It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


America's Future Interceptor

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 06:38 AM

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by ghost
I have a Book called Century Series Fighters where I got most of my information from. I also got supporting infomation from two other books: The first one is called Encyclopida of Modern Military Aircraft, and the Second is called Jane's All the World's Aircraft from 1903 to the Present. In the former of the two books, there is a whole section that talks about the F-16 Air Defense Fighter (A modified F-16 varient) that is now used as NORAD's main Intercepter!

So, where are you getting your information from? I've sited my Sources, now you site your!

ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Okay, now go back and reread what I was asking for.

I wanted to know where you got all of your F-14 information from. I could care less about what you know about the F-16.

Most of the Data on the F-14 came from A video tape called Great Fighting Jets: F-14 Tomcat I also Got Data on the F-14 from all the above sources. Sorry, I wasn't very clear in what I said.

ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 01:21 PM
The F22 will replace it. Its plenty fast enough when you consider all it needs to do it aquire its target on radar. Then its all over.

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by skippytjc
The F22 will replace it. Its plenty fast enough when you consider all it needs to do it aquire its target on radar. Then its all over.

Guess again, the F/A-22 will not perform Fleet Air Defender.

It is not a naval aircraft, it is Air Force.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:58 AM
was best-slated for the role of modern interceptor, it would receive avionics, engine, and weapons control system upgrades...

however, stat for stat, the f-18 is superior when you take into account the fact that it has more modern systems, doesn't need upgrades, and has interceptor-capable speeds... besides, you can find NAVY printed on some F-18's right? and interceptors intercept inbound hostiles trying to kill your aircraft carriers... F-16's F-22's - not with the USN, right?

yes, everyone thought top gun was great, but we're going to have to let the tomcat go.

[edit on 1/4/2005 by aerospace]

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 09:58 AM
The US's future interceptors will be satellites capable of targeting and firing upon fast moving aircraft/missiles anywhere on the globe almost instantly.

Why spend billions on developing a new plane designed to chase incoming aircraft or missiles when you can put a platform in the sky thats always watching? It only needs to aquire and target, not take off and chase beforehand.

I think all we will see in the future for fixed wing planes are fighters and support craft. The fixed wing interceptor logic is antiquated.

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:34 PM
The F-14's main role is virtually non-existant. It was concieved to take on a large swarm of soviet bombers before they drop their bombs. and these days nations dont cover the sky with planes.

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:43 PM
The F-14's main role as Air Fleet Defender, was to protect American Naval forces from Soviet bombers, large numbers of them. However as time went on, their role slightly changed from large numbers, to farther away targets, and was later extended to strike fighters and small attack fighters. They also began to be used as sea patrols.

The F-14 is a true mighty aircraft, but it has been around for some time, and now we must let the new guys step up to the plate.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:58 PM
True, the F-14s job was a fleet defense fighter contrary to many of you guys beliefs...
Its job was soviet cruise missile and bomber interception.

From what Ive seen Navy pilots say is that they love the Super Bug but it needs greater speed. They also say that they think the F/A-35 will work wonderful but not have the speed to be as effective as the F-14 at actually intercepting the bogeys...
They said that the Navy may look into developing its own ATF for this specific roll, as all that would be needed are 5 or 10 F/A-22 class heavy fighters.

One must not forget the in 2008-2010 the F/A-18E-G will get:
*more powerful engines 27,500Lbs thrust class engines
*AESA radar, it wont loose that lock this time
*More reductions to its RCS
Also, the IRST jammer that is being installed in the Typhoon and Raptor may be considered for the Super Hornet.

If you couple the above in increased engine performance resulting in the ability for it to become a moderate energy fighter, its extreme alpha capabilities, and already superior defense electronics compared to the F-15 then come 2010 the F/A-20E-F may take the F-15s crown.

I think its all going to pan out in the long run. All we can do is speculate in the short term

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 08:12 PM
The F-20 TigerShark? I thought the F-20 Tigershark was made in the 1960's and that it didn't really make it as a fighter.

I think you meant he F/A-18E Super Hornet dude.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:09 PM
In the long run what will replace the F-14, I'm guessing maybe a future naval unmanned combat aerial vehicle variant will do it. Because as far I know the regular version is meant for surveliance, strike and SEAD missions. But it could be in the future I mean without a pilot you wouldn't have to worry about the G's killing or making the pilot pass out. And if you made a super strong plane it could be able to take a lot of G's making it an awesome figher. After that all you have to to is equip it with good weapons and avonics and you got an amazing carrier defense.

What do you guy's think ?

[edit on 5-1-2005 by blue cell]

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:08 PM
Nothing will replace the F-14 like what was said before iits role doesn't exist anymore it doesn't need replaceing. Though it would have been great to see the ASF-14 Super Tomcat as it would have replaced both the F-14 and the F/A-18.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:29 AM

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The F-20 TigerShark? I thought the F-20 Tigershark was made in the 1960's and that it didn't really make it as a fighter.

I think you meant he F/A-18E Super Hornet dude.

Shattered OUT...

Nah, 1980s. and the only reason it wasn't a success was politics. The F-20 was a beauty.

