Iran military jet crashes, reason unknown

reply to post by Darce


Actually no. The F-15 was rushed up in order to fulfill the gaps of the F-14, and to give an extra edge on the US military, even in the Navy.

I think they were designing the F-15N with a hook to land on carriers, but problems due to weight or design prevented them from using it.

That's why they reinforced it's role by using mid-air refueling.

Rip to the sent.

Also it may have something to do with that drone the bogus drone that fell in the Iranian hands.

reply to post by Tifozi


I can't find any info on Tomcats with USAF markings. They probably wanted to replace the F-4 with something that had a gun.

Oh well thread derailed. We'll see if anything comes of this incident.

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by Tifozi

 

I can't find any info on Tomcats with USAF markings. They probably wanted to replace the F-4 with something that had a gun.

Oh well thread derailed. We'll see if anything comes of this incident.

When I said US Airforce the first time, I meant it as in a general term, or expression, not literally "the division of the US military, the US Air Force"...

The aviation genius over there was the one pick pointing errors in semantics.

Sorry about the derail anyway. If I get updates on this later on, I'll post it here.

reply to post by Tifozi


The variable geometry wings of the F-14 was it's defining design feature imo. I was a fan of the aircraft way before the over the top "Top Gun" fan club started.

For many of us here who appreciate Military hardware.
The F-14 is still ranked very high on the COOL-FACTOR

reply to post by Tifozi


Sounds good to me!

The pilot hit the ejection button and the depressurization killed him.



Atleast that is what the western media will report.



I wouldn't look too far into it you guys, they are known for having #ty military equipment.

You really have no idea what you are talking about on many fronts. And even when you admit you are wrong, such as when you referred to the f-14 in the US Airforce, you laugh it off as if speaking in some general terminology.

The weight of an airplane has EVERYTHING to do with how it flies, because of thrust to weight ratio. If you do a search in google or on here for f-14 vs f-15 maneuverability you will find that I am correct in that the f-15 is a superior turning aircraft.

If you were simply willing to use google or the ATS search function and do a little reading, you will find that the people who look past the sentimental value and looks of an f-14 will admit that the f-15 was a better pure dogfighter. The Airforce plane was in fact superior in maneuverability to the Navy plane.

Of course, when I say Airforce, I mean that in a broad sense, and allow for no distinguishing between naval and air aviation wings, making statements such as THE F-15 REPLACED THE F-14 one hundred percent true.

Yikes, how can you take yourself seriously? Just admit your mistake, no need to be perfect.

reply to post by Tifozi


Friendly advice if I may. I gather from your post that you are younger and passionate about the subject. It is a great topic.

You might want to think twice about calling other people idiots even when your information is correct, it is unnecessary and just turns people off from what you might have to say.

In this case, the conclusions you are drawing from the pedestrian information you have posted are both incorrect and show a superficial understanding of the subject.

Contrary to your assertion that weight in a fighter makes no difference, I would beg to differ. Weight still makes a huge difference when it comes to maneuverability, regardless of thrust to weight and lift to drag ratio you still have to overcome inertia. The more something weighs the more force is needed to affect it, this was part of the design basis that the Light Weight Fighter program, otherwise known as the YF-16 and YF-17.

As the previous poster stated, variable geometry is heavy and complicated. It was an ambitious solution for the operational problems faced by its proponents 50 years ago, modern computerized flight systems have negated the advantages of variable geometry.

Regarding your comparison between the F-14 and F-15 in the WVR air dominance role....

Which airframe has higher g limits?

Higher instantaneous roll rate?

Which has higher instantaneous and sustained turn rate?

Which has the higher thrust to weight and lower wing loading?

Which has the better transonic performance?

The two aircraft were designed for entirely different roles. The Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) program which became the F-14 was designed around the AIM-54/AWG-9 weapons system as fleet defense, specifically intercept Soviet anti-shipping cruise missiles at extreme long range.

The F-X (Fighter-Experimental) program which became the F-15 was designed specifically for air superiority and succeeded in every way. Its best in the world air-to-air combat record of 104 kills to 0 losses is inarguable.

The F-14 is a formidable aircraft that did its job very well however declaring it to be superior to the F-15 at the F-15's own game is not a matter of opinion, it is incorrect.

