Block 3 SuperHornet set to be better than Eurofighter in every way?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like-minded
Your enjoyable and poetic description of the F-18E fits only one aircraft ever made and it is not the F-18. It is an aircraft that has made a far bigger impact on the world of military aviation than that one has; it is, as all real fighter pilots know, the one and only F-4 Phantom II.
Your enjoyable and poetic description of the F-18E fits only one aircraft ever made and it is not the F-18. It is an aircraft that has made a far bigger impact on the world of military aviation than that one has; it is, as all real fighter pilots know, the one and only F-4 Phantom II.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stilton,
You might find despite the stuff in ' Top Gun ' the F-14 was an interceptor rather than fighter - no the worse for that as far as I can make out, given its' main task being fleet defence.
It may have had the very long range Pheonix missile, but even for the U.S. this was so expensive it was rarely carried ( which meant it being potentially 'abused' by vibration, acoustic & shock fatigue etc ) as I understand it.
From comments by fighter pilots ( and I'm not one ) the long range camera identification system sounds one of the best features, being passive rather than radar.
As for 'fighter' & 'Top Gun', the obvious question the film raises is, if the A-4 is so b***y good an opponent, why not use that ?!
In reality it seems especially nowadays ( except for the Royal Navy which has employed the Ostrich approach ) the answer is indeed interceptors with BVR missiles, as the Sea Harrier evolved into.
Pontious - you're not related to ' Top Gear ' by any chance ? !
You might find despite the stuff in ' Top Gun ' the F-14 was an interceptor rather than fighter - no the worse for that as far as I can make out, given its' main task being fleet defence.
It may have had the very long range Pheonix missile, but even for the U.S. this was so expensive it was rarely carried ( which meant it being potentially 'abused' by vibration, acoustic & shock fatigue etc ) as I understand it.
From comments by fighter pilots ( and I'm not one ) the long range camera identification system sounds one of the best features, being passive rather than radar.
As for 'fighter' & 'Top Gun', the obvious question the film raises is, if the A-4 is so b***y good an opponent, why not use that ?!
In reality it seems especially nowadays ( except for the Royal Navy which has employed the Ostrich approach ) the answer is indeed interceptors with BVR missiles, as the Sea Harrier evolved into.
Pontious - you're not related to ' Top Gear ' by any chance ? !
From what I understand the F14D and I emphasize the 'D' model was, and still is unparallelled in it's sheer performance, no 'modern' equivalent being able to fly nearly as far or as fast while carrying the same payload.
And while originally designed as an interceptor the D model was quite a dogfighter as well being able to hold it's own against the F15 which is saying something.
It was also modified to drop precision weapons late in it's life which, apparently it did very well at as well.
It seems it's downfall was the large amount of maintenance hours required and needing two crewmembers.
I think a total revamp with modern systems would have seen it through another 20 years service.
PS, Tom Cruise is a wnker..
And while originally designed as an interceptor the D model was quite a dogfighter as well being able to hold it's own against the F15 which is saying something.
It was also modified to drop precision weapons late in it's life which, apparently it did very well at as well.
It seems it's downfall was the large amount of maintenance hours required and needing two crewmembers.
I think a total revamp with modern systems would have seen it through another 20 years service.
PS, Tom Cruise is a wnker..
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-14
Stilton,
From what I understand the 'D' was indeed the definitive version, as the 'E' may well prove to be for the F-15 for similar reasons.
The Tomcat does seem on paper to have superior range & dash speed compared to the Hornet, but I think it would be a brave or foolish pilot who tried to mix it with an F-15 close in; consider the 'G' on the wing pivot points !
It and the 'ADV' F3 Tornado tried auto-wing sweep for close in work, I suspect the F-14 probably did it better but was a lot of mass to turn around, and of course had major surge issues on earlier versions - the 'D' was reported to be the aircraft the designers always intended - we may yet end up asking the Iranians about it !
From what I understand the 'D' was indeed the definitive version, as the 'E' may well prove to be for the F-15 for similar reasons.
The Tomcat does seem on paper to have superior range & dash speed compared to the Hornet, but I think it would be a brave or foolish pilot who tried to mix it with an F-15 close in; consider the 'G' on the wing pivot points !
It and the 'ADV' F3 Tornado tried auto-wing sweep for close in work, I suspect the F-14 probably did it better but was a lot of mass to turn around, and of course had major surge issues on earlier versions - the 'D' was reported to be the aircraft the designers always intended - we may yet end up asking the Iranians about it !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not enough pilots on here.
The F-4 has a longer range? Sure, if everything is perfect in life.
there is a saying that if the F-4 is not leaking, it's empty.
you tank just after catapult take-off, that's how bad it is.
The F-4 has a longer range? Sure, if everything is perfect in life.
there is a saying that if the F-4 is not leaking, it's empty.
you tank just after catapult take-off, that's how bad it is.
