NationStates Jolt Archive

Aging F-14 Makes Final Bombing Runs
Associated Press | December 16, 2005
MANAMA, Bahrain - The U.S. Navy's F-14 Tomcat fighter, built as a Cold War defense against Soviet bombers and emblazoned on popular imagination as Tom Cruise's plane in the 1986 movie Top Gun, is just weeks away from making its final combat sorties over Iraq before being retired for good.

A pair of Navy squadrons with the last 22 operational Tomcats are still flying bombing and strafing runs on insurgent targets in Iraq, jetting off the deck of the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Persian Gulf.

But by next fall, Navy pilots will have completed their switch to the smaller, more reliable F-18 Hornet, said Commander Jim Howe, deputy commander of the Roosevelt's F-14 squadrons.

Despite the dogfighting flash of Top Gun, in real life the Tomcat was so tough to fly and maintain that it became known as the "turkey," said Howe, "because it doesn't look like it should fly."

The first squadron of Tomcats, a big two-seater with its signature retractable wings, screamed across the skies in 1971, after rolling off Grumman's assembly line in Bethpage, New York.

Its final combat sorties are taking place in coming weeks, before the Roosevelt departs the Persian Gulf early next year, taking the last American F-14s to their retirement in the United States. Howe declined for security reasons to name the date of the Roosevelt's departure for its base in Virginia.

Most remaining F-14s will be mothballed in the desert on Davis-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona.

"It's a bittersweet time for all the Tomcat people," Howe, 38, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, told The Associated Press by telephone from aboard the Roosevelt. "The powers that be figured it was time to put it to rest."

When it emerged 34 years ago, the Tomcat was considered a major coup in the U.S.-Soviet arms race. The F-14 carried up to six Phoenix air-to-air missiles that could be fired simultaneously and guided to six separate targets.

The Pentagon envisioned the F-14 defending U.S. carrier groups against fleets of Soviet bombers, said Rear Admiral John W. Miller, a former Tomcat radar operator who is deputy commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command in Bahrain.

"It was a phenomenal capability when it was developed," Miller said. "It's one of the planes that helped us win the Cold War."

The Tomcat's wartime debut in April 1975 was a humble one: providing cover for the U.S. evacuation of Saigon just before the city fell to the North Vietnamese.

Tomcats didn't see combat until six years later, in 1981, when a squadron flying near Libya's Mediterranean coast shot down a pair of SU-22 Fitter fighters after one of the Libyan pilots fired a missile at the U.S. jets - and missed.

In 1989, Tomcats downed a pair of Libyan MiG-23 fighters, after apparently deeming the Libyans had displayed "hostile intent."

The Tomcat had an even longer adversarial relationship with Iraq.

In the only known export of the plane, the United States sold 80 F-14s to Iran in 1974, while the country was a U.S. ally under the shah. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Iranian Tomcats - now defending Iran's Islamic revolution - downed three Iraqi fighter jets. Saddam Hussein's air force is also thought to have downed a handful of Iranian F-14s.

Ironically, the last flying Tomcats may be Tehran's.

U.S. intelligence assessments say five or six of Iran's early model Tomcats can probably still fly, but do so rarely, given the U.S. embargo on the Islamic Republic and the prodigious maintenance and parts the F-14s need, Howe said.

"I have almost no doubt that their F-14s are in such poor shape that I would not call them operational," Howe said.

In the Gulf War in 1990, U.S. Tomcat pilots took on the Iraqi air force - losing one plane to an Iraqi missile and shooting down one helicopter - but the dogfights were over in three days, when the Iraqi air force was destroyed or fled. After that, the air-to-air equipped F-14s were of little use.

Soon after, carrier-based F-14s began enforcing the no-fly zone over southern Iraq under Operation Southern Watch. They've flown over Iraq ever since.

Upon the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Tomcat's dogfighting prowess became an anachronism. The Navy retooled it as a ground-attack jet, with capabilities to drop guided bombs.

Tomcats joined the air war over Bosnia and Kosovo in the late 1990s, dropping laser-guided bombs for the first time.

The pair of squadrons on board the Roosevelt fly daily over Iraq, giving air cover to U.S. ground troops fighting guerrillas in Baghdad and north of the capital, Howe said.

They haven't seen as much action as Air Force and Marine F-18s and AV-8 Harriers, which have been engaged in increasingly intense bombings of rebel positions in western Iraq.

Still, the Tomcats have proven useful.

One night last month, Howe said his pair of F-14s flew low over Baghdad's airport to investigate reports of U.S. C-130 cargo planes taking rebel anti-aircraft fire. The insurgents also opened fire on the Tomcats, giving away their position. Howe said he radioed the rebel coordinates and U.S. ground troops captured the men and their anti-aircraft gun.

The Navy's Tomcat pilots will be retrained to fly two versions of the Hornet, the two-seat F-18F and the one-seat F-18E, Howe said.

The Tomcat isn't the oldest combat jet still active in the U.S. arsenal. The B-52 Stratofortress bomber, which entered service in 1954 and still blasts targets in Afghanistan wins that honor. Also going strong in Afghanistan is the Air Force's A-10 Warthog, which debuted in 1972.

The F-14 became notorious for the painstaking maintenance it needs: 40 shop hours for each hour in the air, four times the tinkering needed by its F-18 replacement.

"It's been flying on the backs of the maintainers for a long time," Howe said.

The F-18s are also easier to fly, Howe said. But the Tomcat has a few qualities that pilots will miss. Howe, who will move to a one-seat F-18E, said he'll miss having a companion in the cockpit.

"I'm a fan of the two-seat concept," Howe said. "You get a synergistic effect that pays dividends when people start shooting at you."

sad to see them go. they were my favorite.


But all things must pass on.

I'm saddened by the loss of the F-14 Tomcat. It is IMO, the best Naval fighter ever built. The F/A-18E/F Super-Hornets don't have the range that the Tomcats had. The Tomcat dropped the majority of bombs not dropped by heavy bombers in Afghanistan.

The swivel wings were cool. And watching them in Top Gun when I was little made me want to be a pilot. But the F-18 is better equipped for the Navy, and the F-22 looks to kick mucho butt. I think it's crazy how the F-22 in practice has to take on 6 F-15's at once, just to make it challenging. And they still always win.

Am i the only one to find funnythat in the movie "top gun" the characters are sent to the school to learn to use guns in combat, and that in the final combat of the movie, they only use missiles? :p

PS: Could you provide a linky for this newspiece, please?
PPS: Anyone here remember the old "F-14 Fleet defender" computer game? lol Think it can run under windows xp? :p

The F-14 became notorious for the painstaking maintenance it needs: 40 shop hours for each hour in the air, four times the tinkering needed by its F-18 replacement.

"It's been flying on the backs of the maintainers for a long time," Howe said.
That seems slightly disturbing, but it is only taken in the context of the information given.
If a list of other maintenence to flying hours for other planes was given it would mean something, as it is it doesn't.

I like/d the Tomcat and i think it will be sad when it goes.

That seems slightly disturbing, but it is only taken in the context of the information given.
If a list of other maintenence to flying hours for other planes was given it would mean something, as it is it doesn't.

I like/d the Tomcat and i think it will be sad when it goes.
You realize that it is that high because the Tomcats in service are older. The F-18s will probably require more maintenance as they get older, but when they say 40 shop hours, it isn't really 40 hours. They probably mean 40 man hours which would in reality be only a couple of hours because there is a high ratio or mechanics per plane.

The swivel wings were cool. And watching them in Top Gun when I was little made me want to be a pilot. But the F-18 is better equipped for the Navy, and the F-22 looks to kick mucho butt. I think it's crazy how the F-22 in practice has to take on 6 F-15's at once, just to make it challenging. And they still always win.
The F-22 has an approach speed that is much too high for carrier operations so the idea of a navalized F-22 was scapped. The F-18's range is a problem. They were unable to perform missions in Afghanistan. The F-14s did all of the bombing that was not performed by USAF heavy bombers. The F-35 will be nice when they get that out in the fleet.

The reason I heard that the F-14s were called "Turkeys" was more due to the way the turkey feathers in the afterburner opened up. If you can find a photo of the jet on the catapult, you can watch the AB vanes open up as the pilot engages the burner.

Now what does the Navy have left to protect the fleet? Lawn Darts? What a shame!

Am i the only one to find funnythat in the movie "top gun" the characters are sent to the school to learn to use guns in combat, and that in the final combat of the movie, they only use missiles? :p

PS: Could you provide a linky for this newspiece, please?
PPS: Anyone here remember the old "F-14 Fleet defender" computer game? lol Think it can run under windows xp? :p
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83082,00.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl

there's your link.

They didn't even use the Tomcat the way they are supposed to. The F-14 was built around the Phoenix missile and they didn't even use it. In reality, Maverick would've taken off on Alert 5 and immediately fired 6 AIM-54C Phoenix missiles at a range over over 100 nm and probably would've gotten 5 kills.

The reason I heard that the F-14s were called "Turkeys" was more due to the way the turkey feathers in the afterburner opened up. If you can find a photo of the jet on the catapult, you can watch the AB vanes open up as the pilot engages the burner.

