[Dysko]

The Delta Dagger? Where is the Delta Dagger?

Here, along with its evolution, the F-106 Delta Dart.

[Mobius]

Ah,Dart.

[spartan_0214]

I thought that was the Spitfire or F-14

I hate to burst your bubble, but the F14 is more like an air-superiority fighter...

[Admiral Nelson]

The end of the F-14

[spartan_0214]

whoa.......what's replacing it???

[Herra Tohtori]

text inside <...> by me.

I thought that <greatest interceptor ever?> was the Spitfire or F-14

I hate to burst your bubble, but the F14 is more like an air-superiority fighter...

Spitfires and F-14 were both primarily air superiority fighters, but confusingly, the F-14 is also described as an interceptor in some contexts, and with good solid reasons, too. The main purpose of F-14 was being US Navy's number one air superiority fighter, everything else was extra.

If you want an example of an interceptor, Messerschmitt Bf-109 is quite good example from WW2 era. Of current fighter jets, most can be used in intercept roles, but F-14 was very well suited for the role because of its 200-km range AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, thus the dualistic classification as air superiority figher (because of excellent maneuverability) and interceptor (because of other attributes, mainly long-range air-to-air armament.

Practically, interceptor's definition requires interceptor to be able to swiftly engage targets on wide area. Naturally, speed used to be the single most essential feature in this role, but long-range guided missiles are nowadays just as important (or more important), and ability to carry a lot of them also means lot.

For example, F-14's effective area of fire was a 200-km radius, and its maximum speed was 2,485 km/h at high altitude.

F/A-18E/F, F-14's successor has corresponding specs of effective firing radius being 75 km (with standard AIM-120 AMRAAMs) and maximum speed of 1,814 km/h at high altitude.

F-22, a full-fledged air superiority fighter design, has an effective firing radius of 75 kilometres, or with AIM-120C-5 perhaps more than 110 km, still a lot less than F-14 with Phoenix missiles. Its maximum speed, however, is estimated 2575 km/h at high altitude (claim in Wikipedia based on test pilot's word, apparently, but naturally accurate specs are classified...); not that much more than that of F-14.


So, the F-22 flies about 100 km/h faster, but F-14 has 100 km more effective range of fire.

That makes the F-14 best interceptor of these at short notice, F-22 can very well fulfill the role as well... and F-18 will also get the job done well enough for most cases. Actually, for example F-15 would suit better for intercept role than F/A-18, but as said, all current fighters can and will be used on intercept missions as well as pure "dogfight" missions in case of conflict. And many countries are small enough (like Finland, having most important military targets on a relatively small area) that for example F-18 is more than sufficient for intercepting anything violating the airspace of the country.


...On the other hand, an airplane specifically designed for interceptor role, such as MiG-31, has effective firing radius of 175 km (with Vympel R-77M1) and speed of whopping 3000 km/h at high altitude, with combat range of 720 kilometres. I'm sure you can count the numbers together, in interceptor role this plane kicks some serious ass... on a short time notice. In longer run, newer planes will beat it because it runs out of fuel so fast.

[Nuke]

whoa.......what's replacing it???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter

[Dysko]

IMHO, the JSF won't fullfill his roles as well as the planes it replaces, since they are so different. It's madness to replace an F-14 and an A-10 with the same plane! How can a plane perform well both in long range intercept missions and CAS missions? Also, since its loadout must be carried in internal bays to make it more stealth (even if it's officially a "low observability" plane, not a "stealth" plane), it won't carry enough weapons to perform well in neither role.

[Nuke]

its a shame that old yet really cool planes like the a-10 and f-14 are being phased out. but i guess its time to retire the old war dogs. an airframe doesnt exacly last forever and im sure there arent any factories currently set up to produce new planes of the same design. to re-establish production costs about the same as it does to set up production on a new, more modern design. still im not too impressed with the jsf. its being sold as an inexpensive aircraft but it still costs too damn much. those a-10s have some serious bang for your buck ar only 8 million each. seriously as close to a flying tank as you can get. it is an aircraft you just cant replace with some fast, stealthy, hi tech plane.

the f14 on the other hand, as good as it was, is wearing down to the point where its just not safe or effietient to fly anymore. the navy has plenty of other planes that can do its job just as well. its swing wing design is just suceptible to more structual wear than a fixed wing. its a nice plane, so dont mothball them all, at least put a couple on ebay

[Dysko]

There is also another problem with the planes the F-35 will replace: as far as I know, in UK and in Italy it will replace the Tornado IDS. While in the USA its counterpart, the F-15E, will be replaced by a special designed variant of the F-22 (the FB-22, but I'm not sure it will ever see light...) that has more or less the same capabilities of the airplane it replaces, UK and Italy will found themselves without a good long-range interdiction plane (apart from Typhoons armed with air-to-ground weapons).

at least put a couple on ebay

I had the same idea...

