This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:10 am
I recall the Iranians have locally modded old Hawk missiles to use as AAM's; they've also reportedly fitted Russian pylons to them.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:35 am
Cking wrote:I notice that your location has changed Randy. Did we upset you or did we throw you out?
My uncle called me back to a different place o'business.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:37 am
When Uncle says MOVE, there is one response, Yes Sir!!!
Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:00 pm
There are a whole lot of pointy ended fighter drivers who are licking their chops hoping the Iranian F-14s and/or F-4s come up to play.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:14 pm
67Cougar wrote:There are a whole lot of pointy ended fighter drivers who are licking their chops hoping the Iranian F-14s and/or F-4s come up to play.
why does everyone think the U.S. would win in the fights with the F-14s or any other aircraft for that matter? It is this way of thinking that will bite you.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:56 pm
It is incredible they still fly?
Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:36 pm
Nathan, it is pretty simple.
The Iranians, according to aviation sources who are supposed to be in the know, are lucky to get the F-14s off the ground safely. No one in the West knows their mission availability, but it would seem to be poor. Yes, the Iranians have been clever in reproducing a few parts to get the airframes off the ground, but how usable are the jets in the air? Just think - we've all heard the horror stories about aircraft servicability in he US armed forces, AND they are supported by the actual manufacturers of the aircraft. Imagine trying to keep a 35 year old jet in full working order with no support.
The weapons systems in the aircraft are out of date - the USN deemed them out of date well over a decade ago. Although the Russians may have supplied Iran with new AA missiles, it is highly unlikely they've been adapted to the complex, out of date, analog control systems in the Tomcat.
The Iranian Tomcats are 1971 technology. They did not benefit from the upgrades applied to US Tomcats over the years. There may have been some Iranian supplied upgrades, but does anyone in their right mind think they would be on par with the US upgrades?
Training. If you put up a fighter pilot trained in the US system against one trained inside of Iran, in exactly the same equipment, the better trained pilot is going to win almost every time. How do you think a better trained US pilot in much better equipment is going to fair against an Iranian pilot in poor equipment. (To be fair, if an Iranian pilot went through US training, and was equipped with the same equipment, it could very well be a fair fight).
Last, I have spoken with US fighter pilots who have been over there. F-15, F-16, and F-18 pilots salivate over the prospect of getting into an engagement with an Iranian Tomcat, Phantom, or MiG. None of them thought it would be a fair fight, and every single one of them was confident that they would be victorious before the Iranian pilot even knew they were under attack.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:33 pm
Those US trained Iranian pilots are likely all dead. Eliminated at the last purge. (There is a web site somewhere on the IIAF, that lists all the F-4 & F-14 pilots and their fate. Not many, if any, are around today.)
VL
Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:58 pm
67Cougar wrote:Nathan, it is pretty simple.
The Iranians, according to aviation sources who are supposed to be in the know, are lucky to get the F-14s off the ground safely. No one in the West knows their mission availability, but it would seem to be poor. Yes, the Iranians have been clever in reproducing a few parts to get the airframes off the ground, but how usable are the jets in the air? Just think - we've all heard the horror stories about aircraft servicability in he US armed forces, AND they are supported by the actual manufacturers of the aircraft. Imagine trying to keep a 35 year old jet in full working order with no support.
The weapons systems in the aircraft are out of date - the USN deemed them out of date well over a decade ago. Although the Russians may have supplied Iran with new AA missiles, it is highly unlikely they've been adapted to the complex, out of date, analog control systems in the Tomcat.
The Iranian Tomcats are 1971 technology. They did not benefit from the upgrades applied to US Tomcats over the years. There may have been some Iranian supplied upgrades, but does anyone in their right mind think they would be on par with the US upgrades?
Training. If you put up a fighter pilot trained in the US system against one trained inside of Iran, in exactly the same equipment, the better trained pilot is going to win almost every time. How do you think a better trained US pilot in much better equipment is going to fair against an Iranian pilot in poor equipment. (To be fair, if an Iranian pilot went through US training, and was equipped with the same equipment, it could very well be a fair fight).