Now what does the Navy have left to protect the fleet? Lawn Darts? What a shame!
I think the Aegis system sort of took away the Tomcat's job of fleet protection. The F-18 is a capable fighter, but it isn't a Tomcat.

You realize that it is that high because the Tomcats in service are older. The F-18s will probably require more maintenance as they get older, but when they say 40 shop hours, it isn't really 40 hours. They probably mean 40 man hours which would in reality be only a couple of hours because there is a high ratio or mechanics per plane.
Yes i do realise that.
It only proves my point they are throwing about facts and figures to justify what they are doing without putting them in context.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83082,00.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl

there's your link.

They didn't even use the Tomcat the way they are supposed to. The F-14 was built around the Phoenix missile and they didn't even use it. In reality, Maverick would've taken off on Alert 5 and immediately fired 6 AIM-54C Phoenix missiles at a range over over 100 nm and probably would've gotten 5 kills.
Absolutely. Then he would have been screaming for "Texaco" all the way back to the ship. The difference is that the Hornet drivers have to tank after they launch AND before they land.

You realize that it is that high because the Tomcats in service are older. The F-18s will probably require more maintenance as they get older, but when they say 40 shop hours, it isn't really 40 hours. They probably mean 40 man hours which would in reality be only a couple of hours because there is a high ratio or mechanics per plane.
You can only have so many guys working on a plane at the same time. A 40 hour job doesn't turn into a 10 hour job if you have four guys do it. And ,unless the Navy has changed, there still aren't enough mechs and techs to go around. That's why you always see them sleeping in the shops and any other corner that they can find. Last, as the airplane ages, there will be more and more inspections required when other maintenance is done. For instance, if an engine is pulled, the NAMP may require that an inspection be done of the X, Y, and Z parts that are now accessible. That adds a lot of time onto a simple job.

:eek: :(

Was a fanastic multi role fighter

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f14/f14_1.jpg


It is so beautiful

And this ...
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/f14Sonic.gif

I'm going to miss that bird.

You can only have so many guys working on a plane at the same time. A 40 hour job doesn't turn into a 10 hour job if you have four guys do it. And ,unless the Navy has changed, there still aren't enough mechs and techs to go around. That's why you always see them sleeping in the shops and any other corner that they can find. Last, as the airplane ages, there will be more and more inspections required when other maintenance is done. For instance, if an engine is pulled, the NAMP may require that an inspection be done of the X, Y, and Z parts that are now accessible. That adds a lot of time onto a simple job.


Regardless of where the time for each job comes from, it does the same on every aircraft.

Yes, the parts fail more often due to degradation - which is where the extra maintenance hours comes from. Realisticaly, it doesnt take much longer to fix the same parts, there are just more parts that have to be fixed to return the bird to fully mission capable.


And comparing the maintenance hours to those of the replacement airframe is really the only reference that counts. Referencing the maintenance rate of a B-52 would hardly be appropriate since the maintenance requirements of a B-52 as a B-52 cannot be compared to an F-14 in terms of flying hours, mission requirements, mission stresses, etc.


As for the comments about the F-14 being a more effective fighter than the F-18, check your statistics again. The only thing the F-14 has is the ability to launch 6 Phoenix missiles at one time (not really needed in today's warfighting arsenal) and the ability to linger in an AoR for a longer period without calling for "texaco" (which is a somewhat mute point given that there are always "texacos" nearby during operations and for all anyone knows, the F-18 could be much more fuel efficient and simply have smaller tanks)

This really pisses me off. Those fighters are without a doubt the best. They're the only platform capable of handling the Phoenix ATA missile (most effective ATA system). The F-18's are more interceptor than fighter/bomber. The F-22, while impressive in stealth, just doesn't have it to actually cut it in the real world...as with the F-35, which will be marginally better. The F-14 is, and for a long time will be the best fighter.

Most remaining F-14s will be mothballed in the desert on Davis-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona.

I suppose asking that even a single plane be beaten into ploughshares is just too much to ask?

Thank you Dick Cheney for gutting the most effective naval fighter currently in service.

As for the comments about the F-14 being a more effective fighter than the F-18, check your statistics again. The only thing the F-14 has is the ability to launch 6 Phoenix missiles at one time (not really needed in today's warfighting arsenal) and the ability to linger in an AoR for a longer period without calling for "texaco" (which is a somewhat mute point given that there are always "texacos" nearby during operations and for all anyone knows, the F-18 could be much more fuel efficient and simply have smaller tanks)
I'm not sure what the rest of your post was talking about, but I do know a little about air wings that have replaced their fighters with Lawn Darts.

The Midway had Phantoms for BARCAP -- look it up -- and they could provide coverage at a given distance. When the F-18s showed up, the BARCAP was brought in almost 100 Nm. That's not superiority, that's stupidity. Now the fleet has six minutes less to react to a threat. I don't know what the air wings with F-14s have had to resort to, but it probably amounts to the same thing. Reduced fighter coverage.

And that doesn't even begin to cover how strike packages will be affected by the lack of fighter support. It was nice to know that a couple Phantoms were waiting to pick off any of the bad guys that might have followed us out of a target. Now, the strikes will have to get 100 miles closer to the ship before they can count on some fighter cover.

And tankers don't fly everywhere. Much as fighter pilots would like it, we can't be omnipresent. There's a briefed location and that's where we hang. Unless the ready tanker has to launch, the whole air wing expects us to be where we briefed.

The F-22, while impressive in stealth, just doesn't have it to actually cut it in the real world...

Say WHAT now?

An aircraft that can take on six F-15's at once, piloted by the best in the world, and wipe the floor with them, just doesn't cut it? What do you want, a Star Destroyer?

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/13458528.htm

no need to worry Iran still has a few :p

you will most likely see them in a few years under some tin pot nation which should cheer you up

never liked F-14's myself they really are just mothballs the U.S flies as cannon fodder (whoops you didn’t see that)

This really pisses me off. Those fighters are without a doubt the best.

The F-22, while impressive in stealth, just doesn't have it to actually cut it in the real world...as with the F-35, which will be marginally better.

The F-14 is, and for a long time will be the best fighter.

The F-14's a cool plane, but come on man. It's time to put it to rest. It clearly isn't the best fighter anymore, and your comment about the F-22 and the F-35 is simply laughable. It was great for its time, but there's simply better aircraft out there now. Like the Super Hornet.

An aircraft that can take on six F-15's at once, piloted by the best in the world, and wipe the floor with them, just doesn't cut it? What do you want, a Star Destroyer?

Exactly. F-15Cs totally dominate the skies (until the F-22 replaces them *tears*). At higher altitudes, they can make 8.3 g turns without losing speed, or very very little.

Fortunately my favorite aircraft, the F-15E Strike Eagle, currently has no retirement date (to my knowledge), although I bet the F-35 will eventually do it in.

Say WHAT now?

An aircraft that can take on six F-15's at once, piloted by the best in the world, and wipe the floor with them, just doesn't cut it? What do you want, a Star Destroyer?

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/13458528.htm
The version on his X-box must not work right.

The version on his X-box must not work right.

Or maybe there's a scratch on that Ace Combat 5 CD. Or a smudge.

SNIP

its a shame you haven’t seen the F-22's against Eurofighters particularly in long operations then you would see how much of a stealth toaster it is (yes it’s a death-trap which requires immense maintenance)

(trust us Eurotrash to beat you again at half the cost)

its a shame you haven’t seen the F-22's against Eurofighters particularly in long operations then you would see how much of a stealth toaster it is (yes it’s a death-trap which requires immense maintenance)

(trust us Eurotrash to beat you again at half the cost)
What was the IOC, Initial Operating Capabilty, date for the Eurofighter? How many of them are in production? What are you on right now? I want some reality distortion of my own.

its a shame you haven’t seen the F-22's against Eurofighters particularly in long operations then you would see how much of a stealth toaster it is (yes it’s a death-trap which requires immense maintenance)

(trust us Eurotrash to beat you again at half the cost)

The Eurofighter may have a higher payload (and minimal stealth capabilities), and is quite a bit cheaper, but you would have to be able to see the F-22 if you wanted to shoot it down. Which you can't. It's stealth capabilities are far beyond the Eurofighter. The aircraft aren't even designed for the same purpose. If you want a matchup of similar aircraft, wait til the FB model comes out, which will have a higher payload and longer range than the Eurofighter.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200512521.asp

What was the IOC, Initial Operating Capabilty, date for the Eurofighter? How many of them are in production? What are you on right now? I want some reality distortion of my own.

enjoy: http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Programme/

The Eurofighter may have a higher payload (and minimal stealth capabilities), and is quite a bit cheaper, but you would have to be able to see the F-22 if you wanted to shoot it down. Which you can't. It's stealth capabilities are far beyond the Eurofighter. The aircraft aren't even designed for the same purpose. If you want a matchup of similar aircraft, wait til the FB model comes out, which will have a higher payload and longer range than the Eurofighter.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200512521.asp
I think a better comparison with the currently undelivered Eurofighter is the currently unfinished JSF, F-35?. By 2012, the JSF is expected to cost about $40 million, US as opposed to the nearly $51 million US, for the Euro. Both provide roughly similar capability, but guess who's going to export more?

enjoy: http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Programme/
So nothing other than the first test and eval aircraft have been delivered, right? It's going to be interesting to see how this performs once every day pilots get hold of it.

