Cold War Intercept

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-11-2005, 04:40 PM

I actually wonder why they never had other aircraft modded to fire the Pheonix. She was the premier intercept weapon in my opinion.

plan_D · 11-12-2005, 02:31 PM

The AIM-54 was originally designed to be fitted to the F-111B but that project was cancelled. On a normal combat patrol the F-14 didn't carry the AIM-54 Phoenix because, at near $500,000 a missile, it was just too expensive. Maybe it's cost effective against the massive, expensive, long-range bombers of the Soviet Union - but they've gone.

The AIM-54 is also heavy. Fitting them to the Lightning would be extra weight that wouldn't be needed, after all the Lightning could intercept it's target far from the danger area. The weight would reduce the Lightning's capability rather than improve it.

The Phoenix, when launched at maximum range, was at risk of being jammed or confused from background clutter, even with the advanced AWG-9 fire-control. The BAe Sky Flash was a more advanced system that had less of a risk from clutter and could keep track on it's target more efficiently. The Raytheon AIM-7 Sparrow uses the same kind of system, and the U.S were interested in purchasing the Sky Flash instead of the Sparrow. Foreign users of the of the F-16 use the Sky Flash though.

While it only has twenty-eight mile range, the Sky Flash is more capable of striking it's target than the Phoenix which uses it's massive (and impressive) range to make a name for itself - range isn't everything. It still has to use the AWG-9 of the F-14 until the last ten miles too. So, the F-14 can't go home when it's fired all it's missiles off.

Did I forget to mention the F-14A had a ceiling of 56,000 feet? And the F-14B/D had a ceiling of 52,000 feet?

syscom3 · 11-12-2005, 04:15 PM

You forget to mention that the Phoenix dives on its target from above where its radar return was highest.

The Phoenix missle system never had a problem finding its target.

$500,000 a missle is a bargain when you think of it, when compared to the cost of a ship.

Plus it was a mach 3+ which far exceeded the Lightnings speed.

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-13-2005, 04:43 AM

and if the queen had balls she'd be the king, what's your point? you're still just talking about a missile insted of the actual abilities of the planes that launch them..........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-13-2005, 07:31 AM

No Lanc you just dont want to admit that something was better.

plan_D · 11-13-2005, 08:28 AM

No, I didn't forget to mention to the arch of the Phoenix at all. I mentioned it's optimum flight path in a previous post. And, yes, the Phoenix was always able to be jammed while being superior to missiles before it. It's no longer considered advanced - and the F-14 can't go home until the missiles have reached 10 miles of their target.

$500,000 was a bargain against massive bombers but hardly when a Lightning with much cheaper missiles could get their around the same time, if not earlier. The Phoenix was Mach 3 but how fast, really, was the Lightning? It was faster than Mach 2.3 which is stated - as 60,000 feet is always stated, and that's wrong for it's ceiling. But even though the Lightning is faster than the missile - the Lightning would be travelling toward it's target and would have about five minute lead on the F-14 from call to target.

And that's Mach 3 on burn-out. And the F-14D could only go to 52,000 feet. Oh, wait, I already mentioned that ... but that was obviously ignored.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-13-2005, 01:49 PM

Lightning - 50's technology

Tomcat - 70's technology and better

Do you really believe that the Lightning was faster than the Pheonix Missle. You did say that. "The Phoenix was Mach 3 but how fast, really, was the Lightning? It was faster than Mach 2.3 which is stated - as 60,000 feet is always stated, and that's wrong for it's ceiling. But even though the Lightning is faster than the missile ". If you believe that then WOW!

syscom3 · 11-13-2005, 02:20 PM

The SR71 was the only aircraft to have the airframe materials to reach mach 3 (yes I know the Foxbat could reach that, but it had plenty of steel to handle the heat loads).

On paper the Lightning could go way faster, but it did have a redline below Mach 3, unless the pilot wanted to see his jet start to glow red.

This emphysis on ceiling of the jets is kind of redundant, and not applicable for aerial warfare begining in the 70's. No one fly's high and fast anymore. Its as fast and as low to the ground as possible.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-13-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The SR71 was the only aircraft to have the airframe materials to reach mach 3 (yes I know the Foxbat could reach that, but it had plenty of steel to handle the heat loads).

Are you forgetting the X-15. It could go like Mach 6.72.

syscom3 · 11-13-2005, 03:25 PM

X-15 was a rocket plane, not a jet plane.

It also was air launched by a B52!!!

(I hope non of our Brit friends wll say a Lanc could be converted to do the same thing!!!)

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-13-2005, 03:30 PM

Um syscom, I have news for you the X-15 was still a plane. Yes it had a rocket engine and yes it was dropped from a B-52 but you know what it was still a plane. Therefore in that sense the SR-71 was not the only plane like you state.

syscom3 · 11-13-2005, 03:38 PM

Yes it was a plane.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-13-2005, 03:40 PM

Then why the issue. You made it seem like it did not count because of those reasons you stated.

pbfoot · 11-13-2005, 06:48 PM

everybody seems to be fixated on max speed how much flying time did lightning have at full power the 101 at full power consumed 85 gals per engine per minute for about 13 -18 minutes of flight time depending on number of tanks which is approx 300nm one way or 100nm in return mission including set up fo attack far too close to let an intruder approach particularly with stand off weapons

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-13-2005, 06:49 PM

Very good point there pbfoot.