Hope this helps

I thought Iran gave up jets and went to UFO's?????



Chances are it was an old jet, and because their military is suddenly in a flury of activity, an old jet got used and crashed. You will probably hear more and more about these things as Iran prepares for war with crappy out dated equipment...minus their UFO fleet

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Darce

 

Actually no. The F-15 was rushed up in order to fulfill the gaps of the F-14, and to give an extra edge on the US military, even in the Navy.

I think they were designing the F-15N with a hook to land on carriers, but problems due to weight or design prevented them from using it.

That's why they reinforced it's role by using mid-air refueling.

edit on 26/1/12 by Tifozi because: typo

I think you have gotten some bad information of this subject.

The Naval Fighter Attack Experimental (VFAX) program was created when it became apparent the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) was not going to meet all of the requirements (specifically, the F-111B's were too heavy to be effective in the role of fleet defense)

Grummans solution was to build an aircraft around the AIM-54 Phoenix/AWG-9 weapons system using the same Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines, this was the Naval Fighter Experimental (VFX). The F/A-18 Hornet went on to fulfill the "A" designation of the VFAX program.

The VFX Request for Proposal was issued in July of 1968, Grumman was award the contract to build the Tomcat in January of 1969.

The air superiority charateristics of the Tomcat were the result of a happy accident of converging design features, it was specifically designed from the begining to be a fast, long range air to air missile truck...

Maneuverability

 

In order to avoid being forced to accept the FX specification then being developed by the USAF, the Navy insisted on an airplane uncompromised by the air superiority requirements. This was actually a code phrase which meant retaining the primary FADF capability of the relatively heavy Phoenix missile.

If the F-14 was created to shoot down bombers, and it was not optimized for maneuvering air combat as the primary design goal, it has even been suggested that the F-14's extraordinary maneuverability is due to the accident of a low approach speed requirement.

However, the Grumman design was able to create a design in which the FDAF and AS requirements did not significantly compromise each other.

The F-14 would use a wing sweep program to optimize lift and drag at all combat speeds, twin tails for stability, greatly reduced weight through extensive use of titanium to achieve a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-4, a pancake fuselage for increased lift, a raised tandem cockpit for reduced drag and increased visibility, a gun for close-in fighting, and widely spaced engines for weapons carriage and survivability.

Though as the first of a new generation of air superiority fighters, it would be criticized for not possessing the desired 1:1 combat thrust to weight ratio as was intended in the proposed upgraded F-14B and F-14C, it would prove to be competitive in training against a variety of competitors throughout its service life, especially at low speeds with a fully forward wing at full afterburner.

VFAX/ Naval Fighter Attack Experimental

The FX program which became the F-15 was created after the Tomcat had been designed and selected by the Navy. The USAF considered the Navy VFX design but quickly rejected it as being unsuitable for the Air Force's needs.

The FX contract was awarded to McDonnell Douglas in December of 1969, a year after the VFX (Tomcat).

The F-14 first flew on 21 December 1970, reached Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 1973 and began its first was operational deployment in September 1974 aboard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65).

The F-15A maiden flight was made in July 1972, reached IOC in November 1974 and was first deployed to an operational combat squadron in January of 1976.

The Navalised variant, F-15N-PHX was a study that was rejected nearly as soon as the ink dried. I don't understand your comment on mid air refueling? One of the FX requirements from the begining was the ability to aerial refuel.

Regardless, the Air Force FX program had nothing to do with the Navy VFX, and certainly wasn't "rushed in to fill the gaps of the F-14.

Either you have seriously misunderstood your source material or somebody is having fun with you at your expense.

I hope this helps clear a few things up.

Probably USA or Israel demonstrating their air superiority over Iran.

Iran will not admit publicly, but they just got put in their place. I don't think they will be selling their oil for gold again any time soon.

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
You really have no idea what you are talking about on many fronts. And even when you admit you are wrong, such as when you referred to the f-14 in the US Airforce, you laugh it off as if speaking in some general terminology.

I'm ignorant around a lot of subjects, this however is more a lack of understanding of my words, rather than incorrect information, but I'll leave that response in a few moments.