The F-14's a cool plane, but come on man. It's time to put it to rest. It clearly isn't the best fighter anymore, and your comment about the F-22 and the F-35 is simply laughable. It was great for its time, but there's simply better aircraft out there now. Like the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet is a piece of junk. Poor range, poor payload. Even the Navalized Su-27 is better than it.

Fortunately my favorite aircraft, the F-15E Strike Eagle, currently has no retirement date (to my knowledge), although I bet the F-35 will eventually do it in.

The aircraft to do in the F-15E will be the F-22. The F-35 is a replacement for the F-16, F/A-18, and A/V-8.

The Super Hornet is a piece of junk. Poor range, poor payload. Even the Navalized Su-27 is better than it.

No, the Hornet and the S/H are ideal front line Marine Corps aircraft. They are easy to maintain and the short legs don't matter as much. They are great for Close Air Support and Air-to-Air, but suck with the Deep Strike capability. My only gripe with them is that the Navy had an inadequate aircraft shoved down their throats.

I think a better comparison with the currently undelivered Eurofighter is the currently unfinished JSF, F-35?. By 2012, the JSF is expected to cost about $40 million, US as opposed to the nearly $51 million US, for the Euro. Both provide roughly similar capability, but guess who's going to export more?

Well, you're right on that one. It appears that Italy, one of the founders of Eurofighter development, has now switched sides and is onboard with the F-35. And the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Canada, and Turkey are all onboard for the F-35 as well.

"...more recent new partners signing on with the F-35 do raise some serious questions about the future of the Eurofighter Typhoon."

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/farn/farn_02/farn_02d1_jsfputspg46.html

No, the Hornet and the S/H are ideal front line Marine Corps aircraft. They are easy to maintain and the short legs don't matter as much. They are great for Close Air Support and Air-to-Air, but suck with the Deep Strike capability. My only gripe with them is that the Navy had an inadequate aircraft shoved down their throats.

Except the Marine Corps is getting precisely this many F/A-18E/Fs:

0

SNIP

ooh stealthy its not like any nation has put funds into picking it up have they :rolleyes:

one of the concepts of the euro fighter was the fact that it would fly so fast it wouldn't need to be stealthy

Meh, keeping it would be the death sentence for the poor bastards who'd have to fly it against the new extra-cheap Sukhois.

It was great at the time, but at some point you've gotta move on.

The Super Hornet is a piece of junk. Poor range, poor payload. Even the Navalized Su-27 is better than it.

Seriously man, there's a reason they're replacing the F-14, and I hate to break it to you, but it's not because they're worse.



The aircraft to do in the F-15E will be the F-22. The F-35 is a replacement for the F-16, F/A-18, and A/V-8.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E

There's currently no slated replacement for the Strike Eagles.

There's currently no slated replacement for the Strike Eagles.
Which is my point about the F-22.

They are without a doubt the best fighter jet in the world (second being the Eurofighter, then a whole bunch of others) - but there are so few of them.
They don't really replace anything. With just 180 jets, that would mean that in any given theatre there could only be a few of them around, and as great as they are, if all their F-15, F-16 etc wingmen get their arses kicked, it doesn't really help the USAF in its capabilities.

That is if the F-22 actually gets combat deployment, and isn't just kept in the US like the B-2.

The new Sukhois impress me the most - they are very cheap, apparently the Israelis have developed avionics and electronics packages for them, and everyone can have them.

Except the Marine Corps is getting precisely this many F/A-18E/Fs:

0
Yep. As usual, the Marines will use their airplanes 'til they fall apart, then figure out how to keep them flying until the DoD finally gets around to replacing them.

ooh stealthy its not like any nation has put funds into picking it up have they :rolleyes:

one of the concepts of the euro fighter was the fact that it would fly so fast it wouldn't need to be stealthy

First- since top of the line radar in U.S. F-15's can't even find the F-22, I think it's a bit too hard to pick up with anything currently in radar development.

And second- Your Eurofighter is slower. So :rolleyes: to you.
F-22: 2335km/h
Euro: 2100km/h
http://www.eurofighter.com/Interactive/AskThePilots/Default.asp?pilot=cw
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f22.htm

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E

There's currently no slated replacement for the Strike Eagles.

Wrong.
The F/A-22 is destined to replace the F-15 and become the next-generation fighter of the USAF. from:
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f22.htm

As I have said a hundred times before, Wiki is not a vaid source.

The F-14 was a good plane. Sure, it was slow and jerky, but it made up for that in reliability. These things will probably go down in the hall of fame with the P-51D Mustang and the F-4 Phantom.

Wrong.
The F/A-22 is destined to replace the F-15 and become the next-generation fighter of the USAF. from:
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f22.htm

First of all, I'm a unwavering supporter of the F-22. I worked at Lockheed while the prototypes were being built and tested. Because of my job, I was able to talk to the company test pilots about it in quite a bit of depth. All of them loved it.

The only thing that keeps this from being a truly great airplane is the missing second seat. I firmly believe that a two man crew can be so much more effective than the situational awareness that any amount of sensor fusion can provide a single pilot. Besides, it's nice to get a second opinion from a human from time to time.

The F-14 was a good plane. Sure, it was slow and jerky, but it made up for that in reliability. These things will probably go down in the hall of fame with the P-51D Mustang and the F-4 Phantom.
Slow and jerky? What cereal box did that review come from? Okay, the -A versions were underpowered, but all the fleet F-14s were Ds by the time I left active duty. That meant they had big engines with another 7000 pounds of thrust, each. 52,000 pounds of thrust is nothing to trifle with.

Wrong.
The F/A-22 is destined to replace the F-15 and become the next-generation fighter of the USAF. from:
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f22.htm

As I have said a hundred times before, Wiki is not a vaid source.

The F-15C yes, but not the F-15E.

The F-15C yes, but not the F-15E.


The E's will remain in service because of the cost of the F-22: they will not be completely done away with until 2020 or so. But the F-22 IS designed as the replacement model for fighter aircraft, and if radar technology advances rapidly it may speed away the Eagles.

Besides, as I have stated before, the F-22 takes on SIX F-15 Eagles at a time in dogfights, and creams them.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/13458528.htm

edit: this thread has been officially hijacked by the F-22 Raptor vs. F-15E/Eurofighter debate team.

The E's will remain in service because of the cost of the F-22: they will not be completely done away with until 2020 or so. But the F-22 IS designed as the replacement model for fighter aircraft, and if radar technology advances rapidly it may speed away the Eagles.

No one's arguing with you here.

It's just that, as of yet, the F-15E Strike Eagle doesn't have a scheduled retirement date (or replacement craft). Estimates point to at least 2020, but they could still fly even after that. My prediction is that either the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will take over the Strike Eagle's tasks, or a Raptor variant will do it.

The F-15E Strike Eagle and the F-15C Eagle are two very, very different planes.

EDIT: And yes, Raptors own.

I think that when one thinks of an western fighter plane, the first thing that comes to your mind is the tomcat. Sad to see it go, it was one heck of a plane.

Besides, why are people talking about the Raptor here, the Raptor sucks, its costs to much, and it has real issues when it comes to stearing. And they have lowered the number to only 100 to be buildt. Anyways the only good thing about it is the supercruise thing, rest of it sucks I must say...

the Raptor sucks

No.

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif

Even mr.smiley him self misses the tomcat:(

It's too bad that the Tomcat had to go. It's manueverable and the Phoenix's would be a major help during air combat, but the electronics are just outdated. I read that the RWR threat software hasn't been updated in 30 years, so the Tomcat can only indentify enemy radars made before the 70s. It's just a pain to maintain aircraft past their service life, when they begin to fall apart. Today aircraft are made with computers so are much more efficient, but also a lot less redundant. The B-52 was overbuilt four or five times over in a lot of areas, which is why the Air Force is keeping it till it turns 90. The F-14 is part of the new generation, and it won't last much longer. This is the same issue with the F-15C airframes, which have gone through a lot of stress and need to be retired.

The F/A-18E Super Hornet has, according to some experts, not been doing very well at all during testing. I don't know whether this is serious or just a few early problems like a lot of good weapons (M16, F-111, M1 Abrams, F-14, WWII Wildcat, M-60 tank) have had. Regardless, it's a lot less sturdy, carries less payload, and most important of all can't fire anything close to a Phoenix.

Genuine Question:

What is so special about the Phoenix? What can it do that AMRAAMs and METEORs can't do?

And if it's better, then why was it retired?

It's a fighter-launched missile that can kill an enemy fighter or bomber from a hundred nautical miles away.

Contrast that to 18nm for the AMRAAM and maybe 55 for the Meteor.

EDIT: presumably it was retired because the F-14 is the only fighter big enough to cary them, and the F-14 is better suited to bombing than air superiority, so the Super Hornet gets the job of killing aircraft while the F-14 blows stuff up.