Last, I have spoken with US fighter pilots who have been over there. F-15, F-16, and F-18 pilots salivate over the prospect of getting into an engagement with an Iranian Tomcat, Phantom, or MiG. None of them thought it would be a fair fight, and every single one of them was confident that they would be victorious before the Iranian pilot even knew they were under attack.
Unfortunately, I don't agree with your post.
Here's a link to a thread in which I've discussed this in the past:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=27696The gist of my belief is this:
I am never prone to just scoffing a potential enemy outright because he is not a technologically advanced. That was a mistake we made with the North Vietnamese, and you can see how that worked out for us.
If anyone wants to beat their chest and think that it would be a cakewalk to just roll into Iran and eliminate their Air Force in the first day, they're entitled to that opinion. I happen to think that's a pretty ignorant opinion, though.
Would the US win militarily against Iran? No doubt in my mind. Would it be a cakewalk? I dunno...why don't you go ask some Desert Storm vets if the Iraqi Air Force was a pushover in 1991. Although the US did not have any confirmed air-air losses (Scott Speicher, perhaps), I'll bet you a case of Heineken that every pilot that shot down an Iraqi had a pulse going through the roof and was playing his top A game....he wasn't just relaxing, smoking a Lucky, and saying "awww, these Iraqis are a bunch of Amateurs." Same goes for Operation Allied Force, where F-15Cs bagged a few more MiGs. Were the Serbians a bunch of Clowns? Yes...but the US pilots flew as if they were going up against the best MiG-29 pilots in the world.
Listen to the recording of "Dirk" flight that is available for download here on the Internet...it's the two F-15Cs that shot down two MiG-29s in Allied Force. All you have to do is listen to the tone of the pilots' voices over the radio to know that they are operating at a very high level and are....well, scared isn't the right word. Perhaps anxious is a better word.
Anyway, if something bad happens and the US finds itself poised to take up arms against Iran in the next couple years, I will probably be there. I won't be thinking to myself, "Aww, these punks are just armed with a couple dilapidated Tomcats and some old Phantoms and MiGs and stuff. What a friggin' cake walk."
No, I'll be "anxious". Probably even scared, because you never know when an enemy -- even one who is not as well trained or equipped -- could whip out a sucker punch that could send me home to my family in a flag-draped casket.
You simply HAVE to respect your enemies until they prove themselves unworthy of that respect. Otherwise, your pride will be your downfall.
There's more on the F-14 as a potential adversary in that thread, I recommend you read it.
Here's, again, the gist of what I think about fighting Iranian Tomcats:
When I was a brand-new F-15E pilot, I had the opportuity to fly against an F-14A in a 1 v 1. I was surprisingly able to kick the snot out of him. Three years later, I had a similar 1 v 1 opportunity against an F-14D -- this time I was the one getting the crap beat out of him. IMHO, the D Model Tomcat is a pretty good fighter -- good engines and good radar -- that still suffers from some of the limitations of the Tomcat airframe (like numbers of places to hang ordnance, where the targeting pod is mounted, overall G limit, etc). It didn't carry the AMRAAM (the A model), so it suffered in the medium range BVR arena significantly (don't let the Phoenix fanboys convince you otherwise...).
I would NEVER underestimate anyone I was fighting, including an F-14A, because you can get the tar beat outta you by darn near any piece of equipment, depending on what the scenario is and who is flying it....
When I flew AT-38s, you would not believe the number of times I "killed" F-16s and F-15s in air-to-air engagements, even though I had no radar and no medium-range missile capability. Why? The T-38 is small visually and has a small radar cross section. If you can slip in un-noticed and turn the battle into a gunfight at close range, the odds change significantly. Even better, if you can get into a shot position WITHOUT BEING SEEN, you're in REALLY good shape, and that's what happened most times with the AT-38.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:03 pm
Nathan wrote:why does everyone think the U.S. would win in the fights with the F-14s or any other aircraft for that matter? It is this way of thinking that will bite you.
