just curious, with the coming out of the F/A-22 and the JSF, what will replace the F-14 in the interceptor role, don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2, an interceptor should at least be able to reach Mach 2.75

The F/A-18E will effectively replace the F-14, not a very good option since the F-18 has NO BVRAAMs...

Huh? The F/A-18E carries both the AIM-7 and the AIM120 AMRAAM.

How BVR do you want to go?

just the F/A-18, wow, i hate the F/A-18, why is it soo good, i keep hearing people talknig about how good it is, why?, i don't think it could come anywhere near the capability of the F-14, awesome interceptor, probably my momst favuorite american aircraft

Also, if you are going to say "what about the AIM-54?" I have to tell you that the AIM-54 is very out of date. It is very expensive and uses primitive technology from the late 60s, early 70s. A new extended range AIM-120 will be taking its place.

Sure the AIM-54 is out of date, sure it only hits it's target 60% of the time but it's still valuable in long range air to air combat, it's the longest ranged AAM in the US inventory, while the Russian R-77 "AAMRAAMski" and R-27EM missiles already have ranges longer than the AIM-120...

Russia is also very interested in new BVRAAMs for the MiG-31, including the S-300 missile...IIRC

the AMRAAM is already obsolete...the US was actually interested in buying russian AAMs...

As for the F/A-18E, it's actually substantionally improved, it has wider wings, more powerful avionics, better engine, better manauverability, lower radar cross-section...

I actually quite like the new F-18 variant, but it's not as capable as the F-14...but time will tell...

[edit on 30/11/2004 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Originally posted by Dima
just the F/A-18, wow, i hate the F/A-18, why is it soo good, i keep hearing people talknig about how good it is, why?, i don't think it could come anywhere near the capability of the F-14, awesome interceptor, probably my momst favuorite american aircraft

The one talked about is not the regular hornet but the Superhornet, which is basically a totally diferent aircraft. It was redisigned to make it stealthy, it has new avionics, extended range, more powerfull engines etc etc etc.

It is probably a little lower on the interceptor scale then the tomcat, but it makes up for this in it's versatillity and how much cheaper it is.

Originally posted by Dima
just curious, with the coming out of the F/A-22 and the JSF, what will replace the F-14 in the interceptor role, don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2, an interceptor should at least be able to reach Mach 2.75

You are right in saying that the Raptor will not be the new USN interceptor - it's an AF only plane. However, you are wrong to say it can't reach Mach 2.

The Raptor has a higher thrust to wieght ratio then the F-15, which is obviously a Mach 2 fighter. You do the math. The reason they say it is a Mach 1.8 aircraft is to make people guess how fast it really is. Just like they say the max altitude is 50,000 ft

They should have made a F-23 naval variant instead of completely ditching it (even though there are rumors that say otherwise)...

Ever heard the reports on that thing? how it completely and I mean COMPLETELY swamped the F-15?

American Mad Man, you kinda repeated what I said but oh well

the F/A-18E Super Hornet is good though...but not great...

Well, GrOuNd_ZeRo, I assume you understand now that the F-18 has BVR.

No need to lament the passing of the AIM-54 or the Tomcat. The AIM-54 is no longer needed, and the Tomcat takes 33 hours on the ground for every hour in the air. They're getting old. If there isn't a puddle underneath, it means it's out. They're one of the best AC we ever built, but their days are numbered.

F-18's will do just fine, thank you, and save us a few bucks. AMRAAMS are easier to field, and since there are no Russian bombers to worry about, there is no reason to keep building Phoenix missiles.

CSF defence has evolved, and so has Naval Strike. So wipe your eyes, blow your nose, and move on...

The reason that you believe that the Raptor can't go more than Mach 2 and that the AMRAAM is a relatively short-ranged missile is because.........

thats exactly what the USAF wants you to think. Those real performance numbers for actual systems and in-testing prototypes are classified and not known to the general public.

The USAF does not publish actual performance numbers for good reason. Those allied countries interested in obtaining these systems receive the actual performance numbers as US classified information, and they make purchase and teaming decisions based upon those classified numbers.

Unlike other countries, we do not need to heavily advertise our weapon systems and tout their superior performance. For the most part, there are eager buyers waiting for these products. Those countries who we do not fully trust receive scaled-back versions of the same equipment with well-understood limitations on performance.

Originally posted by Dima
just curious, with the coming out of the F/A-22 and the JSF, what will replace the F-14 in the interceptor role, don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2, an interceptor should at least be able to reach Mach 2.75

The F-14 will be replaced by both the F-18 and eventually the F-35.
The F-18 would not have been my choice for an F-14 successor but I am not a decision maker.

Also, the F-22 is not a naval aircraft at all - and ...
I must disagree with your statement that the F-22 cannot reach Mach 2.
While it is true that there is no published official data stating that the F-22 can break M2 it is widely known that the US keeps official maximum specs on it's aircraft underated.

Proof of this is seen in official statements on the F-15 having a ceiling of only 50,000+ feet... yet it is known that F-15's are capapble of operating at 70,000+ ft and the Streak Eagle has gone over 100,000 ft (straight up like a rocket, but it did attain that altitude).

Proof is also seen by taking note of most official specs on top speed of current inventory US aircraft, while the layman eventually finds out more specific stats - the usual statement for US fighter aircraft from the gov't is that their cieling is 50,000 ft PLUS and as far as speed they will generally say it's a Mach 1 or Mach 2 class aircraft.