What is so special about the Phoenix? What can it do that AMRAAMs and METEORs can't do?

The Phoneix has both a longer range and a higher speed then the AMRAAM. The later model Phoenix (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html) has an effective range of 150 kilometres and a speed of mach 5, while the AMRAAM (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html) has a range of 50-70 kilometres, and a speed of mach 4.

And if it's better, then why was it retired?

I'm not sure. I think it may have had something to do with the advances in electronic warfare technology in recent decades, and the development of more advanced electronic countermeasures that allow aircraft to more effectively evade missiles. Again though, I'm not really sure - those are just guesses of mine.

It's maintenance and electronics. When an airplane gets old, it just costs so much to maintain that you might as well buy something new before it falls apart. That's not a guess, that's something I've heard and am sure of. As for the Pheonix, it's hit targets 170 klicks away maximum. Of course, you guys always assume that the target isn't running away, isn't manuevering, and that missiles always fly at their statistical range...

Ultimately, the F-14, and its weapons, were designed for the role of interceptor of supersonic attack bombers and missiles.

While I'm not an engineer, I'd think that range and speed are not the only things that matter, and as was just said, shooting down a bomber is different from shooting down a fighter - there'll be different requirements for maneuverability.

It was a good plane while it existed. One of my favorites in fact.

Am i the only one to find funnythat in the movie "top gun" the characters are sent to the school to learn to use guns in combat, and that in the final combat of the movie, they only use missiles? :p

PS: Could you provide a linky for this newspiece, please?
PPS: Anyone here remember the old "F-14 Fleet defender" computer game? lol Think it can run under windows xp? :p

Yah, you use the run under windows 98 option.

The movie Top Gun was what motivated me to get my pilots licence.

The Phoneix has both a longer range and a higher speed then the AMRAAM. The later model Phoenix (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html) has an effective range of 150 kilometres and a speed of mach 5, while the AMRAAM (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html) has a range of 50-70 kilometres, and a speed of mach 4.



I'm not sure. I think it may have had something to do with the advances in electronic warfare technology in recent decades, and the development of more advanced electronic countermeasures that allow aircraft to more effectively evade missiles. Again though, I'm not really sure - those are just guesses of mine.
It was actually retired because of the cost. The original models cost $54 million. That is why they called it the AIM-54. Now the later models cost only twice as much as an AMRAAM. Countermeasures weren't the problem as the missile was fired at such a long range the enemy didn't know he was fired on until it was too late. The reason is also that the F-14 is the only plane that carries it so if the Tomcat was going to be retired, the missile would be too.

I'd say the F-22 and F-35 are superior to Eurofighter based on stealth. The F-35 has better capabilities as it is able to land and take off on carriers. The Corp will be getting them soon. The F-14 IMO is superior to the Super-Hornet. The AF has easy tanker access, but the Navy doesn't have that readily available in a battle. The S-3s that were used as tankers are being retired as are AE-6B Prowlers. The F-14 Tomcat became the Bombcat after LANTIRNs were installed. It is the best aircraft in the Navy today, but obviously the next generation USAF planes and the new F-35 are superior, but I still want Tomcats over Hornets.

I'd say the F-22 and F-35 are superior to Eurofighter based on stealth.
How long do you reckon until they finish the stealth-in-a-box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_SPECTRA) radar scramblers?
Five years?

How long do you reckon until they finish the stealth-in-a-box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_SPECTRA) radar scramblers?
Five years?

Yea, but what are the odds that a Eurofighter will have to face an F-22 or F-35 in combat?

Yea, but what are the odds that a Eurofighter will have to face an F-22 or F-35 in combat?
Depends on how many F-35s the Americans will sell to various tinpot dictators, hey? ;)

Ultimately, the F-14, and its weapons, were designed for the role of interceptor of supersonic attack bombers and missiles.

While I'm not an engineer, I'd think that range and speed are not the only things that matter, and as was just said, shooting down a bomber is different from shooting down a fighter - there'll be different requirements for maneuverability.
Wing loading has a lot to do with maneuverability. Wing loading is proportional to surface area. The swing wing on the Tomcat isn't just for landing. It will deploy, or not -- at the pilot's option, automatically in flight, depending on the g-loads and the airspeed. It makes the airplane very versatile. It also telegraphs the pilot's intent to get into a slow engagement like a scissors, hence the ability to override the deployment.

Another factor that is critical to maneuvering is excess thrust. An aircraft that can hold more g's in a level turn than an adversary aircraft will win the day. We used to pour over the maneuvering charts for any adversary. They are pretty interesting and in most of the tactical manuals I've used, expanded far beyond the basic V-n diagram. Don't discount the V-n diagram, though -- the point where max-n intersects with min V is a very critical point. The name is on the tip of my tongue, but I haven't used it in so long I'm not sure. I think it's called the maneuvering point, but it certainly represents where the airplane is going to stall as a load is applied.

It was actually retired because of the cost. The original models cost $54 million. That is why they called it the AIM-54. Now the later models cost only twice as much as an AMRAAM. Countermeasures weren't the problem as the missile was fired at such a long range the enemy didn't know he was fired on until it was too late. The reason is also that the F-14 is the only plane that carries it so if the Tomcat was going to be retired, the missile would be too.

Regardless, they were extrememly capable weapons that would have saved many pilot's lives. No Chinese or Russian weapon put in service or with a realistic chance of being put in service (Russia was working on a long-range AWACS killer for a time but gave up) can match it for range, and two million dollars is a small price to pay for killing a $50-20 million Sukhoi or MiG.


Also, I don't get your point about not knowing it was fired until it was too late. They'd pick up the lock-on with their radar warning reciever and know well in advance.

edit:

About the Eurofighter/F-35 debate:

France in particular is known for selling weapons to whoever will buy them, so we might run into some Rafales if we go to war with some of the wealthier dictators. Swedish Gripens have been doing very well on the export market and are a threat also. But the Eurofighter seems to be a pretty much only-for-Europe project, and noone outside NATO has ordered one yet (correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know no non-NATO country has bought it). It's too expensive for smaller country's tastes, so it pretty much counts it out. But it's entirely likely we'll encounter the Gripen, or at least one of the newer Mirage series.

Also, I don't get your point about not knowing it was fired until it was too late. They'd pick up the lock-on with their radar warning reciever and know well in advance.

In order to beat a missile, you need to do one of two things. The first, and easiest is to make it overshoot. That's typically done by acquiring the missile visually and making a hard turn into it. That's worked on every SAM ever made. I don't know why it wouldn't work on a Phoenix. The tricky part is how you visually acquire the missile. Some missiles have a contrail or exhaust plume that you can use to locate them. Others, like the SA-6 are nearly impossible to see. I suspect the Phoenix falls into the latter category. That makes them almost impossible to beat.

The second way to beat a missile is with electronic counter-measures. I don't know much about how susceptable a Phoenix is to jamming, but if it is an active missile, it's probably a lot more difficult to jam that a semi-active or homing missile would be.

Bottom line is that a target may pick up an indication on their RHAW gear, but it may be too little, too late.

The US isn't exporting the F-35 to questionable nations. Turkey is getting them, but Turkey is a NATO member and therefore it isn't a problem. Israel is getting them and we can count on Israel to not attack the US. Many European nations have abandoned the Eurofighter for the JSF. Britain is now ordering more F-35s than Eurofighters.

The Eurofighter isn't versatile. It doesn't have STOVL or CV capabilities as the Bravo and Charlie models of the F-35 do. The F-35 has a smaller RCS. You can't hit what you can't see. The F-22 can probably take on more than 5 Eurofighters and kill them as the Eurofighters wouldn't get a chance to shoot at it. The F-22 reportedly has a much smaller RCS than the F-117 and B-2.

In order to beat a missile, you need to do one of two things. The first, and easiest is to make it overshoot. That's typically done by acquiring the missile visually and making a hard turn into it. That's worked on every SAM ever made. I don't know why it wouldn't work on a Phoenix. The tricky part is how you visually acquire the missile. Some missiles have a contrail or exhaust plume that you can use to locate them. Others, like the SA-6 are nearly impossible to see. I suspect the Phoenix falls into the latter category. That makes them almost impossible to beat.

The Phoenix can't be seen as the motor burns out before it gets to the target 200 km away. That means there is absolutely no exhaust fumes when fired a long distance. It is an active homing so you can't really spoof it easily.

Depends on how many F-35s the Americans will sell to various tinpot dictators, hey? ;)

Or how many the Europeans do. :p

Or how many the Europeans do. :p
Yes seeing how Saddam got his nuke reactor and many of his fighters from France. THank you France. Oh yeah, they also love selling to China.

Seriously man, there's a reason they're replacing the F-14, and I hate to break it to you, but it's not because they're worse.

No, it isn't because they're worse, it's because of bureaucratic momentum. Once they get started, it's difficult to stop them. And, I hate to say it, but an airplane that can launch off of a catapult and speed to Mach 2 to intercept a threat to the fleet from well over 150nm away from the carrier group is a much better aircraft than one that needs to be refueled as soon as it takes off, flies at significantly slower speeds than Mach 2 and the longest ranged weapons afforded to it are Advanced Medium Range Air-ro-Air Missiles.

