300nm in two hours.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
The E-2 will be using its radio's, but one can disguise or mislead where the carrier is, for example, the E-2 could instead orbit over a false data point (such as a neutral, or even a escort).

Where ever the E2 is, it is not far away from the carrier, as it can not cover inbound routes if it strays too far off. At 150-175nm distance from the fleet it won´t be able to see seaskimmers before they hit the fleet. Switching an E2 Radar on tells the enemy where to look with its satellites.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
and use multiple E-2's in the air,

How long to you plan to keep multible E-2s up with the four you are having? AWACS staging out of the continental US or the UK would offer much better coverage with a longer ranging Radar.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
Except a E-2 can see just as far as the AS-4 Kitchen and the AS-6 Kingfish missiles

I never said it couldn´t, i said the bombers can get their missiles on the way below the E-2s Radar horizon and therefore you can not vector in any fighters to intercept. Even if you saw them during a pop up maneuver to acquire targets, you still can not intercept them unless you accidentally happen to have a fighter in the close vicinity. Distance and speed do not permit it.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
1. A Bear without radar is a Bear searching visually 10 square nautical miles at a time. Visually. That's a very slow search.

Have you ever looked out of a plane at night over the ocean? On a good night, and you can pick the night for your attack, you can see the wake of a ship very very very far out of your flight path.
And one bear turning its radar on will only force your hand and it is more than unlikely, in fact almost impossible, to get to the bear before he gets a radio message off.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
Therefore, the Bear recon aircraft needs to get closer to verify the target, and by then, if the Bear recon aircraft is a threat,

If a bear is shot down in proximity of a group of ships, you know you have a valid target, and can fire your missiles. Those will go for the large targets first, either getting your carrier or the most important cargo ships, the big ones. The seeker heads are active/passive, so they can be programmed to prioritize targets carrying an air defense radars. Mission failure for the CBG vs. partial success for the attacking force.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):

It's training for the USN, and they weigh any training that's done close to a potential adversary very closely to monitor their responses (i.e. what are their tactics if they respond and what can we learn about the opponent and how they operate) to make sure that they receive the most benefit out of that training.

The Soviets did the same thing as well in the Arctic, sending bombers to probe NORAD's air defence network.

While that statement is interesting, it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. There is no reason to believe the Soviets would reveal any information beyond what the USN was expecting and show their sensing capabilities. Both sides knew very well that the other side wanted to develop intel by watching the enemy during its training and both went great length to act in a deceptive matter. Again, Russians invented secrecy and deception.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):

I do have the random and dynamic option. Satellites only present information as to what's happening at a particular snap shot in time. That information may well be out of date by the time it reaches the launch platforms and of limited usefulness for any actual targeting purposes.

Doesn´t change the fact that you can not avoid three satellites and you are aware that recon satellites don´t drop film capsules these days anymore, are you? Even in the 80s they where realtime .... even if relayed via voice traffic with multiple station in between that is what... 2 minutes? Your CBG on a speed run travels a whole mile during that time. Irrelevant to an inbound attack.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
However, you still need to maintain the track for a successful engagement.

And with that in mind the Soviets developed their ASM to attack an area and pick their own targets instead of needing up to date information.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
FYI, most of the details on tactics is still considered OPSEC and thus classified.

Seriously, you are pulling the "i know more than you, and therefore i am right" bit? Even if you had access to all that classified information, which i don´t believe, you still would not have that information from the other side. Planning a military operation knowing that you know more about your own capabilities than the enemy does, while assuming at the same time to know everything about the enemy is probably the safest way to lose.
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:48 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
I said they fire their missiles 300nm out, you said they will be over a SAM trap, i said the SAM trap will be 250nm away from the bombers, you insisted the SAM trap is under the bombers, therefore you said they can move 300nm in two hours.

You are deliberately misconstruing the statements being made. This is exactly what I said:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
An alerted carrier has a lot of options it can take to defend itself, depending on the amount of heads up given. With two hours warning for example, a carrier group could dispatch a surface SAG missile trap 60nm down the threat axis, station the CAP Outer Air Battle Grid, put an AEGIS equipped decoy group stationary, and run another 60nm down range and off axis in silent mode. Then the SNA regiment locates a likely target at the expected point, runs into a missile trap, fighter grid, and a target that can defend itself without ever threatening the carrier. Game over for the SNA regiment as it is now under attack from below via a missile trap, and from the CAP.

