IRIAF F-14A against F-15I

indochina wrote: the F-14A is still the backbone of the Iranian army, but old electronic system (which may have upgraded by Russia)

indochina wrote:Sure would be a real threat to the F-15I of the Jews?

indochina wrote:So you would say that F15I will win in the WVR regime or Dogfight? depends on the level of the pilot and the engine (the Jewish crowd at this point)

There was a time when the F-14 Tomcat was better at bombing Iraqi ground targets than the F-15E Strike Eagle

September 8, 2012
Posted by Dario Leone in Aircraft Carriers, Military Aviation.

On Sept. 22, 2006 after 36 years of service, the last F-14 Tomcat was retired by its main operator, the US Navy, at NAS Oceana. Although six years have passed since then, there are many unknown facts to be told or simply to be remembered about the last Grumman’s (now Northrop-Grumman) fighter.

One of these often untold stories dates back to Apr. 2003 when, in the midst of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the Tomcats of the VF-154 Black Knights were embarked aboard the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63).

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) ordered to VF-154 to detach five of its F-14A (BuNos 158620, 161296, 161288, 161292 and 158624) and five of its crews to Al Udeid air base, in Qatar. This was the first time in history that US Navy aircraft were tasked to fight a war from both ashore and at sea at the same time.

The five Black Knights’ Tomcats were dedicated to provide Forward Air Controller (Airborne) or FAC(A) and Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR) for Coalition fast jets (such as USAF F-16CGs and F-16CJs, RAAF F/A-18As and RAF Tornado GR-4s) deployed to Al Udeid.

The VF-154 Tomcats crews also had to train USAF F-15E crews to conduct FAC(A) and SCAR missions.

During this shore-based period a VF-154 F-14A (BuNo 158620 callsign “Nite 104”) crashed because he suffered a single engine and fuel transfer system failure forcing the crew to eject.

However during this special period the five Black Knights’ crews were able to accomplish more than 300 combat hours dropping more than 50,000 lbs of ordnance.

These results were possible even if the Tomcat had some disadvantages when compared directly to some of the attack planes mentioned above: for example, the Strike Eagle has a maximum payload far superior than the one of the Tomcat and the F-14A could only employ Laser Guided Bombs (LGB) and it was not able to use Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) due to a lack of a digital databus (the Bs and Ds-models Tomcat could use JDAMs).

Still, the F-14 had also some advantages: the AN/AAQ-25 LANTIRN (Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting, Infrared, for Night) pod used by Tomcat crews was more capable than the USAF’s AN/AAQ-14 and also than the first AN/AAQ-28s Litening II. In fact the AN/AAQ-25 provided the Tomcat with the capability to point the pod to chosen waypoints without the employment of radar, an ability that the F-15E didn’t have. The F-14s were also equipped with a Programmable Tactical Information Display System (PTIDS) and 20 cm X 20cm screen that provided the Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) with a better display than the Weapons System Officer (WSO) in the F-15E.

All these features made the F-14 a really impressive attack platform- as a Tomcat driver once explained: “With the Strike Eagle you can put the bomb on the building. With the Tomcat you’ re putting the bomb into the third window from the left, from miles away”.

indochina wrote:So you would say that F15I will win in the WVR regime or Dogfight? depends on the level of the pilot and the engine (the Jewish crowd at this point)

indochina wrote:Who is still saying, that the F14 A is an old plane

indochina wrote:and can't match with newer aircrafts?

indochina wrote:I said to the AIM-54 Phoenix

Sujoy wrote:

indochina wrote:Who is still saying, that the F14 A is an old plane

US NAVY

indochina wrote:and can't match with newer aircrafts?

If the F 14 A is indeed such an outstanding aircraft why did they decommission all of these ? USAF still flies the F 16 an aircraft that first entered service ( 1978) roughly at the same time that the F 14 ( 1974) did .

indochina wrote:I said to the AIM-54 Phoenix

Again decommissioned . Was highly publicised but was largely an average BVR missile .In a BVR engagement a bogey could perform a 30 degree check turn and go down to a lower altitude to counter a AIM 54 shot. The Aim-54 also had a number of problems with their fuses (aside from not meeting production schedules, running over budget, and problems with maintaining quality control).

GarryB wrote:I tend to agree with most of the points made by Sujoy, but would add that the jet engine of the F-14A was terrible for a fighter... it made the F-111 an excellent long range strike aircraft but for close in turning and burning it was a poor engine.

The Phoenix was designed to shoot down backfire bombers and high speed missiles, not fighters or tactical aircraft.

Vladimir79 wrote:To be honest, there is nothing IRIAF has that is a threat to the Jews.  They have the best the American welfare can buy while Iran tries to maintain 40 year old rust buckets under sanctions.  There is nothing stopping IRIAF from ordering Su-35s and MiG-35s which would be needed to counter the IDF.  Even if IRIAF had several squadrons of perfectly maintained F-14As, which they don't, the ECM capabilities of Israel would nullify the obsolete AIM-54 easily.  Iran claims several kills with the missile but the Americans tried using it over Iraq and missed every time.  It puts into perspective how accurate that missile really was.

Isos wrote:

I've seen somehwere that aim-54 did well during iran-iraq war against iraqi mirage F1 but once french gave special ecm to counter it, the Pk was 0%. I don't if this story is true but US removed aim-54 because it wasn't reliable anymore and prefere aim-120 instead.

Anyway they should buy more pantsir S1 to counter israel. There won't be aerial war between them, only a big attack from israel with stand off weapons and cruise missile. Some AWACS to see them coming, and some long range surveillance radar mounted on a mountain or on a ballon to have a constant awerness would be better than few sukhoi that will have harder time dealing with cruise missile than a line of air defence around probable targets.

Israel has found the way to defeat Pantsir with its Delilah missile. Either that or the Syrian AD crew was sleeping in the middle of a massive air strike. If that is the case I would order them taken to the nearest firing squad for dereliction of duty. Having a strong IADs can cause many casualties to your enemy, but it will not solve the problem especially when Israel can lob cruise missiles out of range. You need serious CAP that can intercept them. Iran can use its last F-14s as cannon fodder and maybe take out an AWACs while the real fighters of Russian origin handle the business end.
Back to top

Isos wrote:

Pantsir was destroyed because the soldier had the very good idea to turn it off in the middle of an airfield being bombed ... The drone was slow and they would have deal with it pretty easily. The video shows all that very well. Russian pantsir in syria have destroyed smaller drones than the one israeli used against the pantsir at ranges of 10-15 km. They even destroyed BM-21 rockets at decent ranges.

They have pretty long range cruise missile. Iran don't have the money to operate hundreds of sukhois and use them often to train their crew and to patrol. They also need early warning radars. Pantsir are cheap and easier to operate. Of course sukhois are very good but I doubt they woukd be in good hands with iranians, you could even see some defecting in a US base ...

Vladimir79 wrote:
Iran is sitting on black gold, all they have to do is ship it to us via the Caspian and it will pay for arms purchases.  They don't want to do that because they want hard cash.  They would rather let their oil tankers rust full of oil than rearm themselves if it doesn't include a pay day.  They are corrupt like all the others.