Oh, here's another reason why: We're running out of parts for them. Why? Because Dick Cheney, as Secretary of the Navy (?) under President Bush the First order production on replacement parts for the F-14 ceased and the molds destroyed. D'oh!

Yep. As usual, the Marines will use their airplanes 'til they fall apart, then figure out how to keep them flying until the DoD finally gets around to replacing them.

Actually, it's because the F/A-18E/F is a replacement for the F-14. Of which the Marines owned precisely this many:

0

The F/A-18s presently in the Marine Corps armory, along with their A/V-8Bs are supposed to be replaced by the F-35B.

Yes seeing how Saddam got his nuke reactor and many of his fighters from France. THank you France. Oh yeah, they also love selling to China.

France isn't in on either the EF2000 or JSF programs (as far as I know). They have one of their own, the Rafale (I think).

Given that the French didn't sell either nation AMX-40 tanks or Leclerc tanks, I should think that they wouldn't sell their most advanced fighters to other nations. Maybe their older ones (like the Mirages in IAF hangers), but those are pretty dated. Especially when compared to the EF2000, JSF, and F/A-22.

As a Long Island, NY native, where the F-14 came from all I can say is this:

TO HELL WITH THE HORNET, SAVE THE CAT...

France isn't in on either the EF2000 or JSF programs (as far as I know). They have one of their own, the Rafale (I think).

Given that the French didn't sell either nation AMX-40 tanks or Leclerc tanks, I should think that they wouldn't sell their most advanced fighters to other nations. Maybe their older ones (like the Mirages in IAF hangers), but those are pretty dated. Especially when compared to the EF2000, JSF, and F/A-22.
The Israelis don't have any Mirages anymore in the IAF. They have Kfirs, which are an Israeli built and designed improvement on the Mirage V airframe.

A great plane has finally gone to the wayside. It served us well and proudly when it was in its prime, though.

I would like to add to this debate. The Pheonix ATA was developed for the F-14 fighter, I believe. It was designed to be a large missile that could attack Soviet bombers and take them out. It was not meant to take on fighters, which are maneuverable and more agile. Hence why the F-14 was designed as a bomber-interceptor.

Lets get this clear, the F-22 is intended to replace the F-15C. The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16, AV-8 Harrier, and A-10. The F-15E is not intended to be replaced by the F-22. At one point, the F-15E was intended to be retired in 2020+ and being replaced by the then concept FB-22. Unfortunently, the FB-22 is not going to be put into production past drawing stage. So I don't see a replacement for the F-15E for a while unless they begin another program for a regional bomber similar to the role of F-15E.

A great plane has finally gone to the wayside. It served us well and proudly when it was in its prime, though.

I would like to add to this debate. The Pheonix ATA was developed for the F-14 fighter, I believe. It was designed to be a large missile that could attack Soviet bombers and take them out. It was not meant to take on fighters, which are maneuverable and more agile. Hence why the F-14 was designed as a bomber-interceptor.

Lets get this clear, the F-22 is intended to replace the F-15C. The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16, AV-8 Harrier, and A-10. The F-15E is not intended to be replaced by the F-22. At one point, the F-15E was intended to be retired in 2020+ and being replaced by the then concept FB-22. Unfortunently, the FB-22 is not going to be put into production past drawing stage. So I don't see a replacement for the F-15E for a while unless they begin another program for a regional bomber similar to the role of F-15E.

Actually the AIM-54 and the AWG-9 were both developed for the F-111B but when that project was cancelled it all went to the F-14, which incorporated a lot of the ideas of the F-111 (swept wings, Mach 2+, dual seat, etc.).

Actually the AIM-54 and the AWG-9 were both developed for the F-111B but when that project was cancelled it all went to the F-14, which incorporated a lot of the ideas of the F-111 (swept wings, Mach 2+, dual seat, etc.).

My body, I thought the AIM-54 was designed specifically for the F-14, but I"m thinking about something else. Anyways, my other points still stand.

My body, I thought the AIM-54 was designed specifically for the F-14, but I"m thinking about something else. Anyways, my other points still stand.

It was actually, originally, designed as the AIM-47 for the YF-12 but that program was scrapped, as far as we know ;). The AIM-47 went into the AIM-54 for the F-111B with the AWG-9 system (6 target engagement). The F-111B was canned and finally the F-14 came about, thankfully. The F-111B was horrific as a fighter and the F-14 is obviously the best fighter ever so.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-47.html
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html

There is a lot of info there on the AIM-54, especially in regards with the AIM-47. If I am correct, the AIM-47 was the first air to air missile to incorporate a lofted trajectory, giving it increase range and higher dive speed. The AIM-54 incorporated this and since then the AIM-120, BVRAAM, R-77, R-27RE/TE, R-33, R-37, and the R-24 have all adopted the idea of lofted trajectory.

But the Eurofighter seems to be a pretty much only-for-Europe project, and noone outside NATO has ordered one yet (correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know no non-NATO country has bought it).
I think the Saudis ordered a set or two a few days ago.

Farwell, "Aluminium Cloud". Anyone who was on a cruise on CVN will know what I'm on about.

Farwell, "Aluminium Cloud". Anyone who was on a cruise on CVN will know what I'm on about.

I still think it should be termed the "Libyan Eliminator" but Aluminum Cloud works.

I dont think the F-35 should replace the A-10. The A-10 is the tankbuster in the world, because of its slow speed, its main gun, all of the hard points for missles/bombs etc..., and being replaced by a supersonic jet would be awful.

I dont think the F-35 should replace the A-10. The A-10 is the tankbuster in the world, because of its slow speed, its main gun, all of the hard points for missles/bombs etc..., and being replaced by a supersonic jet would be awful.

Let alone one that can't take the damage that the A-10 can nor does it have as uber-awesome of a gun. I agree.

A-10 = also a NY plane :) We pwn!!!!

F-105, A-6, EA-6, A-10, F-14, E-2, hmm what else did we make...basically Fairchild, Republic, and Grumman are all ingenious NY stuff.

Sad to see... Those are damn cool planes. Funny fact I read about the Phoenix: if the F-14 took off with a full load of six, it would actually be too heavy to land on the carrier and it'd have to jettison two of them before it could.

...and it'd have to jettison two of them before it could.
And that's how a defense budget works. :D

Sad to see... Those are damn cool planes. Funny fact I read about the Phoenix: if the F-14 took off with a full load of six, it would actually be too heavy to land on the carrier and it'd have to jettison two of them before it could.

I'm not sure about that. At $500K per missile they brought them back. They usually didn't fly with 6 because it limited their medium-range abilities and they are big, draggy missiles. They usually carried four underneath and two AIM-7s to keep their drag down or 2 and then 4 AIM-7.

It was a good plane for its day, but times change, the F-104 was also a wicked cool plane, but alas, it too had to go, as it was outdated, but it, like the tomcat, will forever live in history as amazing pieces of work.

The Su-34 is IMHO a very serious contender for most awesome 2 seat, strike type plane (no way does it have a chance against any of the new AS fighters...but thats not its role) I think it is better then the JSF. I look forward to seeing it, it should be into squadron level service this year. with the RFAF, its also quite cheap! The S-47 promises to be wicked cool, if it ever goes into production... (what can I say, I am a Sukhoi fan...they make some awesome stuff)

As for selling to China, excuse me, China is not a tinpot dictatorship. Its a contentinal power, and a rising world economic and military power, like it or not. China is hardly Sudan or Congo.

It was a good plane for its day, but times change, the F-104 was also a wicked cool plane, but alas, it too had to go, as it was outdated, but it, like the tomcat, will forever live in history as amazing pieces of work.

The Su-34 is IMHO a very serious contender for most awesome 2 seat, strike type plane (no way does it have a chance against any of the new AS fighters...but thats not its role) I think it is better then the JSF. I look forward to seeing it, it should be into squadron level service this year. with the RFAF, its also quite cheap! The S-47 promises to be wicked cool, if it ever goes into production... (what can I say, I am a Sukhoi fan...they make some awesome stuff)

As for selling to China, excuse me, China is not a tinpot dictatorship. Its a contentinal power, and a rising world economic and military power, like it or not. China is hardly Sudan or Congo.

The Su-34 is probably the best thing for ground-attack over there since the Su-24. Unfortunately, for them, it still has a big radar signature, where the JSF excells. The JSF won't carry the same warload as the Su-34 but it will guarantee that it will be in and out of enemy territory without being seen. The Su-47 was just an experimental demonstrator and not intended for actual service nor will it enter service.

So, to come back to the Rafale's Thales SPECTRA system...why does stealth even matter anymore if they can build boxes which recognise a radar beam coming in and simply send on back which pretends there's nothing to be seen?

In a few years every plane will have electronic stealth, and then we'll be back at square one, if you ask me.