The top speed of the F-22 -
The SR-71 which weighs 140,000 lbs (52,250 kg), has 65,000 lbs of thrust and can go in excess of mach 3.2.
Compare that to the F-22 which weighs a mere 60,000 lbs (27,216 kg) and has 70,000 lbs of thrust... The F-22's power to weight ratio is therefore over twice that of the SR-71.

The only thing that would keep the F-22 from attaining speeds similar to the SR-71 is the configuration of the engines and the absence of the adjustable intake spike that forces air into the jet-engine at a speed higher than the airflow around the aircraft itself.

Incidently, the USAF does officially spec the F-22 as a "Mach 2 Class" aircraft.





[edit on 30-11-2004 by intelgurl]

Originally posted by Dima
just curious, with the coming out of the F/A-22 and the JSF, what will replace the F-14 in the interceptor role, don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2, an interceptor should at least be able to reach Mach 2.75

The F-14 was never called an interceptor.

It has always been titled as a fleet defender. There is a difference.

Research can be your best friend.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
They should have made a F-23 naval variant instead of completely ditching it (even though there are rumors that say otherwise)...

The cost of refitting the F-23 to work off of a carrier would have raised the unit price to levels that the American taxpayers would not be willing to spend.

Ever heard the reports on that thing? how it completely and I mean COMPLETELY swamped the F-15?

So did the F/A-22. Wonder how it would have done against a VISTA aircraft?

HeHe, i'm sure the F/A-22 is just as capable of swamping the F-15, both aircraft are superior aircraft...

As for the YF-23 carrier version, I know that it will cost too much but if cost wasn't an issue tthen it would have been great..

I suppose the F-35C is the best replacement for the F-14, what are the capabilities of the extended range AMRAAM? better than the R-27EM I hope?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Dima
just curious, with the coming out of the F/A-22 and the JSF, what will replace the F-14 in the interceptor role, don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2, an interceptor should at least be able to reach Mach 2.75

The F-14 was never called an interceptor.

It has always been titled as a fleet defender. There is a difference.

Research can be your best friend.

While we are on titles, the Correct title is Fleet Air Defense Fighter! An Air Defense Fighter is another term for an interceptor. I know this because I have a book on the Century Series fighters, both the F-102 and F-106, which flew for air defense command, were listed in the book as Air Defense Fighters! The F-14 mission was to Protect the fleet from bombers and cruise missiles! The reason they went to the term Fleet Air Defense Fighter or Air Defense Fighter is because the plane was also equiped to handle escort fighters as well as bombers and cruise missiles, hence the term Fighter-Interceptor! Right now the USAF uses the F-16 Air Defense Varient for this mission, but I feel the US is overdue for a new long range Air Defense Fighter to protect the nation. We Might not be facing the huge Bomber formation of the Cold War, but September 11, 2001 has proven that there is still a threat from the air!

Research really can be your best friend, If you do it Correctly and Finish It!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Originally posted by ghost
While we are on titles, the Correct title is Fleet Air Defense Fighter!

Wrong, every F-14 driver I have met has called it the fleet defender. Heck even the Navy still goes by that term. They no longer look to associate themselves as Fighters only now that they undertake attack missions as well. They have encompassed surface strike as a mission and defend the fleet from air and surface targets.

An Air Defense Fighter is another term for an interceptor. I know this because I have a book on the Century Series fighters, both the F-102 and F-106, which flew for air defense command, were listed in the book as Air Defense Fighters!

Well, try reading a different book where they explain the differences to you.
An interceptor is designed to shoot off at high speeds to intercept aircraft as far away as possible. It does not have a long loiter time, nor can it dogfight for too long without having to refuel/rearm.
An Air Defense Fighter is meant as a tactical weapon that is used over a battlefield, or for local defense missions.

The F-14 mission was to Protect the fleet from bombers and cruise missiles! The reason they went to the term Fleet Air Defense Fighter or Air Defense Fighter is because the plane was also equiped to handle escort fighters as well as bombers and cruise missiles, hence the term Fighter-Interceptor!

Where are you getting all of that from?

Research really can be your best friend, If you do it Correctly and Finish It!

Sound advice for you to take as well Tim.

wow, thisis my best behaviour on any post, i hope u guys can work with me to keep it that way, anywyas, american mad man, i believe it was u that said it has a vrey large thrust-to-weight ratio, well, the MiG-29 has a very good one too, so would that mean that the MiG is able to go to Mach 2.8, no, first of alll, the structure of the aircraft, couldn't withsatnd such friction and heat, it wasn't made for it

i think u could apply the same thing to the F/A-22 because, its all based around stealth, so it is not meant to be fast, RAM decreases the , i guess i could say physical characteristics of the aircraft, maneuverability and such(of course, maneuverability isn't that much of a big deal, because the strucuture was designed to be very maneuverable), but i have extremely high doubts that it can go past Mach2.3

just to reply to u're message, america doesn't need to give out the exact specs, well, i could just as easily say that about any country that designs aircraft, and why wouldn't they, because consumer countries always look at the specs of the aircraft, and if they don't meet the requirements, then they don't accept it

and u were talking about the Strike Eagle, its an upgraded version of the Eagle, so its irrelevant, it has itn own stats