And regarding to the CF-105, IceFire wrote "the best interceptor to never see service", not the best interceptor ever, since of the CF-105 were only built a couple of prototypes...

[Herra Tohtori]

As far as I know, the F-14s are initially replaced by F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in Navy use.

F-35A (conventional take-off and landing) will start replacing A-10's and F-16's starting (supposedly) from 2011.

F-35B (short take-off, vertical landing) will eventually start replacing NAvy Harriers and Hornets, starting from 2012.

And finally, F-35C will be used to replace all older F/A-18A/B/C/D models in US Navy use, so eventually the Super Hornets will continue in service along with F-35.


Anyway, here's an interesting weapon.

AIR-2A Genie, air-to-air nuclear missile with nominal 1.5 kt yield.

A live Genie was detonated only once, in Operation Plumbbob on 19 July 1957. It was fired by an F-89J over Yucca Flats Nuclear Test Site at an altitude of 4,500 m (15,000 ft). A group of USAF officers volunteered to stand underneath the blast to prove that the weapon was safe for use over populated areas. Whether this affected the health of the officers is unknown.

 

A predecessor to MX-64 Rockeye? 

[Janos]

its a shame that old yet really cool planes like the a-10 and f-14 are being phased out. but i guess its time to retire the old war dogs. an airframe doesnt exacly last forever and im sure there arent any factories currently set up to produce new planes of the same design. to re-establish production costs about the same as it does to set up production on a new, more modern design. still im not too impressed with the jsf. its being sold as an inexpensive aircraft but it still costs too damn much. those a-10s have some serious bang for your buck ar only 8 million each. seriously as close to a flying tank as you can get. it is an aircraft you just cant replace with some fast, stealthy, hi tech plane.

I know there are plans to replace A-10 with F-35, but every time Air Force tries to get rid of them the Army goes "hey hey hey give them to us", and then there will be a pissing match and finally A-10s continue to fly and grunts are happy. It's widely regarded as one of the most useful planes in US arsenal right now, and it's estimated retirement time is still quite far away (2028). That's a lot of time, and F-35s are expensive. A-10s are cheap.

the f14 on the other hand, as good as it was, is wearing down to the point where its just not safe or effietient to fly anymore. the navy has plenty of other planes that can do its job just as well. its swing wing design is just suceptible to more structual wear than a fixed wing. its a nice plane, so dont mothball them all, at least put a couple on ebay

Tomcat's gimmick was the combination of radar and Phoenix. However, right now there are no enemies who would be dumb enough to use bomber/missile oversaturation method against USN. Tomcat is now a Cold War beast, attempts to make it a strike platform were, iirc, not very satisfying.

[Unknown Target]

The F-14s will be replaced by the F/A-18E Super Hornet (the F is a two seater variant of the E). I'm not sure if the JSF will be replacing both eventually, though.

[Dysko]

Tomcat is now a Cold War beast

IMHO, also stealth planes are Cold War beasts: there is nobody against which stealth planes are really useful, nobody is armed well enough to pose a credible threat. And stealth planes are useless when AAA gets a lucky shot, like in Kosovo, when a F-117 was shot down. And since stealth planes cost a lot...

[Herra Tohtori]

...but there ARE weapons that very well pose a credible threat to NON-stealth planes - for example, SA-2 SAM:s.

The whole concept of stealth is to avoid detection and hence retaliation... if the planes were non-stealth, they would be susceptible to very common air defense weapons.


And of course, as of yet there is really no defence against eyeball, mark one paired with flak gun. Speed and altitude helps, but in some missions lower altitude is required and in those situations, there's always a chance to get hit, no matter how stealthy your plane is.

[Nuke]

...but there ARE weapons that very well pose a credible threat to NON-stealth planes - for example, SA-2 SAM:s.

The whole concept of stealth is to avoid detection and hence retaliation... if the planes were non-stealth, they would be susceptible to very common air defense weapons.