I'm not sure about that. At $500K per missile they brought them back. They usually didn't fly with 6 because it limited their medium-range abilities and they are big, draggy missiles. They usually carried four underneath and two AIM-7s to keep their drag down or 2 and then 4 AIM-7.
That's why I said if... I don't think they did it on a regular basis, or maybe even at all. It's just something I read in World Aircraft Information Files way back when.

That's why I said if... I don't think they did it on a regular basis, or maybe even at all. It's just something I read in World Aircraft Information Files way back when.

I'm not quite sure that's true. The DOD has done some idiotic things but to make it so that the F-14 couldn't trap with its AIM-54 load is pretty much like not equipping a helicopter with a tail rotor (and no NOTAR jokes).

Let alone one that can't take the damage that the A-10 can nor does it have as uber-awesome of a gun. I agree.

A-10 = also a NY plane :) We pwn!!!!

F-105, A-6, EA-6, A-10, F-14, E-2, hmm what else did we make...basically Fairchild, Republic, and Grumman are all ingenious NY stuff.
There were a lot of great airplanes that were built in the Grumman Iron Works. None of them were the technical marvels that we saw from the Skunkworks, but every single one of them could absorb a ton of damage, do the mission, and still bring the crew home. That's what really counted to those of us that flew them.

I'm not quite sure that's true. The DOD has done some idiotic things but to make it so that the F-14 couldn't trap with its AIM-54 load is pretty much like not equipping a helicopter with a tail rotor (and no NOTAR jokes).
It seems I was probably wrong - although I have found a site that confirms this, it's just someone's personal webpage. The Phoenix appears to weigh only 1,000 pounds, so it can land with its full complement of Phoenixes if it burns about five thousand pounds of fuel. Somethin, I think, that it does regularly.

I'm not quite sure that's true. The DOD has done some idiotic things but to make it so that the F-14 couldn't trap with its AIM-54 load is pretty much like not equipping a helicopter with a tail rotor (and no NOTAR jokes).

You can have a helicopter without a tail rotor.

Let alone one that can't take the damage that the A-10 can nor does it have as uber-awesome of a gun. I agree.

A-10 = also a NY plane :) We pwn!!!!

F-105, A-6, EA-6, A-10, F-14, E-2, hmm what else did we make...basically Fairchild, Republic, and Grumman are all ingenious NY stuff.
Layarteb, you should be proud if your state produced those great aircraft. All Indiana ever produced is the HMMWV.

There were a lot of great airplanes that were built in the Grumman Iron Works. None of them were the technical marvels that we saw from the Skunkworks, but every single one of them could absorb a ton of damage, do the mission, and still bring the crew home. That's what really counted to those of us that flew them.

Some of them were ugly as hell and they got the job done. A-6s came home with battle damage that would probably have taken down some of the other aircraft around. F-105s weren't as great as they could have been in those respects, something like 50% of the ones made were downed. I think most were to engine failures from ground fire. Single-engine, you know.

It seems I was probably wrong - although I have found a site that confirms this, it's just someone's personal webpage. The Phoenix appears to weigh only 1,000 pounds, so it can land with its full complement of Phoenixes if it burns about five thousand pounds of fuel. Somethin, I think, that it does regularly.

It burns that on take-off (LOL) well no not really but yes. The AIM-54 was a very heavy missile actually, over 1,000 pounds, but it packed a bunch. The warhead, if I remember correctly, was derived from the MK-82.

Layarteb, you should be proud if your state produced those great aircraft. All Indiana ever produced is the HMMWV.

That sucks. I'm sorry to hear that man. Well at least you are close to Ohio. I hate to say it but when I took a train from NY to Chicago and back I slept through the whole state of Indiana, both times :(.

Some of them were ugly as hell and they got the job done. A-6s came home with battle damage that would probably have taken down some of the other aircraft around. F-105s weren't as great as they could have been in those respects, something like 50% of the ones made were downed. I think most were to engine failures from ground fire. Single-engine, you know.

I've posted some personal experiences with the loss of half the horizontal stab and the outer wing panel in different A-6's. Both times, the damage was serious, but the plane was landed safely. Great plane.


It burns that on take-off (LOL) well no not really but yes. The AIM-54 was a very heavy missile actually, over 1,000 pounds, but it packed a bunch. The warhead, if I remember correctly, was derived from the MK-82.

I'm a little skeptical about that. Usually, Air to Air missiles don't rely on the same sort of shrapnel as do bombs. A-A missiles usually have some spirally wound wire, for the lack of a better word, that is released and is intended to tear through any vital parts of the nearby aircraft. Bombs, on the other hand, disperse different sized pieces of large, heavy shrapnel. I wouldn't think that there was much commonality between the two.

On the other hand, I've been wrong before and being wrong now would neither surprise me nor upset me.

As far as landing with 6 Phoenix missiles goes, I can think of one possible reason why it can't be done. The stations that some missiles are loaded on may not be rated for traps with that load of ordnance. Usually, inboard stations are rated for more weight than outboard stations. Maybe the 1000 # weight is okay for cats but not for traps.

The 60 kg (132 lb) MK 82 blast-fragmentation warhead is detonated by a fuzing system consisting of a MK 334 radar proximity, an IR proximity, and an impact fuze.

Did I fall into stupid land and think that meant MK 82 the bomb? LOL when the warhead for it is MK 82. I thought they were using the WDU designations after 63 so I guess I am probably mistaken with that.

As for the A-6? Man those suckers took beatings and a half. There is even a picture of the A-10 with more battle damage than I thought a plane could take that made it back.

I do find it hard to believe though that when they designed the F-14 they didn't take into account maximum trap requirements of the day, causing them to jettison a missile or two.

GOT IT

The original specification called for six Phoenix missiles, but it was found that the deck impacts during carrier landings were too hard when carrying six Phoenix missiles, so the full load of six Phoenixes is rarely carried.

Okay wow that one got me. Kinda sad how they didn't see this one coming.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_2.html

I think it worked out for the better anyway. Carrying 6 AIM-54 = no medium range abilities. Having 2 AIM-7 was a lot better for survival against fighters escorting the bombers.

As for selling to China, excuse me, China is not a tinpot dictatorship. Its a contentinal power, and a rising world economic and military power, like it or not. China is hardly Sudan or Congo.

China has been vastly over-rated. The only thing making them a 'rising' world power is us and Europe selling out everything to them, otherwise, they'd still be a festering third-world hell-hole. They have not risen to their current status on their own, they've risen through this very attitude of trading to them modern military weapons. Deprive them of that, and they quickly descend. Without our cooperation, they go no where fast.

Did I fall into stupid land and think that meant MK 82 the bomb? LOL when the warhead for it is MK 82. I thought they were using the WDU designations after 63 so I guess I am probably mistaken with that.

I don't know. As a long time ground attack guy, Mk 8x always means HE. If I was from the air to air world, I'd have probably caught right on.

Have you ever looked at the f-14 association pages? There's usually some good stuff on all those association pages. Plus, the Tomcat page links to some of the better ones, like the Intruder Association.

http://www.f-14association.com/

I don't know. As a long time ground attack guy, Mk 8x always means HE. If I was from the air to air world, I'd have probably caught right on.

Have you ever looked at the f-14 association pages? There's usually some good stuff on all those association pages. Plus, the Tomcat page links to some of the better ones, like the Intruder Association.

http://www.f-14association.com/

mm links to MATS :)

Yes A-6 pwns

I do find it hard to believe though that when they designed the F-14 they didn't take into account maximum trap requirements of the day, causing them to jettison a missile or two.

GOT IT

Okay wow that one got me. Kinda sad how they didn't see this one coming.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_2.html

I think it worked out for the better anyway. Carrying 6 AIM-54 = no medium range abilities. Having 2 AIM-7 was a lot better for survival against fighters escorting the bombers.
<Dances for actually being right, which doesn't happen often enough>

[begins crying inconsolably]:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
[sniff] oh well, now they have an excuse to make the VF-1:D

<Dances for actually being right, which doesn't happen often enough>

Well kinda right but the judges shall give it to ya.

Still, the F-14 pwns. It shouldn't be its fault that the carriers weren't built to handle their uberness.

Well kinda right but the judges shall give it to ya.

Still, the F-14 pwns. It shouldn't be its fault that the carriers weren't built to handle their uberness.
I can see it now -- "Flexi-Deck, when you bring back more than you should", or maybe "Extenda-Deck, when that landing needs a flare".

I can see it now -- "Flexi-Deck, when you bring back more than you should", or maybe "Extenda-Deck, when that landing needs a flare".

Hooah! If the A-6 or the F-14 were never invented the United States would have lost the Cold War. I give the whole CW victory credit to NY :) under the direction of Sir Awesome, Mr. Ronald Reagan.

Hooah! If the A-6 or the F-14 were never invented the United States would have lost the Cold War. I give the whole CW victory credit to NY :) under the direction of Sir Awesome, Mr. Ronald Reagan.
And you can thank the state I was born in (Illinois) for providing us with the greatest President of the 20th century.

And you can thank the state I was born in (Illinois) for providing us with the greatest President of the 20th century.

And probably the 19th also. I do love Lincoln for holding the Union together.

