[i[as posted by Sep
And about the airframes, the US Navy is still operating the aricrafts, correct? If the airframes can last on the sea, on the humid conditions on the carriers, and still fly today, what makes you think that the Iranian frames are worst off?

Yep to your first question.
As to your second question:
Sep, the US Navy maintains the F-14s far better and with better equipment, better quality parts available, etc. than the Iranians can ever imagine having.

And even with that established factoid, the US Navy had a very difficult time keeping and maintaining those F-14s. You seem to think the Iranians can do better? Example of a continued US Navy F-14 problem: Have the Iranians overcome the TF-30 problems that plagued the US Navy F-14s. Bear in mind, the US Navy had the means and the parts to deal with the problem of the TF-30s. The Iranians are doing or have done what to overcome this? Mr. Cooper or Mr. Bishop mention this? A little research on your part would verify how difficult and troublesome the US Navy had maintaining their F-14s, and Sep, that was with far better equipment, training, and having access to parts. Hell yes, I know that the US Navy can do far better than their Iranian counterparts when it comes to or is applied to maintaining the life of the F-14s airframes. No doubt in my mind.

as posted by Sep
"The US has estimated the number of operational Iranian F-14s at any given time at 15 to 20, and sometimes less than 10, due to the cannibalization of other planes to keep a few flying"

"Some 50 to 55 are believed to remain in service, but only about 30 of these are considered airworthy at any one time."

Sep, this is a factoid that some seem to miss and/or not comprehend. One is a lowball number and the other is a moderate number. Taking into account the law of averages and my own field experiences, those numbers are realistic and viable. I served on a base that had 30 "Buffs" [B-52s]. Out of those 30 "Buffs" only 23-25 mission-ready. The others were either being used for parts while awaiting replacement parts, or being worked on and signed off as not available for service. I was on another AFB that had over 100 F-15s. Out of those 100, only 70-75 were mission-ready at any given time, Sep. The examples can go on here. So for the above mentioned claim that out of 50-55 Iranian F-14s, only about 30, or 20-25, or 15-20 are considered mission-ready seems very viable and realistic. Personally, if Iran has 50-55 "in service," I would wager that at any given time, there are only maybe a third that are mission-ready or available for active combat at any given time. Again, very realistic.




seekerof

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Seekerof]

About the TF.30-PW-414 Mr Cooper said

"it is unknown if they have further upgraded their TF.30-PW-414s. However, it is certain that they not only "have parts", but are also producing new spares and conducting the full refurbishment of their engines at least since 1985."

About the airframes:

"I'm not sure about this, simply because of the fact that USN F-14s are used extremely intensively - flying up to three sorties a day - during cruises, which last six months on average, and then nowhere near as much for the next 12 months, or, in some cases - due to the shortrage of airframes - will return from a cruise, be refurbished and rushed into another unit for a new cruise. On the contrary, Iranian examples are rotated between active service, refurbishment, and being held as reserve (in which case they are maintained in flying condition, but stored, and flown only four hours a year), and only very seldom experience such intensive flying like USN examples (add to this the stress of the carrier operations, which has a distinct impact on the airframe as well).



So, I'd say it's likely that the surviving USN's F-14As built in the mid-1970s should have more flying hours than contemporary Iranian F-14s. However, the fact is also that there are more F-14s built in the mid-1970s remaining operational in Iran than in the USA; the USN is well underway retiring its last F-14As now (I think that only one squadron remains operational with them), and the attrition rate in the USN was always much higher than in Iran. So, the number of high-hour airframes is comparatively lower."

Originally posted by Sep
So, I'd say it's likely that the surviving USN's F-14As built in the mid-1970s should have more flying hours than contemporary Iranian F-14s. However, the fact is also that there are more F-14s built in the mid-1970s remaining operational in Iran than in the USA; the USN is well underway retiring its last F-14As now (I think that only one squadron remains operational with them), and the attrition rate in the USN was always much higher than in Iran. So, the number of high-hour airframes is comparatively lower."

The last F-14A squadron has already turned them in.

The only reason that Iran has F-14A's flying now is because that is all they have. They lack the infrastructure to make improvements to the F-14's like the US does.

Iranian 14 drivers are known to be the worst pilots in the sky. The Iranian AF is one of the poorest led in the world.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

The last F-14A squadron has already turned them in.

The only reason that Iran has F-14A's flying now is because that is all they have. They lack the infrastructure to make improvements to the F-14's like the US does.

