Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday March 10 2018, @12:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the Holy-extended-support-Batman! dept.

On April 9, 1972, Iraq and the Soviet Union signed an historic agreement. The USSR committed to arming the Arab republic with the latest weaponry. In return for sending Baghdad guns, tanks and jet fighters, Moscow got just one thing — influence ... in a region that held most of the world's accessible oil.

[...] In neighboring Iran, news of Iraq's alliance with the Soviets exploded like a bomb.[...] The administration of U.S. president Richard Nixon was all too eager to grant the shah's wish in exchange for Iran's help balancing a rising Soviet Union. Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger visited Tehran in May 1972 — and promptly offered the shah a "blank check." Any weapons the king wanted and could pay for, he would get — regardless of the Pentagon's own reservations and the State Department's stringent export policies.

[...] That's how, starting in the mid-1970s, Iran became the only country besides the United States to operate arguably the most powerful interceptor jet ever built — the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, a swing-wing carrier fighter packing a sophisticated radar and long-range AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles.[...]Today Iran's 40 or so surviving F-14s remain some of the best fighters in the Middle East. And since the U.S. Navy retired its last Tomcats in 2006, the ayatollah's Tomcats are the only active Tomcats left in the world.

[...] The F-14 was a product of failure. In the 1960s, the Pentagon hoped to replace thousands of fighters in the U.S. Air Force and Navy with a single design capable of ground attack and air-to-air combat. The result was the General Dynamics F-111 — a two-person, twin-engine marvel of high technology that, in time, became an excellent long-range bomber in Air Force service.

[...] But as a naval fighter, the F-111 was a disaster. [...]In 1968, the Defense Department halted work on the F-111B. Scrambling for a replacement, Grumman took the swing-wing concept, TF-30 engines, AWG-9 radar and long-range AIM-54 missile from the F-111B design and packed them into a smaller, lighter, simpler airframe.

[...] Voila — the F-14.

TFA goes on in some depth both about the historical importance of the F-14 as it flew nearly 50 years ago, as well as the challenges Iran has faced in creating an entirely new supply chain, and eventually new upgrades, to keep a fleet of dedicated interceptors from the last century in service.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:15AM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:15AM (#650343)

    Today Iran's 40 or so surviving F-14s remain some of the best fighters in the Middle East.

    Saudis and others have later versions of F-15, superior jet fighter.s.

    Who wrote this nonsense? And why is SN so clueless?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:32AM (#650352)

    In the 70s, Iran was ruled by the US-installed Shah, of course they would be supplied with the US arms. Don't nobody teach history to the kids any more?

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:57AM (7 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:57AM (#650360) Journal
    The F-15 is 'superior' in some senses, but it's a multi-role fighter-bomber, while the F-14 is a dedicated air-superiority fighter. So it depends on what you need out of the plane on a given mission - and it also depends on the specific *type* of F-15 in particular as well, because it has several different variants that share a lot of parts but have very different capabilities. A lot of the F-15s you'll see are F-15Es, "Strike Eagles" and they're a great example of what the design is capable of. Against a second or third string opponent you can send these out to attack a ground target, without escort. They don't have anything like the bombing capability of a B-52 - but how often is that really called for? Nor do they have the A2A capability of an F-14 (let alone an F-22,) but again, how often do you need that? As the US has re-oriented from facing a 'peer competitor' in pitched battle towards curb-stomping third world nations, this is a very effective and efficient design.

    It's far superior to the F-14 at ground attack. But you don't use the F-14 for ground attack.

    The real question here is how does it compare at A2A? And at the time, it simply didn't. The F-14s we used to fly could eat the F-15s we started flying alive, no questions asked. However, our F-15s have been improved several times since then, and we aren't sure just how effectively the Iranian program has been at restoring/maintaining/extending the capability of their F-14s.

    So if you're comparing the current, flying fleets, then we just don't know. Best case, their F-14s could be considerably better than many if not all currently flying F-15s on several important metrics for A2A. The Phoenix had an operational range of ~100 miles and a very good kill percentage was expected even against difficult targets using ECM chaff and evasive maneuvers. It's a very large missile, but not a crude one, every cubic millimeter was put to good use. It has its own radar and can also receive telemetry from other sources, and it makes a very large cone of shrapnel so it's quite well suited to hitting fuzzy probability fields (i.e. stealth contacts.)

    In comparison the F-15 has a good variety of high performance short-range missiles available to it, but nothing comparable at long range.

    Like just about anything else, there's no one 'best' here. Which fighter will win, in any future confrontation, will have a lot more to do with the situation (when and how does the situation come to the point someone is authorized to fire?) than with the capabilities of the planes or the pilots.

    The article only says that it is 'one of' the best A2A fighters in the Gulf, and by any standard, that is undeniably true.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:01AM

      by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:01AM (#650361) Journal
      s/"one of"/"some of"

      TLDR even if the F-15 is considered 'better' by applicable standards, that would not contradict the article.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:05AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:05AM (#650363)

      he F-15 is 'superior' in some senses, but it's a multi-role fighter-bomber, while the F-14 is a dedicated air-superiority fighter.

      You are full of shit. F-15 was the straight up the top-dog air superiority fighter, F-15E is the later fighter-bomber version. F-14 was straight-up outmatched in a dog fight against F-15.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:38AM (3 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:38AM (#650386) Journal
        "You are full of shit."

        Am I?