And probably the 19th also. I do love Lincoln for holding the Union together.
Yeah. Anyone who thinks Bush is evil for taking actions to try and help us win the war has no clue about our country's history. We wouldn't have won the Civil War if Teddy Kennedy, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Chucky Schumer, Barbara Boxer, etc were around in the 1860s.

Bush and Lincoln have both taken risky actions to keep us alive and deserve credit for doing so.

Yeah. Anyone who thinks Bush is evil for taking actions to try and help us win the war has no clue about our country's history. We wouldn't have won the Civil War if Teddy Kennedy, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Chucky Schumer, Barbara Boxer, etc were around in the 1860s.

Bush and Lincoln have both taken risky actions to keep us alive and deserve credit for doing so.

If they were around in the 1860s we would have been reinvaded by the British and stripped of all we worked for.

If they were around in the 1860s we would have been reinvaded by the British and stripped of all we worked for.

More likely that the South would have won the war. (Rather, there wouldn't have been a war.)

And then we'd all be happy, because then we'd have liberal Canada, moderate United States, and conservative Confederate States.

More likely that the South would have won the war. (Rather, there wouldn't have been a war.)

And then we'd all be happy, because then we'd have liberal Canada, moderate United States, and conservative Confederate States.

Unfortunately I'd be in moderate United States up here in NY so that's not quite cool for me.

Yeah. Anyone who thinks Bush is evil for taking actions to try and help us win the war has no clue about our country's history. We wouldn't have won the Civil War if Teddy Kennedy, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Chucky Schumer, Barbara Boxer, etc were around in the 1860s.

Bush and Lincoln have both taken risky actions to keep us alive and deserve credit for doing so.

Actually, I think you still would have won. Since I believe that the democracts were the ones in charge of the South during the Civil War, amazing how political parties change, eh?

mm links to MATS :)

Yes A-6 pwns

My love of the A-6 started when I watch Flight of the Intruder, it may not be the best nam movie (Hamburger Hill) but I still love it. I was very sad to learn that the A-6 had been retired, but all good things must pass sadly.

My love of the A-6 started when I watch Flight of the Intruder, it may not be the best nam movie (Hamburger Hill) but I still love it. I was very sad to learn that the A-6 had been retired, but all good things must pass sadly.

Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make HISTORY.

Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make HISTORY.

I used that quote in another thread about the best Fighter plane, someone made a comment that no self-respecting fighter pilot would fly a bomber.

I used that quote in another thread about the best Fighter plane, someone made a comment that no self-respecting fighter pilot would fly a bomber.

Except an F-14 pilot because the F-14 is pwnzor as a fighter and pwnzor as a bomber.

My favorite too.

I use them in my NS RPs still and always will.

Hey, Layarteb!

Long time no see!

My favorite too.

I use them in my NS RPs still and always will.

Hey, Layarteb!

Long time no see!

Hey man what's up? You should check out my F-14D+ Tomcat that I sell, you might like it ;).

Hey man what's up? You should check out my F-14D+ Tomcat that I sell, you might like it ;).
Yeah I made an F-14I about a year ago in tribute to the Tomcat.

Yeah I made an F-14I about a year ago in tribute to the Tomcat.

Desert Camo?

Desert Camo?
It isn't. Most of my planes are as I RP Israel, but my Navy planes are gray as the desert camo would be seen easily over the ocean.

I can't wait though, in a few weeks I will get to go in an F-35 simulator that Lockheed Martin is brining for my NROTC Batallion to look at and use. I'm looking forward to that.

I used that quote in another thread about the best Fighter plane, someone made a comment that no self-respecting fighter pilot would fly a bomber.
There's no such thing as a 'self-respecting' fighter pilot. Only ones with incredible egos.

It was a good plane, but it was getting old. It's replacement, what ever it will be, will hopefully be better.

Tbh, I preffered the Harrier FA2. Still, the F/14 was a good plane.

It was a good plane, but it was getting old. It's replacement, what ever it will be, will hopefully be better.
There is the real problem. Old age. Wings and fuselages are designed with so much life in them and when that goes, the plane needs to be retired. We tend to stretch aircraft life spans way past the point of what was originally intended -- a real tribute to the re-engineering that is possible. But there is a point where the airframe is just 'tired'. That certainly seems possible in a thirty-something aircraft, doesn't it?

I used that quote in another thread about the best Fighter plane, someone made a comment that no self-respecting fighter pilot would fly a bomber.There's no such thing as a 'self-respecting' fighter pilot. Only ones with incredible egos.
Thusly proving the original quote true :p

It isn't. Most of my planes are as I RP Israel, but my Navy planes are gray as the desert camo would be seen easily over the ocean.

I can't wait though, in a few weeks I will get to go in an F-35 simulator that Lockheed Martin is brining for my NROTC Batallion to look at and use. I'm looking forward to that.

I envy you.

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp

The best article out there, which turns the F/A-18 into shit and plays the F-14 for what it really is, a GODSEND!

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp

The best article out there, which turns the F/A-18 into shit and plays the F-14 for what it really is, a GODSEND!
Yeah, I saw that a few months back. It is a good read.

Can't help it if the F-18 sucks. I still want to know how you replace something with something that performs only 36% as good. How do you retire something for something less effective? GOOD JOB DOD!

Can't help it if the F-18 sucks. I still want to know how you replace something with something that performs only 36% as good. How do you retire something for something less effective? GOOD JOB DOD!
The problem isn't that the F-14 needs replacing. That just happens. Maybe a new suite of electronics and an airframe upgrade would prolong its life a couple more years. Ten years ago was the time to bite the bullet and replace the Turkey with an air superiority fighter. Who was in charge back then? Oh, that's right. Never mind.

But that's why we're stocking our carriers with lawn darts. It wasn't popular and it cost money. As the Fighter Attack Guy, FAG, motto goes "One plane, one man, one bomb, one hour".

Actually the F-14 was killed by Dick Cheney when he was the SecDef. I like most of what Cheney has done, but killing the F-14 is not among his best moves.

Evil people must perish. Retiring the F-14 puts you in a level of hell all by yourself.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=22325

Navy's F-14 fighter jet flies its final mission

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-16-navy-tomcat_x.htm

Ladies and gentlemen today is the saddest day of 2006.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=22325

Navy's F-14 fighter jet flies its final mission

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-16-navy-tomcat_x.htm

Ladies and gentlemen today is the saddest day of 2006.

Meh. People are dying all over the world and you have the arrogance to declare that the saddest day of the year is created because some hunk of metal and glass and plastic is retired from service. The only sad thing as I see it is that they aren't being beaten into ploughshares.

Meh. People are dying all over the world and you have the arrogance to declare that the saddest day of the year is created because some hunk of metal and glass and plastic is retired from service. The only sad thing as I see it is that they aren't being beaten into ploughshares.

I weep for them...

*screams to the heavens* "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!"

I weep for them...
As do I.

I do have some good news though on the F-35. The JSF is coming along very nicely. The weight issues on the F-35B seem to have been solved and that lift fan is absolutely amazing.

The first production model will be completed in September of this year. The F-35A will actually be available for action in 2007 or 2008. It's nice to see a plane finished fairly quickly instead of the 2 decade work on the F-22. The F-35 B will be ready about a year later and the Charlie about 1-2 years later.

As do I.

I do have some good news though on the F-35. The JSF is coming along very nicely. The weight issues on the F-35B seem to have been solved and that lift fan is absolutely amazing.

The first production model will be completed in September of this year. The F-35A will actually be available for action in 2007 or 2008. It's nice to see a plane finished fairly quickly instead of the 2 decade work on the F-22. The F-35 B will be ready about a year later and the Charlie about 1-2 years later.

Most of the F-22 program was political nonsense that kept it from reaching service sooner and with more examples. Originally they planned for 750 F-22s! The JSF program dates back to 1993 so it isn't a new program either, although the F-22 program dates back to the early 1990s and late 1980s so the JSF program is around the same. The F-22 was originally set to enter production in 1994, if you can believe that one. Mighty amazing.

The author of the USA Today article didn't do his research and in my opinion is a moron.

Here is what he said.
Although still swift and deadly, the F-14 is a victim of changing times. For example:

Sophisticated missiles have made its specialty, aerial dogfighting, obsolete. Opposing aircraft target each other from miles away, often before the pilots can see each other except on radar.
The F-14 was made for that purpose you idiot. Has this moron author ever heard of the AIM-54 Phoenix missile? It is a missile that only F-14s carry and has a range of over 100 nm. The F-14 was designed for BVR engagements, not dogfighting. This idiot probably saw Top Gun and used that as his source. Top Gun would lead you to believe the F-14 was designed as a dogfighter. It wasn't, it was designed to kill planes before the F-14 was within a 100 miles from them
Precision bombing is the new priority, and despite modification, the Tomcat can't carry the loads of the new F/A-18 Super Hornet.
AHHHHHHH!!! MORON!!!!!!! The F-18 doesn't have the payload or the range of the F-14. This would be true of older Tomcats, but the addition of LANTIRN made the F-14 the best naval aircraft for this job. The F-14D was the only aircraft thats payload could approach that of the old A-6 Intruder.

