Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?

[evangilder]

Any Naval aircraft that is hook up to the catapult has already been started. It would be just plain dumb to to put a plane on a catapult and then have it not start. Look again at the standard air to air intercept configuration, that was Navy and AF units. That includes 2 drop tanks of 370 gallons each, adding approximately 5,000 lbs!

8 missiles are okay, but what about guns? Two big advantages with guns; you can shoot at more than 8 aircraft and if you need to fire a warning shot or volley, you can't do that with a missile. I simply do not understand why you say the Lightning was not a great interceptor. You are the ONLY person that I have ever heard say that, British or American.

Jet fuel is 6.6 lbs per gallon, by the way.

Originally Posted by evangilder

Any Naval aircraft that is hook up to the catapult has already been started. It would be just plain dumb to to put a plane on a catapult and then have it not start. Look again at the standard air to air intercept configuration, that was Navy and AF units. That includes 2 drop tanks of 370 gallons each, adding approximately 5,000 lbs!

8 missiles are okay, but what about guns? Two big advantages with guns; you can shoot at more than 8 aircraft and if you need to fire a warning shot or volley, you can't do that with a missile. I simply do not understand why you say the Lightning was not a great interceptor. You are the ONLY person that I have ever heard say that, British or American.

Jet fuel is 6.6 lbs per gallon, by the way.

Today that is how they are configured. At the height of the cold war, when intercept missions against Russian intruders were common. They were configured for quick scrambles didn't have external tanks. Typically 2 planes would be up on patrol and two would be maintained in scramble condition sitting on the catapults ready to rock and roll.

Radar guided missiles could be locked on the target, same effect as firing a volley as their internal sensors would go wild, but well out of defensive gun range. Pulling in close enough to fire a meaningful volly of cannon as a warning was a questionable thing, as a Soviet bomber could wax you with its AM-23 or GSH-23 guns if you did so. Given the nature of the cannon on the Lightning, perhaps 3 or 4 targets could be engaged, but the value of guns compared to missiles at that point, especially against bombers, was highly questionable.

FAA sight says 6 lbs per gallon, but it may well be 6.6 lbs.

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

There is no today with the F-4. The last F-4s in US service were retired in 1996. They are not even flown by guard or reserve units anymore. They are missile drones now. The standard air to air configuration was used during the cold war. The reference that I supplied was written in 1988, and that configuration had been in use for quite some time. They added the guns in the enhanced version because they saw the need for them. Radar lock does have effect, but tracers past your canopy have an even greater effect.

You can continue to defend your position, but you really need more reference material. Talk to some guys that actually flew them. I'm done, the facts are there. How you choose to interpret them or try to deny them is completely up to you.

By "today" I meant in the 80's, I should have been more clear.

My Dad flew phantoms a bit, and commanded a whole attack wing of them (but could no longer go "in country" in VN by that point). I've heard stories about the pilots sitting in the Phantoms on the catapults ready to launch for hours.

We're talkin 1965 here right? I think I've even got footage of mid-60's Phantoms scrambling of carrier decks with only missiles as ext. stores.

But all that is mute. The topic was time-to-climb figures. More specifically, it was late-WWII era fighter performance.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

Two Firestreaks is perfectly adequete to bring down Soviet intruders. Obviously, with your over-American patriotism, you'd want the Lightning with two Sidewinders which as it happens, the Lightning was being tested with in the 70s-80s. It was decided that instead of WASTING money on these new missiles, the old stock Firestreaks did the job just as well against the Soviet aircraft.

You are the only person I have ever come across that has called the Lightning a bad interceptor. I can understand it actually, you were sure a Bearcat could beat an EE Lightning to 10,000 feet.

[lesofprimus]

I can understand it actually, you were sure a Bearcat could beat an EE Lightning to 10,000 feet.

Ouch....
Open it planD.....

[evangilder]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

By "today" I meant in the 80's, I should have been more clear.

My Dad flew phantoms a bit, and commanded a whole attack wing of them (but could no longer go "in country" in VN by that point). I've heard stories about the pilots sitting in the Phantoms on the catapults ready to launch for hours.