Iranian 14 drivers are known to be the worst pilots in the sky. The Iranian AF is one of the poorest led in the world.

That is very harsh now isnt it. And what is "Iranian 14 drivers"? And you said the Iranian pilots are the worst pilots in the sky. Can you please verify that. So there is not a single pilot worst than them? Even though they are trained by the pilots that were trained in topgun school? You know, facts point to the other direction, but if you come online and say this, then it must be true. Thanks for the great amount of contribution.

You have to remember that the TOPGUN training that they received in the late 70's is about as useful today in ACM as a biplane. There are numerous changes that were made, which they have not had access to.

One needs only look at the sackings in the IIRAF to know that the best pilots do not get to stick around very long.

If someone can show me any evidence to support the claim that the IIRAF tomcat pilots are anything better than pathetic, I welcome it.


[edit on 20/5/05 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
You have to remember that the TOPGUN training that they received in the late 70's is about as useful today in ACM as a biplane. There are numerous changes that were made, which they have not had access to.

One needs only look at the sackings in the IIRAF to know that the best pilots do not get to stick around very long.

If someone can show me any evidence to support the claim that the IIRAF tomcat pilots are anything better than pathetic, I welcome it.

The kill ratio I provided migh help you out, just go back to page two. The kill ratio is only matched by Israel in 1967 and US in the Persian gulf war. And also there are several aces from the Iran-Iraq war, eg Jalal Zandi, with 9 confirmed and 3 probebly kills making him officially the best tomcat pilot.

And what is IIRAF? Iran has had two airforces one was IIAF and the other IRIAF.

Originally posted by Sep
The kill ratio I provided migh help you out, just go back to page two. The kill ratio is only matched by Israel in 1967 and US in the Persian gulf war. And also there are several aces from the Iran-Iraq war, eg Jalal Zandi, with 9 confirmed and 3 probebly kills making him officially the best tomcat pilot.

Those kills were against the Iraqi air force. As we saw in DS I, they were poorly equipped and led. Any kill claims against them has to take that into account.

seekerof

i do most humbley apologise - its only recently that i`ve been psoting more on here ; im based out at Fairford AFB (but also at lakenheath with the 48th) working on the big birds (or more rather , some of there more interesting stores)

but

if the iranian`s DO get any of there `cat`s off the ground , they could get off some of the aim-54`s and at range. now that would spook a crouch jockey after all the cockiness they`ve shown

[edit on 21-5-2005 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Those kills were against the Iraqi air force. As we saw in DS I, they were poorly equipped and led. Any kill claims against them has to take that into account.

So the Iranians were well equiped and well led? "The Iranian AF is one of the poorest led in the world." Thats what you said a few posts ago. But now the Iraqis are so damn terrible that the worst pilots in he sky, who were one of the most poorly trained and led, managed to get the third best kill ratio in history.

Now that might be the case, or it could be that the pilots were pretty damn good and thats why they achived what they did.

And in desert storm its a well known fact that the Iraqis did not fight back and all their best planes escaped to the neighbours.

[edit on 22-5-2005 by Sep]

Originally posted by Sep
So the Iranians were well equiped and well led? "The Iranian AF is one of the poorest led in the world." Thats what you said a few posts ago. But now the Iraqis are so damn terrible that the worst pilots in he sky, who were one of the most poorly trained and led, managed to get the third best kill ratio in history.

Compared to the Iraqis they were. Compared to the major powers they were not.

Now that might be the case, or it could be that the pilots were pretty damn good and thats why they achived what they did.

What are you? The leader of the IIRAF fan club?

And in desert storm its a well known fact that the Iraqis did not fight back and all their best planes escaped to the neighbours.

So I guess all of those MIG-29 kills were just figments of my imagination?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Compared to the Iraqis they were. Compared to the major powers they were not.

But two posts up you said they were one of the poorest led in the world. Now the Iraqis, are the poorest? Never mind I will not push you.

What are you? The leader of the IIRAF fan club?

You are breaking my heart. Its called the IRIAF, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. The older was the IIAF, Imperial Iran Air Force.

So I guess all of those MIG-29 kills were just figments of my imagination?

Against Iraqi Mig-29s you had a grand total of 6 confirmed kill and 2 claimed but unconfirmed kills.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Iranian 14 drivers are known to be the worst pilots in the sky. The Iranian AF is one of the poorest led in the world.