It's called having faith in your military Nathan. Give it a try sometime. In a few of these cases, It's also called "some people know some stuff you don't know" because they are in the military. The government hasn't given away all of our secrets...yet.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:43 pm
Randy, your quotes are making my points, rather than dispelling them.
The training the US fighter pilot receives won't let him take the opponent for granted - they are prepared to fight and win. They are trained not to underestimate their opponent. One of your quotes was apparently from an AF pilot, who claimed he popped Eagles and Vipers while flying AT-38s. Fair enough - that is training. T-38s were used as aggressors and as DACT foes for fledgling 15 and 16 pilots who are just learning their jets and tactics. I have photos of lots of old F-4s that had chalked on F-15 kill markings, when experienced Phantom jocks waxed new F-15 pilots at Luke, when the Eagle was just entering service. Training and experience can overcome a shortfall in equipment.
Given equal training and equal equipment, you have an even fight. Given superior training and superior equipment on one side, the results are going to be very lopsided. Iranian training, from everything I have read and common sense, is not the equal of US training. 35 year old Iranian maintained Tomcats are not the equal of currently updated US F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s.
Excited on the radio ... yes, they better be. My dad, a former US fighter pilot, told me that every engagement he had, even when he knew what was going to happen and that he was just training, said his adrenaline went through the roof every time.
Notice that I did not claim that US pilots will win every time - there is always the exception, where someone loses SA, is overwhelmed by numbers, or just plain unlucky. What will the ratio be? 20-1? 100-1? What has it been so far? What were the kill ratios in the two Gulf Wars - and what kept them from becoming even larger? The enemy stopped flying....
Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:21 pm
All of that is very easy to say when it's not going to be your pink butt who would actually be going against them.
I, for one, will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER underestimate a potential adversary. I don't share your confidence about what an easy game it would be for US forces to beat the IrAF. Every adversary is the "best in the world" until he actually proves otherwise on the battlefield.
Once he's a smoking hole in the ground, I'll start gloating about what an easy fight it was. Until then...it's time to bring the A game.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:42 pm
Randy Haskin wrote:All of that is very easy to say when it's not going to be your pink butt who would actually be going against them.
I, for one, will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER underestimate a potential adversary. I don't share your confidence about what an easy game it would be for US forces to beat the IrAF. Every adversary is the "best in the world" until he actually proves otherwise on the battlefield.
Once he's a smoking hole in the ground, I'll start gloating about what an easy fight it was. Until then...it's time to bring the A game.
This is exactly what I've thought about the potential situation. It won't be my buttocks in the hot seat so I won't make any assumptions one way or the other. If, and I pray it doesn't come to that, but IF this battle ever happens you know I'll be hoping and praying that our pilots all come out unscathed.
Ever heard of the tortise and the hare? You just cannot go into a battle with the thought that you are going to win no matter what. It is that kind of cockiness that gets guys killed needlessly.
Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:01 pm
67Cougar-
You do, of course, realize that Randy Haskin is quoting himself? He's the one talking about smoking and being smoked. And probably knows something about USAF training... just a thought from an outsider.
kevin
Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:17 am
If Randy is indeed what he says he is, and I have no reason to doubt, then he has my admiration and thanks. I am not a fighter pilot, but have a great deal of respect for those who achieve that standing.
I still think he is making my points, rather than deflecting them.
There is a difference between arrogance and confidence. The 3 dozen or so current AF, ANG, AFRES, and USN fighter pilots I know and have spoken with all have stated an eagerness to test their skills. After all, isn't that what fighter pilots are supposed to do? Is that arrogance, or confidence in their abilities, training, and equipmet?
My father, who did it for a living for some time, told me several times while he recounted stories of fellow pilots that guys (no female fighter pilots in his era) who were not confident, not well trained, and not eager to prove themselves stood a pretty good chance of ending up dead - and several of the pilots he knew who fell into those categories did indeed end up dead.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.