We're talkin 1965 here right? I think I've even got footage of mid-60's Phantoms scrambling of carrier decks with only missiles as ext. stores.

But all that is mute. The topic was time-to-climb figures. More specifically, it was late-WWII era fighter performance.

=S=

Lunatic

If the 80s is today, you are about 20 years behind. Attack wings carry different loads than air to air interceptors.

Footage of an aircraft launching from a deck does not prove your point. They could be doing training exercises or other missions completely. The phantom was a versatile airplane.

This is my last post on this. Take a look below, every single intercept photo has...Drop tanks.

I didn't say it was a "bad" interceptor, just that it lacked firepower found on the Phantom. Being restricted to use of IR guided missiles was also a significant comparative disadvantage.

We could continue this debate into relative quality of missiles, but I think if you check it out you will agree the Sidewinder was the better missile by the mid 60's, and the Sparrow certainly the better choice for bomber interception.

There were effective countermeasures to IR missiles in the mid-60's, so I don't know how you can consider two to be enough. The sidewinder, firestreak, and redtop were all known to chase flares, the sun, or sometimes even reflections off the ground.

By the 70's and 80's the Sidewinder was tremendously more advanced than the Firestreak. The 11 mile vs 7.5 mile max range and the 900m vs almost 3 km min range are huge advantages.

=S=

Lunatic

[Lightning Guy]

If you have studdied the Sparrow you will know that it has always been a piece of crap missile. The best performance it ever gave was in the '91 Gulf War when it was responsible for the majority of air-to-air kills. It success rate, however, was only 30% or so.

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

If you have studdied the Sparrow you will know that it has always been a piece of crap missile. The best performance it ever gave was in the '91 Gulf War when it was responsible for the majority of air-to-air kills. It success rate, however, was only 30% or so.

71 Sparrows were fired in Desert Storm for 26 kills. In most cases, two or more missiles were fired against each target, with an interval between firing, so the 37% hit ratio is misleadingly low.

Against low flying fighters it is not the best missile, especially the earlier versions. Against high flying bombers, the orginal intended target, its a great missile and has been since the early 60's. I'll do some more research on this when I have more time.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

The Red Top was perfectly adequete for the job. This isn't a case of which carried the better missiles, it's the aircraft we're talking about. I already told you the Lighting was being tested with Sidewinders anyway. With a 68 lb warhead at 7 miles, going Mach 3 one missile would bring down a Bear.
The Firestreak was a poor missile by mid-60s but it entered service in 1958. At Mach 2, 50 lbs warhead with a range of 4 miles it was still adequete to bring down the slow Soviet bombers.

Yes, the Phantom could carry the bigger payload but the Lightning could reach the enemy first and deal with the threat quicker. The RAF had already ordered the AIM-9L in the 80s anyway, had the Lightning carried on service it probably would have been equipped with them but by 1988 the age-old Lightning was finally retired from service at the same time as the Phantoms.

The AIM-7 wasn't a short range air-to-air missile, it was a long range missile. Comparing that with the Red Top is stupid. The AIM-7 is in the same catergory as the BAe Sky Flash.

Brilliant pictures by the way, evan. Notice the one Phantom in the RAF shot, although I know it was probably another Phantom taking the shot the RAF NORMALLY only scrambled one plane for one Soviet bomber.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

71 Sparrows were fired in Desert Storm for 26 kills. In most cases, two or more missiles were fired against each target, with an interval between firing, so the 37% hit ratio is misleadingly low.

Against low flying fighters it is not the best missile, especially the earlier versions. Against high flying bombers, the orginal intended target, its a great missile and has been since the early 60's. I'll do some more research on this when I have more time.

=S=

Lunatic

If it truely is such a good missle then why did they have to fire 2 or more missles at each target, that would actually confirm to me that its success rate was quite low.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i know little about missiles but i do know the lightning was a better intorceptor than the phantom, and few would argue with me on that one.............

[plan_D]

Few would. Damn it! If it weren't so obvious I KNOW the Lightning was a better interceptor, I would argue...

[the lancaster kicks ass]

don't worry Plan_D, i'll think of something we can argue about soon..........