It's too expensive in the long run. The jet that flew its first combat missions in September 1974 requires 50 hours of maintenance, compared with five to 10 hours for the Super Hornet, for each hour of flight time.

Partially true due to age. I bet the F-18s will be maintenance intensive as they age. I bet when the F-14s were new they didn't require that much maintenance so this is really an unfair point. If they built a brand new F-14, it would require the same amount of work as a new F-18.

Most of the F-22 program was political nonsense that kept it from reaching service sooner and with more examples. Originally they planned for 750 F-22s! The JSF program dates back to 1993 so it isn't a new program either, although the F-22 program dates back to the early 1990s and late 1980s so the JSF program is around the same. The F-22 was originally set to enter production in 1994, if you can believe that one. Mighty amazing.
The JSF is much less in terms of how long it took once a prototype was built. The program was put on hiatus. THey had the flyoff in 2000 or 2001 IIRC. The time from flyoff to production on the F-35 is a little more than half of that for the F-22.

You are right about the political BS. I will say the F-22 isn't as needed as much as the F-35 will be. I still think the F-22 will have useful applications in modern wars should all things go to hell with Iran, China, or North Korea.

Oh here's another thing. There still are a couple of F-14s flying, the only problem is they are with Iran.

Most true indeed. The F-14 is definitely not built to be a dogfighter but it is a very agile aircraft and can dogfight pretty well, better than the F-18E as test pilots found out. The payload of the F-14 is unmatched by the F-18 on all points as well as its range. The F-14 was the only plane that could reach Afghanistan from a carrier without having to refuel on the way. F-18s couldn't get nearly as far. If they would have upgraded the avionics of the F-14 so that it could carry the SLAM, Harpoon, HARM, and AMRAAM the F-18 would serve little to no purpose in the role they have defined it (i.e. F-14 replacement). An F-14E would have been something of uberness throughout the world, hence why I have my own F-14E in NS.

The JSF is much less in terms of how long it took once a prototype was built. The program was put on hiatus. THey had the flyoff in 2000 or 2001 IIRC. The time from flyoff to production on the F-35 is a little more than half of that for the F-22.

You are right about the political BS. I will say the F-22 isn't as needed as much as the F-35 will be. I still think the F-22 will have useful applications in modern wars should all things go to hell with Iran, China, or North Korea.

Oh here's another thing. There still are a couple of F-14s flying, the only problem is they are with Iran.

Depends...Nobody actually knows if their F-14s are flyable. They were in bad shape in the '80s so who knows what they are now, without new parts or anything. The F-22 is definitely needed I will agree and I think 180 of them isn't going to be enough but we'll see, time will tell...

Depends...Nobody actually knows if their F-14s are flyable. They were in bad shape in the '80s so who knows what they are now, without new parts or anything. The F-22 is definitely needed I will agree and I think 180 of them isn't going to be enough but we'll see, time will tell...
I've read on strategypage.com that a couple of them are flyable because they've been cannibalizing them for parts or have been using the black market. I've read somewhere that they have been detected on RADAR by US ships too.

I agree the F-22 is needed. We need more than 180, but we certainly don't need 750. I talked to an AF Major a couple of weeks ago. He flies F-16s, so he may be biased her, but he said that he thinks the AF doesn't need more than 180 F-22s.

one of the concepts of the euro fighter was the fact that it would fly so fast it wouldn't need to be stealthy

Or would have been if that sort of thinking wasnt redundant before the cold war finished.

The F-22 IS a better dogfighter. How it shapes up as a multi role fighter remains to be seen. Remember that the Eurofighter was designed to do everything acceptably, not one thing excellently.

(i.e. F-14 replacement). An F-14E would have been something of uberness throughout the world, hence why I have my own F-14E in NS.
I made one too for my nation. it is my favorite aircraft to deploy.

Or would have been if that sort of thinking wasnt redundant before the cold war finished.

The F-22 IS a better dogfighter. How it shapes up as a multi role fighter remains to be seen. Remember that the Eurofighter was designed to do everything acceptably, not one thing excellently.

Actually the Eurofighter is the better dogfighter, it was designed to be. The other roles (air to ground) were added because of the end of the cold war and are not its primary role,which air supremecy.

The EF-2000 is probably one of the best multirole planes since the F-16, I'll go that far to say. The EF-2000 has air to air ground capabilities of high levels as well as air to air and since the IRIS-T is in service it will carry not only the AMRAAM and its spawn the Meteor but also, eventually, the AMRAAM-D beast. The IRIS-T is probably the best dogfight missile around though the AIM-9X is pretty amazing as well as the Python 5 and ASRAAM.

The F-22, on the other hand, has the air to air capabilties that every nation wishes for, especially since you can't see it until it has already fired at you. The AIM-120D that it will soon be carrying means that out to 65 mi or further you are going to be "touched."

I still hold supreme though, that in the hands of Maverick and Goose, the F-14 would turn the F-22 into cheese.

Actually the Eurofighter is the better dogfighter, it was designed to be. The other roles (air to ground) were added because of the end of the cold war and are not its primary role,which air supremecy.

Is it? I could have sworn that the Eurofighter was envisaged as a multi-role thingy.

I would also have sworn that the F-22 was more manuverable.

And hey, for half the price (admittedly still several times more expensive than it was supposed to be) its not bad.


It would be interesting to get a Eurofighter up against an F-22 in a set of combat trials.


Besides I reckon that before the end of the operational lives of the Eurofighter/F-22 generation of fighters odds are manned aircraft will be obsolete. UAV's are already being used on combat missions (admittedly only against blokes firing mortars into bases in iraq, but its a start).

The Eurofighter can't beat an F-22 because the F-22 is nearly impossible to track. It is stealthier than the F-117 or B-2. You can't kill what you can't see.

The Eurofighter can't beat an F-22 because the F-22 is nearly impossible to track. It is stealthier than the F-117 or B-2. You can't kill what you can't see.

Key word, NEARLY. it still has engines and thus is still fair game to any IR homing missiles. It is not completely invisible, all that is required is a little fine tuning of the missile and radar circuitry.

The Eurofighter can't beat an F-22 because the F-22 is nearly impossible to track. It is stealthier than the F-117 or B-2. You can't kill what you can't see.

It is definitely stealthier than the F-117. As far as the B-2 that is a big question. Everything except the basic specs and the look of the B-2 is classified. The B-2 is also the only bomber in the US arsenal not covered by START limitations. It carries what it wants, how it wants, where it wants. It has a gigantic range, it's high-subsonic, it's also $2.2B a piece, mainly because so few were made.

The B-2 is an enigma and for a plane of its size it probably has a radar signature equal to or lower than the F-22.

I used that quote in another thread about the best Fighter plane, someone made a comment that no self-respecting fighter pilot would fly a bomber.
I remember that. I replied, as I will here, that there is no such thing as a self-respecting fighter pilot.

What's the difference between a pig and a fighter pilot?

There are some things that even a pig won't do.

Here's a riddle for you guys.

I'm on a business trip. My room is 02-82-1. What can I see from every window?

It sucks that they have to be retired. But even the mighty SR-71 was retired. I really like the new F-22 Raptor I'm planning on joining the Air Force and flying one Hopefully.:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

It is definitely stealthier than the F-117. As far as the B-2 that is a big question. Everything except the basic specs and the look of the B-2 is classified. The B-2 is also the only bomber in the US arsenal not covered by START limitations. It carries what it wants, how it wants, where it wants. It has a gigantic range, it's high-subsonic, it's also $2.2B a piece, mainly because so few were made.

The B-2 is an enigma and for a plane of its size it probably has a radar signature equal to or lower than the F-22.

Well, I am pretty sure that a B-2 got locked onto by a rapier missile system. (admittedly, if a B-2 was at high altitude a rapier missile wouldnt be able to get high enough, but they are certainly not totally invisible to radar)

The B-2 is an enigma and for a plane of its size it probably has a radar signature equal to or lower than the F-22.
The USAF has officially declared the F-22 is stealtheir than the B-2.

http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005129233421.asp

I'm too lazy to read 11 pages of posts, but I'll put my $0.02 in...

The Shah of Iran actually PAID for the development of the F-14.

"The initial order signed in January of 1974 covered 30 Tomcats, but in June 50 more were added to the contract. At the same time, the Iranian government-owned Bank-e-Melli stepped in, and agreed to loan Grumman $75 million to partially make up for a US government loan of $200 million to Grumman, which had just been cancelled. This loan save the F-14 program and enabled Grumman to secure a further loan of $125 million from a consortium of American banks, ensuring at least for the moment that the F-14 program would continue. Thanks to Bank-e-Melli.

The Iranian Tomcats were virtually identical to the US Navy version, with only a few classified avionics items being omitted."
http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F14/f14.html

...if any of this is a re-hash, just ignore. :)

The USAF has officially declared the F-22 is stealtheir than the B-2.

http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005129233421.asp

The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.

Okay so let's think of F-117 as the base, which is 1. B-2 = 0.5. F-35 = 0.4?. F-22 = 0.2. That would be pretty cool.

F-22A For Export? (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80481)