And of course, as of yet there is really no defence against eyeball, mark one paired with flak gun. Speed and altitude helps, but in some missions lower altitude is required and in those situations, there's always a chance to get hit, no matter how stealthy your plane is.

yep, thats the way they did it in ww2. no scanners on board, maybe somone would radio if they detected bogeys in your vacinity. if you were on the ground or on a ship its see plane, hear plane, shoot plane. i remember the bigginning of air amrerica. that guy fires one rifle round at the plane, and its enough to create a crash landing.

I know there are plans to replace A-10 with F-35, but every time Air Force tries to get rid of them the Army goes "hey hey hey give them to us", and then there will be a pissing match and finally A-10s continue to fly and grunts are happy. It's widely regarded as one of the most useful planes in US arsenal right now, and it's estimated retirement time is still quite far away (2028). That's a lot of time, and F-35s are expensive. A-10s are cheap.

yea they better hold onto em. i have a feeling it would be the perfect test platform for a fighter based laser platform as its gun takes up the required space. as much as i hate the idea of replacing a perfectly good monster of a gatling gun with a laser

[NGTM-1R]

The problem with replacing the Tomcat is that the Hornet is not really up to the same standards. The F/A-18C was extremely short-ranged; the D and E models have gotten better but they still aren't great.

My personal opinion is that they should have sent the Tomcat and the Intruder back to the factory floor for remanufacturing rather then sending them to the boneyard. They had the range to make them ideal for carrier ops and better payload. The Hornet was an excellent replacement for the A-7 and gave US carriers greater multirole capablity, but replacing the A-6 and F-14 with Hornets was less than brilliant.

In regards to the strike-adapted Tomcat, the Tomcat 21 project, it was not that it was a poor strike aircraft. It has an excellent external load, it's fast, and it's got those nifty swing wings. The only thing it would have needed to match or exceed the Tornado would have been terrain-following gear. Congress axed the project citing funding concerns (then turned around and shelled out god-knows-how-much for the JSF while leaving the USN's fighter squadrons holding the bag).

[Janos]

Tomcat is now a Cold War beast

IMHO, also stealth planes are Cold War beasts: there is nobody against which stealth planes are really useful, nobody is armed well enough to pose a credible threat. And stealth planes are useless when AAA gets a lucky shot, like in Kosovo, when a F-117 was shot down. And since stealth planes cost a lot...

That F-117 was shot down because people got overconfident and followed the same flight pattern for three nights. Everyone with a calculator and explosives can then shoot one down.

Stealth assets have been used in Iraq, where they were used to suppress and defeat high priority AA assets. Such missions are not unlikely in the near future and stealth minimizes - but does not remove - casualties. But I admit that B-2 is a Cold War relic - strategic bombing is in all-time low right now. Smaller, more mobile stealth assets, such as F/A-22, F-35 and UAVs/UCAVs are, however, quite useful if one happens to meet even a third-world country with old Strelas and Goas.

However, Stealth is kinda paradoxic: it's the result of decades of hard work and stealth platforms are expensive and cutting edge technology. They are not invisible, but low-visibility platforms. Except when your opponent has multistatic radars, like North Korea. But they are huge and inaccurate.

[Mobius]

Don't worry,we'll see the Tomcat is some merc forces.

[Janos]

The problem with replacing the Tomcat is that the Hornet is not really up to the same standards. The F/A-18C was extremely short-ranged; the D and E models have gotten better but they still aren't great.
My personal opinion is that they should have sent the Tomcat and the Intruder back to the factory floor for remanufacturing rather then sending them to the boneyard. They had the range to make them ideal for carrier ops and better payload. The Hornet was an excellent replacement for the A-7 and gave US carriers greater multirole capablity, but replacing the A-6 and F-14 with Hornets was less than brilliant.

F/A-18E Super Hornet is essentially new aircraft, it's superficially similar and name was given to get funding from Congress though  It has over two times the combat range of C/D and carries a lot more weapons and fuel. It has longer combat range than Tomcat! Hornet's slower, though, but full burn uses fuel.

In regards to the strike-adapted Tomcat, the Tomcat 21 project, it was not that it was a poor strike aircraft. It has an excellent external load, it's fast, and it's got those nifty swing wings. The only thing it would have needed to match or exceed the Tornado would have been terrain-following gear. Congress axed the project citing funding concerns (then turned around and shelled out god-knows-how-much for the JSF while leaving the USN's fighter squadrons holding the bag).

Navy supported F/A-18E though.

There are four dimensions on every military aircraft: lenght, height, width and politics.