If you don't like my humor or you don't like the way I "fancy" my posts, too bad. Suck it up princess, this is a public (as in, accessible by any person who acts under T&C) forum and people are free to express their opinions.

In case you don't know (which is obvious you don't, and that's fine) I'm not actually american, nor british for that matter. My native language is portuguese, not english, and some language schemes (expressions) are very different. When we talk about planes, we say the words "air force", it's a general term that describes anything that flies and fights.

It's your wrong move to address me in a condescending manner without any regards to why/how I said things, and instead of asking for clarification you just attempted to mock my knowledge.

I don't take lessons from anyone who is arrogant, and the day you are able to speak as good portuguese, as I speak english, then we will talk.

Until then, try to calm down your hormones and try being a little more polite to people who are actually trying to have a nice exchange of opinions and points of view.

The weight of an airplane has EVERYTHING to do with how it flies, because of thrust to weight ratio. If you do a search in google or on here for f-14 vs f-15 maneuverability you will find that I am correct in that the f-15 is a superior turning aircraft.

And you figured that by yourself? JUST USING GOOGLE? wooww... Really, woow. I mean, you assume that I've enough skills to search for detailed information like the F-14 exploding due to supersonic speeds (which, in case you didn't notice, I was the first poster to mention that and give a source/example), but then you also assume that I'm enough of a moron to not google the same you do... "F-14 vs F-15".

Honestly, you need to tune down your arrogance and tune up your modesty.

And yes, I'm very aware of how weight influences performance on every single piece of machinery on Earth. That's why, in previous post, I actually gave the example of the A380.

I guess you must be an "expert" to wonder why they don't use passenger planes for dogfights.

If you were simply willing to use google or the ATS search function and do a little reading, you will find that the people who look past the sentimental value and looks of an f-14 will admit that the f-15 was a better pure dogfighter. The Airforce plane was in fact superior in maneuverability to the Navy plane.

And if you would be more of a calm person and you actually read what people say, instead of what "they say" inside your head, you would have noticed that I said this in my second post:

Sadly, it was put out of it's misery by another masterpiece of US air force, the F-15.

You see, if you weren't trying so hard to prove me wrong, you would have actually noticed that we agree.

The F-15 is a "mythical" plane, like an unbeatable warrior. You would need to be living under a rock for the last decades to not know the relevance of the F-15 as the first real, true, air superiority fighter.

Of course, when I say Airforce, I mean that in a broad sense, and allow for no distinguishing between naval and air aviation wings, making statements such as THE F-15 REPLACED THE F-14 one hundred percent true.

That comment is unnecessary. Actually, all your posts have been unnecessary and you are in part responsible for derailing the thread, so have a little decency.

Besides, I assumed that the use of capital letters in that context was meant to be (again) seen as a little humor. I guess I overestimated your comprehension abilities. Maybe next time I should make drawings, and "connect the dots" exercises? Would that be useful to you?

You see, my points might not be 100% correct, and I do make mistakes often. But I enjoy being corrected, when the people doing the corrections are actually cordial and make an effort to have a conversation, instead of pulling their own E-penis into arguments.

That could have started a very nice conversation in this thread regarding aviation. Instead, I'm teaching you how not to misjudge people based on semantics and arrogance.

Yikes, how can you take yourself seriously? Just admit your mistake, no need to be perfect.

How? Because I understand the difference between having an opinion and discussing it and being an azz in internet forums, because "someone is wrong in the internet".

And exactly. Nobody is perfect, so drop the attitude.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Friendly advice if I may. I gather from your post that you are younger and passionate about the subject. It is a great topic.

You should take your advice. I'm neither young, nor passionate. Except with women... In bed. Or with jellyfishes.

Jellyfishes are hot.

You might want to think twice about calling other people idiots even when your information is correct, it is unnecessary and just turns people off from what you might have to say.

In case you didn't noticed, I responded to a poster who was arrogant towards me. Yes, I did escalate the response, but he deserved it. I didn't have any problems talking both to the OP and other members, nor do I have a problem addressing you and being polite and having a nice humor.

See the pattern?

In this case, the conclusions you are drawing from the pedestrian information you have posted are both incorrect and show a superficial understanding of the subject.

