Author Topic: Of missiles and atmosphere fighters. (Read 5850 times)

CaptJosh · **on:** October 04, 2005, 05:45:42 pm

Quote

Originally posted by TrashMan
didn't know you grandfather made the mean missile
Allways loved the F-14 and everything it came with.

Well, he was on the design team. He also helped with the Maverick and TOW missiles.

He was actually the guy who came up with the idea to use standard rectangular circuit boards against the inside of the missile body in missiles that shape their charges on impact because at that point, it doesn't matter if the electronics get ripped up.

Up til that point, missiles used custom circular platter circuit boards, and the initial idea was ring shaped boards. Such boards would be too small, though, and missiles didn't have the room for the wires to connect such boards together, much less room for enough ring shaped circuit boards to replace the circular platters they had been using.

My grandpa hit on a common sense solution because he wasn't a trained engineer, and so did not overthink it the way the rest of the team he was on did. He had learned design engineering by actually engineering things. Not exactly a popular method for doing things these days.

As for your appreciation of the Tomcat, well, I have to say it's my fave air superiority fighter. I wish people still made games with it as the primary aircraft to fly. This is why I'd like the a feature for missiles that are not fire and forget. It would be a step toward making a game involving atmosphere fighters using the SCP. As I stated in my earlier post, another feature that would be required is lift physics, as well as fuel consumption, air to air refueling instead of rearming, and on top of that, gravity itself.

MatthewPapa · **Reply #1 on:** October 04, 2005, 05:59:37 pm

F-14s are my favorite aircraft as well. the tv series 'robotech' got me hooked on them. too bad they are being retired in like a year

CaptJosh · **Reply #2 on:** October 04, 2005, 06:03:06 pm

F-14s retired in a year? Not unless they've produced enough F-22s to replace them already. The F/A-18 Hornet, aka the "plastic bug" just isn't good enough to take over from it. Doesn't have the range or payload capacity.

Hudson · **Reply #3 on:** October 04, 2005, 09:36:31 pm

What about the superhornet e and f? they are pretty close performence wise with the f-14 right?

CaptJosh · **Reply #4 on:** October 04, 2005, 09:45:56 pm

Not even close. Ask a naval aviator. While they're more maneuverable, they just don't have the legs. Fuel endurance is the biggest complaint. And even the super-Hornet can't carry as much ordinance. Or as good ordinance. The ONLY plane in service that can use the AIM-54C is the F-14.

The only other plane that could have used the Phoenix missile and its current development is the F-111, and that's completely obsolete. Barring museum exhibits or friendly countries having been sold surplus aircraft that they are still maintaining for some reason, the F-111s are all in the boneyard.

And no, the F/A-18 and its variants cannot be modified to use the AIM-54C Phoenix. Even if the hardpoints could be made compatible, the combat systems are not.

IceFire · **Reply #5 on:** October 04, 2005, 10:22:08 pm

Quote

Originally posted by CaptJosh
Not even close. Ask a naval aviator. While they're more maneuverable, they just don't have the legs. Fuel endurance is the biggest complaint. And even the super-Hornet can't carry as much ordinance. Or as good ordinance. The ONLY plane in service that can use the AIM-54C is the F-14.

The only other plane that could have used the Phoenix missile and its current development is the F-111, and that's completely obsolete. Barring museum exhibits or friendly countries having been sold surplus aircraft that they are still maintaining for some reason, the F-111s are all in the boneyard.

And no, the F/A-18 and its variants cannot be modified to use the AIM-54C Phoenix. Even if the hardpoints could be made compatible, the combat systems are not.

I think the Navy sort of wants to phase the AIM-54C out as well. Neat weapon but of less use these days. I think the Super Hornet was the ideal solution for them...they get one plane that can replace most of the other types on the deck that has reasonable capability (its fairly capable overall). I think the longer legs thing is not an issue. The Tomcat was designed to shoot down bombers before they could attack the fleet. Now the bombers don't fly anywhere near the fleet and toss missiles at it. So what you want is something closer in and shooting missiles at bigger missiles.

What we'll probably see is the F/A-18E/F's equipped with that next generation long range missile. Similar range to the Phoenix but smaller, considerably faster (scramjets I think) and more manueverable.