I did not say 300nm out, I did not say 300nm out. I said 60nm out. You chose to deliberately take that statement and change it for your own purposes.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
Where ever the E2 is, it is not far away from the carrier, as it can not cover inbound routes if it strays too far off. At 150-175nm distance from the fleet it won´t be able to see seaskimmers before they hit the fleet. Switching an E2 Radar on tells the enemy where to look with its satellites.

A carrier carries multiple E-2's, anywhere from 4-6 E-2's at any given time. In an alerted scenario, the carrier will have as many E-2's in the air to provide as much sensor information as possible and cover all relevant threat axis.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
How long to you plan to keep multible E-2s up with the four you are having? AWACS staging out of the continental US or the UK would offer much better coverage with a longer ranging Radar.

4-6 E-2's. And they have a 6 hour endurance. A carrier could very easily keep 2 aloft at all times, with the rest easily made ready at short notice.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
I never said it couldn´t, i said the bombers can get their missiles on the way below the E-2s Radar horizon and therefore you can not vector in any fighters to intercept. Even if you saw them during a pop up maneuver to acquire targets, you still can not intercept them unless you accidentally happen to have a fighter in the close vicinity. Distance and speed do not permit it.

FYI, the E-2's AN/APS-145 radar has over the horizon capabilities. It will be able to see over the horizon fairly well.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
Have you ever looked out of a plane at night over the ocean? On a good night, and you can pick the night for your attack, you can see the wake of a ship very very very far out of your flight path.
And one bear turning its radar on will only force your hand and it is more than unlikely, in fact almost impossible, to get to the bear before he gets a radio message off.

You will be very lucky to see a ship at night in the typical weather in either the North Pacific or North Atlantic.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
If a bear is shot down in proximity of a group of ships, you know you have a valid target, and can fire your missiles. Those will go for the large targets first, either getting your carrier or the most important cargo ships, the big ones. The seeker heads are active/passive, so they can be programmed to prioritize targets carrying an air defense radars. Mission failure for the CBG vs. partial success for the attacking force.

Ok, how about if I shoot down your strike pathfinder in proximity to a bunch of neutral ships? Since as you say, you have a valid target, you've now sunk or damaged a number of neutral ships, and you now have a foreign and public relations nightmare on your hands. If you were the commander of the Soviet forces involved, I suspect you will be very swiftly be removed from your post.

Therefore, it is KEY that you properly identify the target.

And regarding the radars; depends on the EMCOM state of the ships involved. As I said earlier:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Deceptive lighting is used at night so that the obvious "blacked out warship" is instead thought to be a merchant or cruise liner. ESM systems can be mislead by either operating in complete EMCOM silence, or by operating radars that are identical to commercially available sets. Turn count masking is used by the ships. Aircraft maintenance on the carrier and other helo equipped ships is limited to prevent transmissions.
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
While that statement is interesting, it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. There is no reason to believe the Soviets would reveal any information beyond what the USN was expecting and show their sensing capabilities. Both sides knew very well that the other side wanted to develop intel by watching the enemy during its training and both went great length to act in a deceptive matter. Again, Russians invented secrecy and deception.

Both sides know how to carefully provoke the other side to elicit a response. Both sides will then carefully analyse the response, and gather quite a bit of information from that response.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
Doesn´t change the fact that you can not avoid three satellites and you are aware that recon satellites don´t drop film capsules these days anymore, are you? Even in the 80s they where realtime .... even if relayed via voice traffic with multiple station in between that is what... 2 minutes? Your CBG on a speed run travels a whole mile during that time. Irrelevant to an inbound attack.

The problem is how fast can a response be provided, and how fast can a launch platform react.

Assuming the Soviets had the ability to data-link their satellites in real-time to their launch platforms (which they didn't), the information provided would not be accurate enough to point a weapon at someone. At very best, you may have a general location to start looking. And if your launch platforms are way out of position, they will have to move so they are in a position to launch. The ability of a low Earth orbit satellite, or a cluster of satellites to track a target for extended periods is quite limited. You will still have to follow up on a potential contact by sending recon aircraft to look at the contact to determine who it is.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
And with that in mind the Soviets developed their ASM to attack an area and pick their own targets instead of needing up to date information.

The problem is that the information may be way out of date by the time the launch platform is able to launch. You need to keep providing the weapons with targeting information right up until the weapon is able to track the target with its own sensors to ensure that the weapons actually hit anything with any reasonable chance.

Fire and forget does not mean 'fire and forget'. It means that the weapon has a limited ability to track the target independently. You need to provide mid-course updates otherwise the weapon is limited in it's effectiveness.