In my second post (actually an answer to another member, who wasn't condescending in his words) I said this:

I think (without researching or cheating on google) it had something to do with how the air flow affected the aircraft.

I didn't portray my information as dogmatic, although I did respond aggressively to the quoting master over there. I actually was honest about how much I knew about the subject.

Like I said to him, this could have turned into a pleasant conversation.

Contrary to your assertion that weight in a fighter makes no difference, I would beg to differ. Weight still makes a huge difference when it comes to maneuverability, regardless of thrust to weight and lift to drag ratio you still have to overcome inertia. The more something weighs the more force is needed to affect it, this was part of the design basis that the Light Weight Fighter program, otherwise known as the YF-16 and YF-17.

Then you misunderstood my comments.

I didn't defend that weight doesn't matter. Much the opposite, at most I meant it as something along the lines of "weight doesn't matter in this context or to the point in hand.

Again, I mentioned the A380 on purpose (heaviest airliner), and I do comprehend (although not the math of it) how weight is important. I'm aware of the new "philosophy" of Boeing with their new alloys and compounds to save weight and gain fuel efficiency, for instance.

As the previous poster stated, variable geometry is heavy and complicated. It was an ambitious solution for the operational problems faced by its proponents 50 years ago, modern computerized flight systems have negated the advantages of variable geometry.

My second post, again:

It was a beautiful craft, and very well made, apart from some "mistakes". People unknown to the aircraft must be aware of how complex that thing was, and how ahead of it's time it was.

I'm not saying it's better or worst, I'm saying it was ahead of it's time. I repeat, that was in my second post.

Furthermore, in another post I made this comment:

The system did work, and it wasn't all that complex. Actually, it didn't have any problem besides the fact that it was too ahead of it's time. The wings weren't the problem, it was a genius idea. The problem was that the rest of the envolving tech in the plane wasn't all that clever to take the most of the design.

The underline part is relevant to many points made towards me, relating the success of the F-14.

It's like talking about Leonardo Da Vinci's helicopter. Nobody has doubts about it's genius, nobody has doubts the concept works. But in his era, Da Vinci couldn't make it work the same way we do, in an era where helicopters are almost like toys(proliferate).

Again, I think you can start to see how this discussion got twisted, especially my words.

The F-14 is a formidable aircraft that did its job very well however declaring it to be superior to the F-15 at the F-15's own game is not a matter of opinion, it is incorrect.

You go into specifics, but the main point is in this sentence.

Which, to reply to, I must again repeat what I said in my first post:

Sadly, it was put out of it's misery by another masterpiece of US air force, the F-15.

Again, I never said the F-14 was better than the F-15. You can't argue that a plane that only had losses due to mechanical problems or human error is bad.

The F-14 is more exotic, but not better. The same way a Ferrari under different contexts isn't better than a BMW, as a metaphor comparison.

Hope that helps clearing this.

My first post, in general response to the thread, in reply to Darce.
Maybe, but one must wonder how often they actually take to the air. The Iranians have a very high accident rate especially considering their limited flight hours and the rather small inventory of fighters.

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

The highlights of your reply to me:
Mistake 1:

Overweight? Do you know any crap about aviation? It doesn't matter how much it weights, as long as it generates enough upper lift to maintain it in the air. How do you think the Airbus A380 flies? By miracle?

As to the overdesign, that's pretty ignorant to say.
Mistake number 2:
Steppenwolf86: The f-15 is much more maneuverable than the f-14.
You:
Idiot statement, may I say.

____________________________________________________
You were the first to insult me. You called me an idiot, and made it personal long before I did.

Once again, instead of simply saying that you were wrong, you try to deflect blame. As another poster said, the next time you want to call someone an idiot, at least have the courtesy to get your facts straight.

Also, I did not derail the thread any more than you did. I merely responded to your posts, pointing out that your opinions, assumptions and conclusions were misguided at best.

I love how you try to play the I am not an american card. When you come into a thread and try to play expert, you open yourself up to people who will make sure your claims are based in fact. If your claims are based on mere opinion, and not backed up by reliable sources, it is your own fault for trying to play expert in the first place.

