Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fwd: Re: [F-14sForever] Su 27 proliferation in Asia region

Expand Messages
  • Half Assed Astronaut
    ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 1 5:34 AM
      --- sirius <sirius@...> wrote:
      > To: <F-14sForever@yahoogroups.com>
      > From: "sirius" <sirius@...>
      > Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:17:08 -0400
      > Subject: Re: [F-14sForever] Su 27 proliferation in Asia
      > region
      >
      > > Don't you agree they should at least have a couple of
      > > squadrons of BAC Hawks ?
      >
      > They had a squadron of MB.339s that got axed when the two
      > squadrons of
      > A-4s did.
      >
      > > I guess, but setting off nukes, to where I am in
      > Vermont,
      > > would be in proximity, say to Nova Scotia Canada,
      > and
      > > I'd be pretty pissed...
      >
      > I would, too, although I'm not sure what the distance was
      > from the test
      > site to New Zealand. However, I still don't think it was
      > ever going to
      > escalate to armed conflict between NZ and France.
      >
      > > An incredible experience Jeff, and you lived to tell
      > about
      > > it. ;0)
      >
      > It was great fun. The ships were similar to some of those
      > of the Royal
      > Navy in the Falklands and, although they were 50 miles
      > from land, not
      > close to islands, our attack runs gave me a bit of an
      > idea what the
      > Argentinian pilots had faced. As we went past and between
      > the ships (we
      > were too low to fly over them), I could see the gun
      > turrets and missile
      > launchers rotating to track us. We were simulating the
      > use of Maverick
      > missiles and dumb bombs, but as they pointed out in the
      > briefing, the
      > bombs would have been fused correctly and more effective
      > than in 1982.
      > There were five Aussie and Kiwi ships and there were four
      > A-4s and two
      > AF-18 in the attack package. We heard the Aussies on the
      > radio but never
      > saw them. They were only cleared down to 250 feet and the
      > Kiwi pilots
      > joked they'd get nosebleeds "way up there in the
      > stratosphere". :-)
      >
      > > I for one, do not at this stage believe the F22 will
      > ever
      > > see service in quantity in the USAF, let alone any
      > > exports.
      >
      > A friend of mine who was then in the 422nd TES at Nellis
      > during the 1997
      > air show told me that the joke making the rounds then was
      > that the air
      > force would get four F-22s: one each for PACAF, USAFE,
      > and ACC. The
      > fourth would be used by the test units from Monday to
      > Friday and by the
      > "Thunderbirds on weekends. ;-))
      >
      > Jeff
      >
      >
      >
      >