CaptJosh · **Reply #6 on:** October 05, 2005, 08:19:57 am

There's also something to be said for shooting down an enemy fighter from 150 km (80 nautical miles, which is over 92 standard miles) away, well outside said enemy's engagement envelope.

As for people lobbing missiles at our fleet, who's going to do that?

The Russians? They can't affort to start anything.

The Chinese? They're not that stupid. They may have an army of 200 million officers and enlisted men all told, but they don't have the ability to fight us. They're even more locked in to the old Soviet combat model than the old Soviet Union was. No initiative allowed. And their navy in strictly a brown water operation. Coastal entirely.

The terrorists? Where are they going to get that kind of firepower?

I acknowledge that we're in the business of maintaining a very high tech edge over any possible competition, and our AEGIS ships are nice for missile defense, but really, there's nobody left to challenge us on the seas. The powers that could are long-standing allies. Well, sort of. I mean, the French...Um...It's hard to call them allies. But even if they were an enemy, and not simply the most unfriendly friend we have in the world, they're the only country left with a carrier for standard fixed wing aircraft and what we consider standard carrier ops instead of Harriers and helos only. Said carrier took them over 11 years to finish building. So...

Finally, in response to endurance not being an issue, that's a crock. Forget about bombers. Think air to air combat. We don't want to be like the Russians and have fighters with legs for only a single engagement before having to refuel.

karajorma · **Reply #7 on:** October 05, 2005, 08:24:57 am

Not an SCP topic. Off to Hard Light with you!

Kosh · **Reply #8 on:** October 05, 2005, 09:03:44 am

Quote

The terrorists? Where are they going to get that kind of firepower?

The Russians.

Quote

I acknowledge that we're in the business of maintaining a very high tech edge over any possible competition

That very high tech edge has many advantages, but it also has many weaknesses that can easily be exploited.

Quote

The Chinese? They're not that stupid. They may have an army of 200 million officers and enlisted men all told, but they don't have the ability to fight us. They're even more locked in to the old Soviet combat model than the old Soviet Union was. No initiative allowed. And their navy in strictly a brown water operation. Coastal entirely.

You're forgetting 2 big factors. One of them is the people, the other is geography. Occupying a nation that is physically as large as the US is extremely difficult. Also pacifying a nation of 1.3 billion people (many of whom are very nationalistic) is damn near impossible. People here might not like the party, but they really would not like a foreign invader.

Admiral Nelson · **Reply #9 on:** October 05, 2005, 10:15:38 am

Incidentially, Phoenix was retired from service around 9 months ago. The last F-14 will be retired in 2006.

Australia is the only present operator of the F-111.

Mefustae · **Reply #10 on:** October 05, 2005, 10:31:35 am

Go Australia!! If you annoy us, prepare for a blistering assault with outdated equiptment!!!

...And if you really get us mad, we've got crack squad of Longbowmen out back ready to kick some tail...!

...On a more topic related note; will the JSF-35 see naval action, or is it a strictly ground-based affair?

Admiral Nelson · **Reply #11 on:** October 05, 2005, 10:42:28 am

The F-111 is still an excellent aircraft; it's a bit of a stretch to call it 'outdated'....

There are three variants of the F-35, one CTOL, one STOVL (for Marines and RN) and one carrier based variant.

Rand al Thor · **Reply #12 on:** October 05, 2005, 10:47:29 am

I first up going to admit a pretty huge ignorance of this subject but was the F16 not a replacement or evolution on the F14 design (apart from the variable delt wing)?

At the least its a better air-to-air combat plane? Definately saw that on discovery unless they were yanking my crank.

Rand al Thor · **Reply #13 on:** October 05, 2005, 11:25:54 am

And now I'm going to validate the first sentance of my last post.

Sorry got mixed up between the f15 and 16.

Just had a read of fas.org and Im a bit more up to speed now.

achtung · **Reply #14 on:** October 05, 2005, 03:58:49 pm

F-14 has always been my favorite, knew it was gonna go soon but not this soon.

OT: It's still too bad they scrapped the Comanche I mean tell me this thing isn't bad ass.