Finally, how am I the bad guy? You insulted me, you even attempted to point out my mistakes... When in reality, my facts were correct, and yours were not. I could go through your post point by point and absolutly make you come out like a fool, but I refuse to do that. You, however, are not above such tactics. But I am the bad guy.

By the way, perhaps you could take a look at MY listed location? If I am inconsiderate for not taking into consideration your english level and country of origin, what is your excuse for not considering mine?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


You go into a lot of detailed information, to which I'm honestly unaware.

I do know general stuff about the US military, but I'm not anything close to an expert in that area, and for that I thank your clarification on the whole issue.

There is just one point which I think was misunderstood and I would like to rephrase:

The Navalised variant, F-15N-PHX was a study that was rejected nearly as soon as the ink dried. I don't understand your comment on mid air refueling? One of the FX requirements from the begining was the ability to aerial refuel.

I was actually under the impression that the F-15 was supposed to replace the F-14, and that the F-15N version was being developed to fulfill the Navy needs (due to the hiccups with the F-14 that we both mentioned). I remember reading somewhere (ages ago, at the time the F-15 was still new) that the reason for the scratch on the F-15N was something due to carrying some specific missiles in use, or something due to weight.

The refueling part was meant as a strategic tool. Like I explained earlier, due to different languages my expression "us airforce" was misunderstood, and I didn't put it out there properly, distinguishing the different military branches.

The comment was due to my *wrong* notion that the F-15 did replace the F-14 in strategic aspects, since the F-15 wouldn't be launched from carriers (mobility) but could do long distances and long missions with mid-air refueling.

Again, thanks for the information!

Kind regards

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
You were the first to insult me. You called me an idiot, and made it personal long before I did.

You said (before I address you):

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.

To which, along with a response on the same level I replied:

And by the way, the fact that you don't even know how to elaborate a post quoting different people, only shows how mentally limited you are, and I take your tone as highly offensive.

For too long I actually cared to amuse people in stupid discussions without putting them to their place. It doesn't matter if you are "more right" than me in the subject, there are manners on how to reply to people, almost calling them stupid, while having the same degree of ignorance.

I simply stopped accepting people's arrogance, and if you pull that crap with me, I'm not going to be illusive enough to not call you an idiot directly. I made my understanding of your tone very clear. You got what you asked for.

Once again, instead of simply saying that you were wrong, you try to deflect blame. As another poster said, the next time you want to call someone an idiot, at least have the courtesy to get your facts straight.

1- I did say when and about what I was wrong, and actually refuted that in my previous post (to YOU) by saying that it's the matter of how people correct others, not the fact they are corrected. Learning is cool. Being mocked isn't.

Since "wikipedia is your friend", why don't you google how to quote different posts, there is something called "ATS search" also. (see? Not very pleasant, is it?).

Instead of apolagizing, you keep dancing on top "I'm right, you're wrong" table. Which, to me, only shows high levels of immaturity. You do not know how to apologize. I do, you just don't deserve it.

2- I didn't say I was being factual. I made my opinion known, being right or wrong. You still haven't understood that this is more about your attitude (which you continue to put forward), than really about the subject. It's pathetic, especially if you considered how small detailed the discussion is.

Also, I did not derail the thread any more than you did. I merely responded to your posts, pointing out that your opinions, assumptions and conclusions were misguided at best.

No, you actually only care to respond to me personally. Even when you respond to me, you only care about judging me. I might call you an idiot to your face, but I don't judge your character (except for today's part). You do the opposite.

I love how you try to play the I am not an american card. When you come into a thread and try to play expert, you open yourself up to people who will make sure your claims are based in fact. If your claims are based on mere opinion, and not backed up by reliable sources, it is your own fault for trying to play expert in the first place.

Where did I say I was an expert? Did I say I was an air force (IM SORRY! US NAVY!) pilot or engineer? No. Actually, I said this(which I will repeat for the third time):

I think (without researching or cheating on google) it had something to do with how the air flow affected the aircraft.

In my second post (to which you started by replying) I actually say "without doing research".

Funny eh?

If you don't like me, piss off. But if you are going in for this crap discussion, at least read what people say to you, instead of just attempting to mock them.