        "F-15 was the straight up the top-dog air superiority fighter"

        That's what *you* say.

        Here's wikipedia. Not the best source but you understand it's widely considered superior to 'AC pulled it out his arse' so it gives a relevant datapoint.

        "The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15E Strike Eagle is an American all-weather multirole strike fighter[4] derived from the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle.[...]"

        There IS some reference to a conflict of priorities, with pressure from some quarters for more focus on A2A than the plane it replaced (the F-4 Phantom AKA "Flying Brick" which was extremely successful in a similar role - a light bomber that didn't need escorts against second string opponents) but that's absolutely consistent with the picture I painted. They can definitely fill an A2A role.

        But when they entered service, the F-15 relied on the AIM-7 "Sparrow" for it's *longer range* A2A ability. This was a small radar-guided missile with an operational range of less than 7 miles. Compared to the 100 mile operational range of the Phoenix.

        "F-14 was straight-up outmatched in a dog fight against F-15."

        Yes, that's quite true. The F-14 was not designed to dogfight. It was designed to kill you many miles away from dogfight range.

        Look, you have an original F-15, you might have gotten 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders for your loadout. The F-14 was flying with 4 phoenix and 4 sidewinders. If we start the engagement at long range, I can wait till 50 miles out to fire, guaranteeing that my Phoenix's get their chance even if you turn tail and hit the afterburners the moment they're launched. And they'll hit before anything you are carrying can be launched, even if you hit the afterburners and charge straight at me instead.

        1 on 1, starting at long range, with original armaments, the F-14 absolutely outclassed the F-15 and you're a ridiculous idiot to suggest otherwise.

        As I said already, respective states of upgrades and actual conditions of the engagement might or might not change that outcome.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:34AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:34AM (#650407)

          Also remember the F-14 was not designed to fight F-15. They were designed to fight MIGs. They would have been deployed differently depending on the different stratagies the USSR would use. Quick blitzkrig like attacks you want something like a F-15 to haul ass in there and get on them. For a slower 'see it coming' attack you pick at them from longer ranges like with the f-14s.

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:50AM

            by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:50AM (#650410) Journal
            Absolutely correct. The F-14 was designed to shoot down anything that threatened the carrier group before it could get close enough to launch (air superiority.) The F-15 was designed to carry out ground attack missions without escort, or alternatively to provide close escort to dedicated ground attack planes. No doubt it can fight. No doubt it can provide air superiority against second rate opponents. But it's certainly not a plane that's dedicated to that role alone.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:04AM (#650418)

          Your own wall-of-text comment contradicts much of your other wall-of-text comment. And go take a dump.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by zimluura on Saturday March 10 2018, @07:20AM

      by zimluura (4538) on Saturday March 10 2018, @07:20AM (#650440)

      It's important to make the distinction between the eagle and the strike eagle. The eagle is just air-to-air, the strike eagle, which packs lots more fuel, and is heavier and doesn't have the same maneuverability; is multi-role. After a while, probably related to the retirement of the A-6 intruder, the navy needed a long range bomber and started mounting bombs on the tomcat as part of the "bombcat" program. It performed this additional duty very well, the cat had/has long legs and a really good awg-9 or apg-71 radar. I've heard Iran uses it's cats in a sort-of mini-awacs role.

      On flight-sim forums this kind of thing comes up a lot. Generally it seems accepted that if it's beyond visual range (BVR) a cat with 2-4 phoenixes will make any other aircraft completely miserable. A possible exception is the F-22 with it's low RCS, though no-one is really sure since the US Gov didn't test it and won't tell us anything. Other than that the F-15 can fire the aim-120 aamram, the F-14 can (and has) fired it too, but no US F-14 squadrons were ever deployed with it. So medium range and closer stuff people typically give to the eagle. Can't really be sure still because sometimes the slower maneuvering speeds offered by the cats swing wing might best the eagle, but sometimes the eagles lighter weight might make all the difference.

      As for force projection: The cat was carrier based, and the eagle isn't. But the US has air-bases all over the place. In any case it's sad to see the F-14 go, it was fast, had great range, great radar, and long range missiles that could at the very least harass an opponent as it closed. But it was a difficult on maintenance, and now the navy has almost entirely gone to F-18 platforms, which probably helps them in logistical efforts.

  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:33PM (1 child)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:33PM (#650531) Journal

    Why should every editor be an expert on military aircraft, space, genome editing, forensic science, computer hardware, security, the laws applicable in every country in the world, and all of the other topics that we cover? That's right - we are not. So why not give us the benefit of your (superior?) knowledge on this topic rather than make sarcastic comments? Or, better still, make some submissions on this topic yourself then you wouldn't have to ask "Who wrote this nonsense?" - you would only have to defend what you write from others' criticism.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @01:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @01:50PM (#651322)
      This site does have a few of us who are legitimately experts in this field, but it seems we somehow hold the minority opinions when these articles are posted, and just end up getting shouted down by the masses of armchair generals. I personally scan through the comments, but don't even bother making any of my own anymore - just not worth the aggravation.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:15PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:15PM (#650580)

    In context, for example, Libya has about a dozen late-50s early-60s Mig-21 along with a VERY small handful (like two or three of each) of some 60s and 70s Russian jets. Supposedly they have ONE Su-17 from 1970, for example. Now if it can fly or not, who knows.

    I looked into this with interest in the sense that you can cheaply make a military simulation board game with one token per actual Libyan aircraft seeing as there's only about 20.