Drivers??!!

And can you give me a link to where you obtained this wolrd ranking of AF pilots/drivers??
Wonder which country has the worst bus drivers!!

Originally posted by Jehosephat
Afganistan had a few F-4s F-5 and F-14s as well

- Really?

I seem to recall only the US navy and the Iranian airforce getting F14 Tomcats.

I don't recall Afghanistan as a F4 Phantom II customer either.

Probly doing some reverse engineering of the craft. they "barrowed" from the talliban

- Can you back this claim up in any way?

Originally posted by Sep
One more thing just finished reading one of the articles you posted and it seems to be contridicting itself. Tell me what you think of it.

"The US has estimated the number of operational Iranian F-14s at any given time at 15 to 20, and sometimes less than 10, due to the cannibalization of other planes to keep a few flying"

Whille at the bottom of the article it say's:

"Some 50 to 55 are believed to remain in service, but only about 30 of these are considered airworthy at any one time. "

Tell me which one you think is right.

Just to clarify, the way I read the source that information originally came from is that Iran was able to keep 15 to 20 F-14s airworthy during the war with Iraq. After the war, Iran was able to increase its fleet to about 30 in service.

This seems reasonable since wartime puts much greater stress on a military's resources--aircraft fly more often and need more repair. The air force would have been forced to focus its maintenance personnel on keeping the planes in the best condition operational. In peacetime, the pace of operations is reduced freeing up manpower and supplies to support a larger number of aircraft.

In any case, I agree that Iran's usage of the F-14 is a difficult subject to tackle. There is a great deal of contradictory information out there, and it is difficult to wade through it all to find the truth. In the article our site published, we made the decision to stick with the information that most sources seemed to agree upon, including Aviation Week, Jane's, Flight International, and Joe Baugher's site. Hopefully, we can learn more one day when Iran becomes a more open nation.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Iranian 14 drivers are known to be the worst pilots in the sky. The Iranian AF is one of the poorest led in the world.

Drivers??!!

And can you give me a link to where you obtained this wolrd ranking of AF pilots/drivers??
Wonder which country has the worst bus drivers!!

The term "drivers" is commonly used in at least the US military. It is not unusual to hear an F-14 pilot referred to as an F-14 driver or a submarine helmsman called a submarine driver, for instance.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Jehosephat
Afganistan had a few F-4s F-5 and F-14s as well

- Really?

I seem to recall only the US navy and the Iranian airforce getting F14 Tomcats.

I don't recall Afghanistan as a F4 Phantom II customer either.

Probly doing some reverse engineering of the craft. they "barrowed" from the talliban

- Can you back this claim up in any way?

I concur. Afghanistan never had and F-4, F-5, or F-14 aircraft.

I do actually agree aswell. No F-14, No F-4II either in "Afghani" airforce.

Never heard of an Afghani AF, till the Talibans took the power down there. After this, there was a Nothern Alliance airforce... of two mil-mi 8 Hip... under Massoud's command...

And now, I don't thing the Afghani would be able to threatend any airforce, not even the Irani AF!!! Exept with some RPG's on ground maybe

Originally posted by Sep
But two posts up you said they were one of the poorest led in the world. Now the Iraqis, are the poorest? Never mind I will not push you.

Well, they both are pretty poor when you compare them to the US, UK, or even the Russians.

Against Iraqi Mig-29s you had a grand total of 6 confirmed kill and 2 claimed but unconfirmed kills.

You were the one who said that all of their good stuff was flown out of the country. If that was the case then why did we shoot down a good percent of their top of the line fighter?

new pictures of iranian F14s.
As you can see these planes are well maintained.







i have got more if you want to see them

[edit on 23-5-2005 by persian]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Well, they both are pretty poor when you compare them to the US, UK, or even the Russians.

But that is not what you said. Everyone would acknowledge that US, UK and Russians are some of the best led in the world. You said Iran is one of the worst. What are you basing this on? There are quite a few airforces in the world, including the Afghan Airforce that was mentioned before. Are you saying that Iran is worst led that Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or all the other developing countries?

You were the one who said that all of their good stuff was flown out of the country. If that was the case then why did we shoot down a good percent of their top of the line fighter?

I have to admit that I was wrong and now that I double checked only 140-150 of the planes escaped to Iran, and 110-120 of them made it, and it was mostly the mirges who escaped although a few of the Mig-29s came with them.