It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Let's talk about Iranian F-14

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Wasn't it one of our F-15's that desintigrated in the air last Friday in Missouri? I remember reading that they grounded the whole fleet of 700 claiming them to be old and unable to withstand sound twice the speed of sound.

Wouldn't it be something if the enemy found a way to desintegrate our aircraft during flight with some electronic signal?

I understand the bulk of the fleet is in Afganistan.




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


The situation about the F-15's is currently being dissuced here in this same forum. You may find the information helpful as to understanding whats going on with the 15s
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
The problem was never with displayed F-14s it was with equipement that was taken out of the aircraft for storage like avionics that ended up in the hands of smugglers..



That may be true, my question still stands. What is the DOD afraid of? They have protected the F-14 unlike any other retired fighter jet. Are Iranian F-14's really that dangerous in an airwar scenario? Something to think about.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Well any possible thing that you can control that may go to a goverment that you don't wan to have it should be controlled in a goverment mind set right? It announced that the decision was taken "given the current situation in Iran". I don't question why they did it but the question of would it of mattered if they did get their hands on the spares I'm not sure. The amount of spares that they could of got and the rate at which a airframe detireates aren't going to keep them in the air forever.

Well the life of the airframes question I got an answer.The original design airframe life for the F-14 was 6,000 hours, but was later extended to 7,200 hours. Now to get a idea the number of hours the IAF uses them in a year and when they rolled off the line.
www.fas.org...


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


I suppose it depends if an F-14A could get a lock on an Super Hornet and shoot it down? Or deliver sunburns?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Make sure you have seen my edit onto the post about your last Steve. My point now is how much life do the airframe have left. That can be the bigger issue to if they are even a threat. F-14 160377 was the last F-14 to roll of the line to go to the IIAF. Now it never made it to Iran due to the revolution but that was in 1978 so I assum around the sametime was when the last one went over. So now my research centers around the idea of how much the IIAf has used a plane per year and a bench mark would be how much the USN used up of a airframes life in a year.

www.centurychina.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Very good point Canada, I totally neglected that idea as I've been catching up with this thread, do the F-14's in Iran's inventory even have sufficient life in them to even launch a viable air campaign against upgraded American F-16's and F-22's?

Or even any other potential enemy Air Force fighters?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Ofcourse the F14 is a very dangerous airplane. It was designed for high speed interceptions with up to 6 phoenix and 2 sidewinder missles. What also is possible is to say carry 2 phoenix or similair, 2 sidewinders and 4 bombs/missles which way around 450 kg each or 2 of 900 or even maybe 1 of 1800. The only comparable aircraft is the new mig31 version with ground attack capabillity.

Personally i think it is the most dangerous 4th gen US aircraft if properly maintained or upgraded.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ShatteredSkies
 


In the case of an air war - i think it can be assumed they wouldn`t worry about life left and just use them



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


They'll have to worry when they start losing more planes to simple airframe fatigue against enemy fire.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Found a neat power point on corrosion affects on the USN fleet but it also has the average flight hours for the F-14 on it which in comparison to the F-15 is about 40 hrs less. The F-15 is around 270 hours and the F-14 is 231 hours a year.
link is here found on page 18 of 22.
www.sae.org...
(I may be wrong as this number 231 could refer to manhours of M/T work per flight.)
Can anyone confirm this? because it would make sence. The first F-14 entered service in 1972 and then was retired in 2004 at what I assume is the 7200 hr mark. 32 years at 225hrs a year would add up to the 7200 airframe life.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


The Iranian F14 is not naval. It doesn't operate in a corrosive environment. Perhaps the lifetime is more than we think.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


So then closer to the F-15's which isn't that much longer then the F-14's and then top it off with the possible inability to properly train aircrew on the airframe and the less and less training and the longer and longer they try and keep the aircraft in the air the less "likely" it is to be a true threat to any attacking force. Not saying the IIAF isn't a threat but the F-14's in that force are less likely for sure.

Again it does come back to the pilot but the pilot can only do what the gov/mil lets him do with the life that the plane has.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Well i expected the F14 to have a longer airframe life than the F15 in a non corrosive enviroment due to it being designed for a corrosive enviroment.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join