      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
      http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
    • Half Assed Astronaut
      ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 1 5:35 AM
        --- sirius <sirius@...> wrote:
        > To: <F-14sForever@yahoogroups.com>
        > From: "sirius" <sirius@...>
        > Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:50:39 -0400
        > Subject: Re: [F-14sForever] Su 27 proliferation in Asia
        > region
        >
        > > I'll believe in teh F35 only when I see it in quanity
        > in
        > > at least one branch of the service. In the meantime
        > the
        > > F14 program is dead, left town, with no forwarding
        > adress,
        > > and no future at all, period, end of story. The US
        > > navy's put all it's eggs in the F18E/F basket, and I
        > think
        > > that's unfortunate.
        >
        >
        > Don't shoot the messenger, but whatever you think of the
        > Super Bug, this
        > is interesting to read.
        >
        > Jeff
        >
        > =========================================
        >
        > Subject: F-14 and F/A-18
        >
        > Here's an interesting report from a former F-14 Skipper.
        > As you recall
        > when I last sent an email about the F-14 vs F-18
        > itstirred the pot. I
        > did not take a stand on which was better, not having
        > flown either one. I
        > simply did not have a dog inthat fight. It's good to hear
        > from someone
        > who has flown both machines.
        >
        > Cheers, Ski
        >
        > ==========================================
        >
        > VFA-2 Bounty Hunters Transition Update
        >
        > I am CDR Doug "Boog" Denneny, an F/A-18F WSO who is the
        > CO of the VFA-2
        > BOUNTY HUNTERS. My squadron became an F/A-18F squadron in
        > July when we
        > gave up our ten F-14Ds and headed West to Lemoore. VF-2
        > just returned
        > from a cruise on the Connie -- her last -- where we
        > participated in
        > Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. It was a heck of a cruise and it
        > was great to
        > see our JDAM and LGB-equipped Tomcats really take it to
        > Saddam. I look
        > back on our cruise and smile when I think of how capable
        > our aircraft
        > were. I truly felt that our F-14Ds were by far the most
        > capable strike
        > fighters in the conflict.
        >
        > We had better capabilities than even the Strike Eagles.
        > To put it in
        > perspective, we had and used: our 2000lb JDAMS (GPS
        > guided bombs), the
        > LANTIRN pod and LGBs, the Gun (we strafed on a handful of
        > missions),
        > dumb bombs (we even dropped some MK-82s off of a TARPs
        > jet on a mission
        > redirect against Saddam's Yacht in Basra).
        >
        > We didn't have any blue on blues, we put our ordnance on
        > target and
        > brought everybody home. It was an epic deployment.
        >
        > I can't overstate how important Link-16/JTIDS was for us
        > during the
        > conflict. JTIDS gave us so much SA that I can't imagine
        > ever going into
        > another conflict without it. I was always glad that the
        > Eagles and the
        > Patriot batteries saw our self-reported position, it was
        > comforting to
        > know that joint trigger pullers knew where we were during
        > the fog of
        > war.
        >
        > We were the night carrier during the war, meaning we
        > switched our body
        > clocks over a one week period. We woke up at sunset, flew
        > until around
        > noon, and then hit the rack.
        >
        > The Tomcats really shined during FAC A (Forward Air
        > Controller Airborne)
        > missions, CAS missions, and SCAR missions where we were
        > finding targets
        > in dynamic combat situations. We had the time, gas,
        > LANTIRN pod, and
        > ordnance that made us the platform of choice for the guys
        > on the ground.
        >
        > Because we were the night carrier, we got a lot of work.
        > I think this
        > era will be looked upon as an epic time for the F-14.
        > Everything came
        > together, including three D squadrons (VF-2, 31, and 213)
        > a B squadron
        > (VF-32) and an A squadron (VF-154). There were some
        > naysayers at high
        > levels that couldn't believe we could put three D
        > squadrons at sea at
        > one time. It was a great aircraft, and the last two F-14D
        > squadrons will
        > have incredible capabilities for the next handful of
        > years.
        >
        > However, our great capabilities came at a cost, over 60
        > maintenance man
        > hours per flight hour as well as untold dollars from
        > readiness accounts
        > required to keep us stocked with parts and consumables.
        > We had to fight
        > to get more of our aircraft on the roof and fight for
        > sorties.
        >
        > Unquestionably, we were the most maintenance-intensive
        > aircraft on the
        > flight deck, a fact that made us the envy of nobody on
        > the roof. Our
        > maintainers worked like madmen during the entire
        > deployment and
        > especially during the war to turn our jets around and fix
        > them in a
        > matter of minutes. Thankfully, it was a short war for us
        > and I can't
        > overstate how we couldn't have done this without the
        > incredible amount
        > of work by our Tomcat Maintainers.
        >
        > After flying in on June 1st to Oceana, we parked our jets
        > and began
        > packing for our moves across country. We transferred our
        > ten jets in
        > eleven days, transferred a ton of our personnel, and took
        > the 150 or so
        > of us that were left across the country. We became VFA-2
        > on July 1st.
        >
        > This transition is a planning and leadership challenge
        > for all of us. We
        > are the fourth Tomcat squadron to do this transition
        > (VFA-41, 14, and
        > 102) and VF-154 is coming to town in a couple of weeks.
        > VFA-102 will
        > take their place in the Far East. We were able to steal
        > our comrades'
        > lessons learned, so at least we haven't made too many
        > mistakes-so far.
        >
        > Here are some thoughts on the new jet. First, it is a
        > little bit like
        > comparing apples and oranges. For every plus I can say
        > about the Super
        > Hornet, I can come back with something else about the
        > Super Tomcat.
        > Because it is the most important program in Naval
        > Aviation, it is
        > awesome to be in this new community. Everything is done
        > right and we get
        > incredible support.
        >
        > Just about everything works in this airplane. Its basic
        > systems, with
        > regard to survivability and redundancy, are exceptional.
        > It is
        > incredibly well-designed.
        > Maintenance-man-hours-per-flight-hour are a
        > fraction of the Tomcat's. The radar is not as powerful as
        > the AWG-9 or
        > APG-71, but when combined with LINK-16/MIDS, numerous
        > weapon stations, a
        > well integrated Jamming and RWR suite, the new Joint
        > Helmet Cueing
        > System, and eventually the AIM-9X, we will be able to
        > truly sanitize and
        > dominate in the air-to-air arena.
        >
        > Air to ground -- it carries the entire spectrum of
        > current and planned
        > future weapons. Enough said. We have a dire need for more
        > ATFLIRs and
        > ancillary equipment to make all of this air-to-ground
        > stuff happen.
        > Great bringback numbers if required.
        >
        > Airframe -- it is embarrassingly slower than the Tomcat
        > at its top end.
        > It can accelerate very well and has great energy
        > addition, it is just
        > top end limited. It has excellent slow-speed handling
        > characteristics.
        > It can outperform just about anything in the high alpha
        > environment. The
        > jet is completely controllable falling out of the sky at
        > ridiculously
        > slow airspeeds and high AOA.
        >
        > We are now tanker pilots and tanker WSOs. This means more
        > traps and more
        > flight time for us and gives us the option to take the
        > strike package
        > just a little further, organically. We can put some
        > weapons on the
        > tanker bird, do some good work over Indian country, and
        > have a safety
        > valve if there are problems with the Air Force tankers.
        >
        > The jet is currently mechanized as a one seat aircraft
        > that has two
        > people in it. We'll get over those growing pains and hope
        > to find that
        > the two-seat aircraft once again can be more lethal and
        > more
        > versatile -- particularly as a FAC A jet -- in combat.
        >
        > That may give you a snapshot of how the airplane performs
        > in comparison
        > to the Tomcat. Bottom line, if you ask me which aircraft
        > I'd want to
        > take into combat again, I'd pick a full up Super Hornet
        > over the F-14B
        > or D.
        >
        > We are RAG students now at VFA-122. We should accept our
        > first of twelve
        > F/A-18Fs in October and be certified safe for flight in
        > December. It
        > will be an exciting turnaround and we look forward to
        > taking our new
        > aircraft to sea and into combat again.
        >
        >
        >
        >


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.