As for the american card thing, I actually thought you were american. I didn't check, or even look at your location because... Well, I don't care that much about you, really...

And cut the "bad guy" crap. In my first reply to you I said your tone was offensive. That alone was an opening door for this to get back on track.

But that is assuming you have any modesty in you.

As for the claims I don't assume my mistakes. Read my responses to Drunkenparrot. You might see something inside there that answers that part (another character judgment).

reply to post by Tifozi


Fine, I am sorry for being arrogant. I admit I have little patience for being corrected when I am actually in the right on everything I said. I made the wikipedia comment because I genuinely hoped you would take a look at it. I have spent hours browsing the pages there for different air forces and planes, and I reccomend it once again since you are obviously interested in the topic.

Also, if you or anyone else is interested, I referred to John Boyd in passing. He was a Colonel in the US Airforce who helped change the way we design and evaluate fighter planes, and then warfare in general.
www.amazon.com...

My whole opinion on the f-14 changed when I was 17 and read this book. While it is a biography, it also explains topics from dogfighting strategy to the math that was developed to design the dominant planes that both you and I dream of flying.

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by Tifozi

 

Fine, I am sorry for being arrogant. I admit I have little patience for being corrected when I am actually in the right on everything I said. I made the wikipedia comment because I genuinely hoped you would take a look at it. I have spent hours browsing the pages there for different air forces and planes, and I reccomend it once again since you are obviously interested in the topic.

Also, if you or anyone else is interested, I referred to John Boyd in passing. He was a Colonel in the US Airforce who helped change the way we design and evaluate fighter planes, and then warfare in general.
www.amazon.com...

My whole opinion on the f-14 changed when I was 17 and read this book. While it is a biography, it also explains topics from dogfighting strategy to the math that was developed to design the dominant planes that both you and I dream of flying.

I would like to ask a mod to please give this post an Applause.

As it's clear, we had a bit of a nasty argument, and he deserves the credit for the attitude in his last post. He had the iniciative to send me a private message, approach me in a neutral manner, and after my reply to that U2U, he had the correct posture, decency and balls to make this kind post.

I think this whole situation, albeit unpleasant to look at, should be taken as an example of 2 members, on their own, solving their issues without "casualties".

The apology is accepted and mutual.

---

Well, I'm not going to risk looking like an azz again, so I'll just say that the F-14 earned a sweetspot on my heart after Top Gun.

(Lame, I know... But if you look at the hairstyles at the time, the movie was cool)

Good form Gentlemen.

I believe we all find ourselves wrapped up in the minutia from time to time and lose track of the big picture that for the most part we are all friends who share a common interest.

The above civil conversation is a testament to the quality of individual character on both parts.

Lets hope that somebody reading along learns from the example set by both ATS posters Steppenwolf86 and Tifozi and takes the lesson to heart.

Perhaps there is hope for the internet culture to someday embrace good manners and polite society after all.


Regarding the OP, although it is not my post, I haven't been able to find anymore details yet.

In the interest of keeping the thread alive and somewhat on topic, here are a couple of related bits some may not have seen before.

The first is an Iranian Air Force video from 2009 that was filmed with the intent of documenting a mid air refueling evolution that ended up bearing witness to a horrific mid-air catastrophe...

The 2009 Iranian Air Force Ilyushin IL-76MD accident of 22 September 2009 resulted in the destruction of Iran's only functional Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, an Ilyushin IL-76MD.

Sources conflict on the cause of the loss, with some stating that there was a mid-air collision with an Iranian Air Force Northrop F-5E Tiger II or a HESA Saeqeh, and others stating that the rotodome detached from the aircraft, striking and removing the tailplane while the aircraft was manoeuvreing for an emergency landing following an engine fire.

2009 Iranian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 accident


Next, a sincere testament to Iranian aerospace resourcefulness, the successful integration of the hawk surface to air missile system into a dedicated air to air weapon onboard the Tomcat.



Possibly the greatest F-14 photo ever, Capt. Dale Snodgrass' 1988 "flyby'' next to the USS America.



NASA test mating an AIM-54 Phoenix to an F-15 for hypersonic research. AFAIK, this was the only example.



My personal favorite Eagle driver photo....



Enjoy...