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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
TEHRAN, Jan 26 (Reuters) - An Iranian military plane crashed in the early hours of Thursday near the Gulf coast, the semi-official Fars news agency reported, saying no reason had yet been given for the incident.
"An F-14 crashed three minutes after take-off at 4:30 a.m. (0100 GMT) near the city of Bushehr," Fars reported, citing a local government official.
Originally posted by Darce
Well I can't remember hearing about the Iranians loosing a Tomcat to a catastrophic system failure before, but that certainly is possible considering they cannot import replacement parts for maintaining their fleet. Although, I do not doubt their capabilities to domestically produce the parts required to keep their Tomcats operational.
Two interesting points, the crash occurred three minutes after take-off, and neither the pilot or the RIO ejected. This would suggest the jet was either flying too low at the time of the incident to have time to eject, or the system failure was so catastrophic that the airframe was destroyed in mid-air.
Possibilities? Catastrophic systems failure? Downed shortly after take-off by hostiles? Another likely case of sabotage? What do you make of this ATS?
Of course, respect to the airmen and their families, may they rest in peace.
www.trust.org
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by Tifozi
There were several cases of F-14's exploding just after entering sonic speeds.
Example:
The F-14 first flew in December 1970. It first deployed in 1974 with the U.S. Navy aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65), replacing the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The F-14 served as the U.S. Navy's primary maritime air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tactical reconnaissance platform. In the 1990s it added the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod system and began performing precision strike missions. The F-14 was retired from the active U.S. Navy fleet on 22 September 2006
Originally posted by Bambobo
I highly doubt altitude is a contributing factor. Three minutes is a long time for an aircraft to be flyign at a low enough altitude for there to be too little time to respond.
I know roughly of the F-14's mechanical problems, but nothing indepth. I don't like the idea of a mechanical fault though; surely there's a system in place that will be usable during loss of most system controls? This isn't go off of any facts, but I'd imagine that the crew eject systems are independent of other systems.
I hate jumping to conclusions, especially about conspiracies an secret missions, but something that prevents the crew from ejecting must be very sudden or a broad catastrophic failure. Plus, there's been a bit of ruckus amongst the Israelis recently.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Yes, Several out of a total production run of 712 [various models] and a service record spanning 36 + Years isn't that bad considering it was designed using late 1960's era technology.
Linky
The F-14 first flew in December 1970. It first deployed in 1974 with the U.S. Navy aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65), replacing the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The F-14 served as the U.S. Navy's primary maritime air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tactical reconnaissance platform. In the 1990s it added the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod system and began performing precision strike missions. The F-14 was retired from the active U.S. Navy fleet on 22 September 2006
Must be why they have been retired eh?
Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by Darce
However, since you stated that the f-15 replaced the f-14 in the US Airforce, I will take everything you say with a grain of salt.
Wikipedia is your friend.edit on 26-1-2012 by steppenwolf86 because: I wish there was a way to cite/reply to muliple posts at once
Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by Darce
Also, you could argue that the variable geometry wing is an overweight, overdesigned feature with as many faults as it has advantages. The f-15 is much more maneuverable than the f-14. But then, I am a fan of John Boyd. Also, to suggest that a problem is solved by not exceeding supersonic speed when the primary role of the aircraft is as an interceptor is laughable. However, since you stated that the f-15 replaced the f-14 in the US Airforce, I will take everything you say with a grain of salt.
Wikipedia is your friend.edit on 26-1-2012 by steppenwolf86 because: I wish there was a way to cite/reply to muliple posts at once
you could argue that the variable geometry wing is an overweight, overdesigned feature with as many faults as it has advantages.
The f-15 is much more maneuverable than the f-14.
Also, to suggest that a problem is solved by not exceeding supersonic speed when the primary role of the aircraft is as an interceptor is laughable.
However, since you stated that the f-15 replaced the f-14 in the US Airforce, I will take everything you say with a grain of salt.
Wikipedia is your friend