The RAF learned that the hard way when they were adding AIM-120 capability to their Tornado ADV force. Initially, the RAF did not want to add the mid-course correction modes to the radars on the Tornado ADV's due to cost reasons. This resulted that during testing, the AIM-120 equipped Tornado ADV's were LESS effective in BVR engagements than Tornado ADV's equipped with the semi-active homing Skyflash missiles which required constant illumination of the target.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
Seriously, you are pulling the "i know more than you, and therefore i am right" bit?

Unfortunately, it's a card that has to be pulled because you are delving into areas that are potentially sensitive. I am aware that in the past, a number of web sites have been shut down by governments because of the posting of sensitive information, and the Airliners.net terms of service also refers to the posting of sensitive information.

You may want to go over to a board that specializes in Naval tactics to continue this discussion, such as the NavWeaps Discussion Boards, which has a number of technical experts and former military personnel that can help you better.

[Edited 2014-02-04 03:53:34]
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:43 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
I did not say 300nm out, I did not say 300nm out. I said 60nm out. You chose to deliberately take that statement and change it for your own purposes.

In that case my initial statement remains and your missile trap is 250nm away from where it can shoot at something.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
You will be very lucky to see a ship at night in the typical weather in either the North Pacific or North Atlantic.

Typical weather is not what i am in when i try to visually spot a fleet.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):

Ok, how about if I shoot down your strike pathfinder in proximity to a bunch of neutral ships? Since as you say, you have a valid target, you've now sunk or damaged a number of neutral ships, and you now have a foreign and public relations nightmare on your hands. If you were the commander of the Soviet forces involved, I suspect you will be very swiftly be removed from your post.

Well, you where hiding between neutral shipping, those nations might be more pissed at you for making their ships bait then for the Soviets taking it. Assuming that there would have been any significant neutral traffic in the north Atlantic during world war III gives me a rather good chuckle though.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):

Both sides know how to carefully provoke the other side to elicit a response. Both sides will then carefully analyse the response, and gather quite a bit of information from that response.

Exactly. So there is no reason be believe that the USN had more information than what the Soviets wanted them to have and visa versa.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
The problem is how fast can a response be provided, and how fast can a launch platform react.

And the name Minuteman for the missile is sarcasm, because it in fact takes hours for them to launch..... bogus point since it can be assumed that the forces involved had the reaction time required by their sensing capabilities or the force structure would not have been the way it was.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
The problem is that the information may be way out of date by the time the launch platform is able to launch. You need to keep providing the weapons with targeting information right up until the weapon is able to track the target with its own sensors to ensure that the weapons actually hit anything with any reasonable chance.

And there is no reason to suspect that the Soviets did not set up their communication according to the requirements of the weapons and doctrines they planed to use.
Therefore it is logical to conclude that Soviet ASM where well capable to find targets within the area such target could move into in the lead time sensor-information -> launch platform.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:12 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 32):
In that case my initial statement remains and your missile trap is 250nm away from where it can shoot at something.

The problem is that your missiles can either a: do short supersonic runs or a slower, subsonic run. The AS-4 Kitchen, for example, can only fly at Mach 6 for only 70km. And they also fly very high as well; operational ceiling is above 39,000 ft and that's its low altitude mode. The AS-6 is even more limited and less capable.

As such, it depends on your employment of your weapons. Employ your missiles to go supersonic, you need to be very close to the carrier. Employ them sub-sonically, your missiles are easy targets as they will fly relatively slow, and cruise at a fairly high altitude, and you give the defenders lots of time to react.

So either way, I can either bag your launch platforms or your missiles. Your call.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 32):

Typical weather is not what i am in when i try to visually spot a fleet.

Have you ever been in the North Atlantic or the North Pacific in the air looking for surface contacts visually? It seems that you think it is really easy to spot ships at night in the North Atlantic or the North Pacific from the air, both oceans being known for frequently having rough weather, for ships that are very likely blackened out or partially blackened out. Ask anyone from the maritime patrol community or the coastal SAR community how easy it is to visually search for ships. Not as easy as you make it out to be.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 32):
Well, you where hiding between neutral shipping, those nations might be more pissed at you for making their ships bait then for the Soviets taking it. Assuming that there would have been any significant neutral traffic in the north Atlantic during world war III gives me a rather good chuckle though.

9 times out of 10, the public (and most nations) will blame the ones responsible for using the weapons in the first place.