IceFire · **Reply #15 on:** October 05, 2005, 04:45:03 pm

Quote

Originally posted by CaptJosh
There's also something to be said for shooting down an enemy fighter from 50 miles away, well outside said enemy's engagement envelope.

As for people lobbing missiles at our fleet, who's going to do that?

The Russians? They can't affort to start anything.

The Chinese? They're not that stupid. They may have an army of 200 million officers and enlisted men all told, but they don't have the ability to fight us. They're even more locked in to the old Soviet combat model than the old Soviet Union was. No initiative allowed. And their navy in strictly a brown water operation. Coastal entirely.

The terrorists? Where are they going to get that kind of firepower?

I acknowledge that we're in the business of maintaining a very high tech edge over any possible competition, and our AEGIS ships are nice for missile defense, but really, there's nobody left to challenge us on the seas. The powers that could are long-standing allies. Well, sort of. I mean, the French...Um...It's hard to call them allies. But even if they were an enemy, and not simply the most unfriendly friend we have in the world, they're the only country left with a carrier for standard fixed wing aircraft and what we consider standard carrier ops instead of Harriers and helos only. Said carrier took them over 11 years to finish building. So...

Finally, in response to endurance not being an issue, that's a crock. Forget about bombers. Think air to air combat. We don't want to be like the Russians and have fighters with legs for only a single engagement before having to refuel.

Killing an enemy fighter at 50 nm is still a difficult proposition for a Phoenix and its getting more difficult. Although I believe it was within the ability of the missile to potentially shoot down enemy fighters, the real target for those missiles were bombers.

The new weapons they are working with aren't much bigger than the AIM-120 is (they are bigger but not massively so) and are likely to be more versatile. The AIM-54 has had its day...

Also don't discredit the French for taking 11 years to build an aircraft carrier...its about the same for the various Nimitz class ships being built or having entered service in the last while.

I believe its French owned Thales that is building a very advanced and sophisticated next generation carrier for the Royal Navy and French Navy. But its not likely to see any of those navies fighting each other.

If we're talking about post Cold War thinking...the Pentagon is interested in keeping things cheap and cost effective. The Super Hornet offers the ability to replace the F-14, F-18A through D, A-6, and the EA-6B. I have no illusions that it completely replaces any of those but it can do their roles and in some cases it does them better or with more flexibility. In terms of the overall air wing...you definately get more flexibility in the types of missions you want to run and how many aircraft are allocated to the type of mission.

But I see the USN wanting, at least in the short term, the F/A-18E/F and subsequent models and modifications to be operating alongside the F/A-35C and I don't see the Hawkeye or Viking going anywhere for a while yet.

CaptJosh · **Reply #16 on:** October 08, 2005, 10:21:51 am

Quote

Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Incidentially, Phoenix was retired from service around 9 months ago. The last F-14 will be retired in 2006.

Australia is the only present operator of the F-111.

Hrmm...Maybe they'll let people buy disarmed surplus F-14s now. I'd love to get my hands on one of those just to fly it...

Admiral Nelson · **Reply #17 on:** October 08, 2005, 11:31:40 am

Since you mention it, someone is already trying to purchase disarmed F-14s Clicky

Not F-14s, but look who is in town this weekend.... (Pics taken Friday)

WMCoolmon · **Reply #18 on:** October 08, 2005, 12:57:14 pm

The Feds!

WeatherOp · **Reply #19 on:** October 08, 2005, 01:34:32 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Swantz
F-14 has always been my favorite, knew it was gonna go soon but not this soon.

OT: It's still too bad they scrapped the Comanche

Hmm, you would not think that way when you hear them flying around outside at night.

Why would the be flying them in the mountains of Alabama, I have no clue, but it's them.

They only fly on clear nights with no moon, and they only run two very small lights, none blinking like a normal copter, and they have a sound unlike anything else you have ever herd. They are also very fast. They don't really fly around that much anymore, but I assume that they will once again start flying this winter.

Wether anyone belives me or not, you have never seen these things flying for yourself.

News:

Author Topic: Of missiles and atmosphere fighters. (Read 5850 times)

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.

Of missiles and atmosphere fighters.