PS Why would you think the F-20 is from the 60's when the F-16 &18 are from the 70's and the F-22 is new

Maybe you are confusing it with the similar looking but actually very different F-5? The F-20 started out as the F-5G but then evolved so much it was renamed.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:37 AM
Supposedly the F-20 wasn't bought because it could seriously outperform the pilots. It could pull more Gs than the pilots could withstand. Unofficially, it wasn't sexy enough, and a lot of politics came into play to kill it. Too bad, it was a good plane. They brought them through here once on the way to Asia to try to sell them there, and we got to go out and take a look at them. Very pretty airplane.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:32 AM
The role of the F14 is indeed no longer neccesairy. However it is a fine bomber and a better dogfighter than the F15. The main problem of the F14 is that the design is old and thus requires higher maintenance. If i was a pilot and could pick any aircraft for a fast ground attack mission into a area with allot of enemy airplanes i would pick the F14 bomcat. Take 2 phoenixes for protection 2 bombs and then 4 sidewinders.

You know 60% hit rate is really high for a missle? The Sparrow only hit 7% of the time and the sidewinder hits about 30% of the time. Amraam issomewhere inbetween the sidewinder and sparrow.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:36 AM
Is it a better dogfighter than the F-15?

How does that work then with the F-15 having a purpose designed lightweight wing for combat and the Tomcat having relatively high aspect ratio wings and a heavy wing sweep mechanism in the fuselage?

Sorry but, much as I love the F-14, I can't see that being right.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:35 AM
Reading through the thread, I see a few little errors here and there.

First, regards T/W ratios affecting maximum speeds. It doesn't directly affect it, supersonic drag does.

In subsonics, the drag coefficient is given by CD = CDo + K CL^2

CDo is the lift independant drag factor, effectively the drag coefficient if the aircraft was generating no lift.

K is the lift dependant drag factor, and is just a scaling number depending on the efficiency of the shape

CL is the lift coefficient.

CL = L/(1/2 rho * V^2); L is the lift, which must be equal the weight for level flight - this is the indirect contribution of an aircraft's weight.

In supersonics, the drag balloons, I think its a power factor of 4 (instead of 2) but can't remember. So T/W ratios are pretty useless really - its all about the airframe drag at such speeds (and getting a decent air supply to the engine).

As was posted, the F-22 has a much better T/W ratio than the SR-71, however, its aerodynamic design is so different it struggles to get anywhere near the Blackbird (along with pretty much every other fighter in existence it must be said

Another little thing was the F-18 E/F Subpar hornet, and people saying its got an improved T/W ratio over the A/C. That maybe so, but its aerodynamics are worse. It struggles to break the sound barrier with a load on board on full burner! As an interceptor, it would be pitifully poor, and I would (like to) think the USAF or USN would not be relying on it to provide a fast response and interception of supersonic bombers (like say Backfires).

Also, stealth affecting aerodynamics, well, yes it does - detrimentally. You may have all the computing power in the world, but if the best shape for RCS does not match the best shape for L/D over a range of AoA - well tough, your just going to have to compromise. The F-22 does not have a lifting body fuselage like the Su-27 or F-14 so the concept cannot be as efficient as an equivalent modern alternative - its a compromise made in the interests of stealth, it may be the right way to go, it may not - alot wiser people than me don't know the answer to that one.

Also, just on the F-22, the video link is very 'dodgy' in terms of showing a cobra - if it can, why use such a deceptive camera angle? Looks like they are trying visual tricks to be honest.

edit: Another thing about g forces - instantaneous G forces of over 100g have been withstood by humans before (see racing crashes in F1/IRL/champcar etc). As for sustained loads, I think 5-6 is the limit for a normal unaided human, 9 or so with an air-g-suit and I've heard up to 12-15g is feasible with a water-filled g-suit, but im not sure on that and would like it confirmed either way

[edit on 4-1-2006 by kilcoo316]

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:08 PM
Well the only disadvantage of the F14 over the F15 is that it has a slower rate of roll. Its turn rate is the same as the F16 which is 20 degrees a sec. I was suprized aswell when i read that. I also heared that the engines of the F14 arent as hot as that of the F15.

posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:40 PM
Hi, just wanted to input some first hand factual knowledge. First, Engineer, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about things here. Great posts and questions by all.
The F-22 is capable of speeds in excess of mach 2+. I have a good idea but, can't publicly disclose the info. Without a doubt, the F-22 IS the superior air dominance fighter in use today. The YF-23 sooooo would've been a bit nicer. The F-18 Superhornet is a heck of a performer and will no doubt be a great addition to the fleet. Also, the F-35 is an incredible aircraft which will provide a great platform to replace the aging aircraft of today like the F-16. I included a few pics I took on the flightline so you could see the aircraft I'm talking about:

You can see all my pics here:

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 01:54 PM
I always used to think the F-14 and F-15 were both capable of the same job, just that one is navalised and has swinging wings. The F-14 was desiged as a fleet defender and the F-15 is more of a fighter. I love the F-14 so much, Its my fave but i still thing the F-15 is more 'Heavy Duty.

The best F-15 is the Strike Eagle becouse it has 2 seats and is capable of being a fighter and a bomber.

Why was the F-15 single seated in the first place? So is the F-22A Raptor
Thats the only 'cons' about these fighters.

Does the F-15/F-22 have an arrestor hook? If so, they may be carrier capable after all.

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 02:04 PM
The F-15 does, and I'm pretty sure the F-22 does as well. However there are a lot of modifications that need to be made before they could be landed on a carrier. The hook is there in case they lose their hydraulics. That means no brakes if they do.

The only reason that the Strike Eagle is a two seater is because there is way too much for one pilot to do. The F-15 and -22 only NEED one pilot, so they only have one pilot. Everything can be done by one person, so they haved a ton of weight by only putting one person.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in