It's like a police officer shooting in the dark at a criminal but accidentally hits a bystander because the officer misidentified the person in the dark. It's not the criminal's fault for the shooting, it's the police officer. Even international law recognizes this. The onus is on the one employing force to make sure that they properly identifying the target; you don't blame the enemy for your stupidity.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 32):
And the name Minuteman for the missile is sarcasm, because it in fact takes hours for them to launch..... bogus point since it can be assumed that the forces involved had the reaction time required by their sensing capabilities or the force structure would not have been the way it was.

The Soviets didn't have the same level of C4ISR capabilities as the US did. Not even close.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:27 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The AS-4 Kitchen, for example, can only fly at Mach 6 for only 70km. And they also fly very high as well; operational ceiling is above 39,000 ft and that's its low altitude mode

The Mach 6 Version of the weapon never went operational, all other versions have a ranges of about 200nm, the current CH-32 Version has some 320nm range officially and ~500nm estimated.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The Soviets didn't have the same level of C4ISR capabilities as the US did. Not even close.

And you still didn´t come up with a plausible explanation how getting "target group, position, course, speed" from A to B is so complicated to transmit that it needs awesome C4ISR capabilities. Especially considering that the whole overall system was designed to carry out that attack and obviously had the necessary communication capabilities build in. Have they just forgot that little detail?

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
LMP737
Posts: 6076
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:17 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Thread starter):
1) Cover the "pancake" in between engine nacelles to form a nice internal weapons bay (reduce RCS)

The weight and drag created by that would probably make it not worth it. It would also make maintenance on the engine a lot harder.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Thread starter):
2) Swap out nosecones and wing spars with lighter CFRP (same shape but shed some weight)

The nosecone was made of fiberglass so I'm not sure you would save that much weight but why not. The titanium wing box/box beams is what made the Tomcat so strong so I would keep those.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Thread starter):
3) Radar absorbing skin and re-designed inlets (ala F-18E)

Redesigning the inlets might have been a bridge too far.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
emanwingnut
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:00 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:09 am

I love it! Pray to the Aviation Gods that the F-14E Super Tomcat might happen.
A mile of highway will take you a mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6076
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:41 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
For example, afterburner take-offs from a carrier were prohibited in the versions powered by the GE F110 engines per the NATOPS because if an engine fails on launch, the jet would be uncontrollable.

It was also unnecessary since the GE F110 provided more than enough thrust in mil to get off the deck.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:28 pm

I must say, the conversation between Pointblank and tommy was fascinating. I wonder how people come into such depth of knowledge about anything. I feel like I have no areas of knowledge in any topic anywhere that deep.

Good show, guys.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2172
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:47 am

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 38):
I must say, the conversation between Pointblank and tommy was fascinating. I wonder how people come into such depth of knowledge about anything. I feel like I have no areas of knowledge in any topic anywhere that deep.Good show, guys.

Agreed, nicely put. It's like watching Sheldon and Spock argue.

I would love to see the 14 return, but that is not a possibility. Lesser planes have taken their place. One thing Pointblank has wrong is saying that those in the Navy don't miss it, nothing could be further from the truth. I visit many forums and have had the pleasure of drinking with SuperHornet, formerly Tomcat pilots, and that was definitely not the case. It may be the most 'wrong' thing PB has said on here ever.

 
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3522
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:57 am

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 39):
I would love to see the 14 return, but that is not a possibility. Lesser planes have taken their place. One thing Pointblank has wrong is saying that those in the Navy don't miss it, nothing could be further from the truth. I visit many forums and have had the pleasure of drinking with SuperHornet, formerly Tomcat pilots, and that was definitely not the case. It may be the most 'wrong' thing PB has said on here ever.

I liken the situation to be like this, relationship-wise:

F-14: A supermodel. Lots of maintenance, expense, and temperamental. Takes a very special and hardworking person that can spend the time and money to master and keep happy.

F/A-18E/F: Your wife. Less maintenance (she's happy with being kissed every now and then, some flowers, and the occasional dinner out), not as temperamental. Not as attractive, but does a lot of the daily housework, takes care of the kids, and you.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:39 am

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 38):
I wonder how people come into such depth of knowledge about anything.

easy, have your parents force you to read books/magazines/newspapers for at least one hour a day long enough to form a solid habit and you end up going through about 100 books/year. ..... and I am not much into novels and such.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 39):
It's like watching Sheldon and Spock argue.

somehow I see that as a compliment no matter which one of them I am  

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9761
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:34 am

Anit-ship BMs are a real threat, the USN just fails to think outside the box. They look at a capability to target a carrier any time and any place, while an adversary could be quite happy to be able to target carriers within a certain area. China is able to launch satellites that can target a carrier group with in a certain area, they could even buy access to commercial satellites with real-time feed.

The US forces rely so much on their technology that they often fail to see what you can do with freely available commercial products.
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:45 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
I liken the situation to be like this, relationship-wise:

F-14: A supermodel. Lots of maintenance, expense, and temperamental. Takes a very special and hardworking person that can spend the time and money to master and keep happy.

F/A-18E/F: Your wife. Less maintenance (she's happy with being kissed every now and then, some flowers, and the occasional dinner out), not as temperamental. Not as attractive, but does a lot of the daily housework, takes care of the kids, and you.

I can see that, but I think your analogy sells the Tomcat very short. It was (I hate that it's past-tense anymore...) a very capable platform. It's not just something there to look nice, as your analogy implies vs. the "housewife" Hornet.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 41):
easy, have your parents force you to read books/magazines/newspapers for at least one hour a day long enough to form a solid habit and you end up going through about 100 books/year. ..... and I am not much into novels and such.

I do read a lot. I just can't remember much of it. I remember only things I either don't want to remember or think probably won't be important to me. lol
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:44 pm

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 43):
I can see that, but I think your analogy sells the Tomcat very short. It was (I hate that it's past-tense anymore...) a very capable platform. It's not just something there to look nice, as your analogy implies vs. the "housewife" Hornet.

I think it is perfect. Weird too. The F-14 is an excellent interceptor and air superiority fighter, the supermodel is nice to look at and probably fun to have on top of you. The F-18, your Wife, will still be a very satisfying screw, but also comes with a whole set of multimission capabilities like cooking and cleaning. The supermodel probably won´t be the biggest pro in the "cook a hearty meal" area. And the chauvinism is for the sake of the argument  
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 43):
I just can't remember much of it.

I do have a good memory, especially for numbers, but in no way extraordinary so. You don´t have to remember what you read, you just have to remember that you did read about it. Way of topic as this is, but for example in the neighboring Tejas thread i recalled that the Rafale went into service with only Matra Magic. I couldn´t confirm that quickly via google, mostly because i didn´t recall the standard being called LF1, so i wrote "i think". Only when Ozair asked about a source i tried to remember where i may have read that, checked "Flug Revue" and coudn´t find it there, figured it may have been Janes and et voila .....

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
angad84
Posts: 2087
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:07 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 44):
but for example in the neighboring Tejas thread

Funnily enough, that began life as a Rafale thread...  

It's so far off topic now that I stopped posting a while back.

Sorry for derailing this thread, I'll stop now!

Cheers
Angad
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13746
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:11 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 45):
Funnily enough, that began life as a Rafale thread...

uops.... 
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2172
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:55 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
I liken the situation to be like this, relationship-wise:

F-14: A supermodel. Lots of maintenance, expense, and temperamental. Takes a very special and hardworking person that can spend the time and money to master and keep happy.

F/A-18E/F: Your wife. Less maintenance (she's happy with being kissed every now and then, some flowers, and the occasional dinner out), not as temperamental. Not as attractive, but does a lot of the daily housework, takes care of the kids, and you.

On that point we can agree! I don't argue that the F-14 was high maintenance, she definitely was (24 man hours per flight hours). The F-18 is way more deck friendly in that sense.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 41):
somehow I see that as a compliment no matter which one of them I am

I'm glad you took it that way because I definitely wasn't insulting either of you  
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2250
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:12 am

Quoting checksixx (Reply 2):
Any Tomcat lover would love to see the plane brought back, but it will never happen.

Sadly, the only way we're ever going to see a Tomcat fly again is in 20-30+ years when some multi-millionaire pilot gets the pieces to one and makes one airworthy for something like heritage flights.

This is something that could absolutely happen, given time - to get rid of Iran's, scrounge the parts, etc., and money. The Mid Atlantic Air Museum is restoring a P-61 that was recovered from the jungle, and when they are finished, not only will it be display worthy, it will fly again.

Here's the website on that.

http://www.maam.org/p61/p61_rest.htm

I absolutely do not see why, in the time frame I gave, we can't expect to see a Tomcat, or two making rounds on the airshow circuits.

Marc
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3344
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: Upgraded F-14 To Gen 4.5

Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:48 am

I found this recent article about the F14, incl. a picture of an F14 with one wing in the extended position and the other still at the "high speed" position.

See : http://www.wearethemighty.com/17-pho...mcat-was-so-darned-awesome-2015-08
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos