gbnavy61

Nice pic. Wtf is going on with the caption, though?

I'd hope not. If I'm ever on fire, I typically go with the GTFO option. After a few explosive ends, I don't try to stay with the jet anymore. Just join the Martin-Baker fan club.

Holy s**t, Caesar! Thanks for posting that site. I was reading some of the Hoser Chronicles yesterday. Good Lord, I was laughing my ass off. I think my favorite so far was Magic's corrected story about the two-ship coming back home at five bills. Not so much the "It's ok...I got a note from my Mom" part, as Hoser's reaction to the FNG RIO telling approach that they were doing 500 knots. I can see it in my mind, Hoser shaking his head and pounding on the canopy. I think I was laughing nearly as hard as Magic did at the time! The F-8 "flew up my own asshole" story was also good. Awesome stuff there.

I'd love to get my hands on an F-14 NATOPS, but I don't know how likely that is. Um, some good ones I've read... Tomcat!: The Grumman F-14 Story by Paul Gillcrist - Lots of history and a bunch of anecdotes from RADM Gillcrist. F-14 Tomcat Units of Operation Enduring Freedom by Tony Holmes F-14 Tomcat Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom by Tony Holmes Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat by Tom Cooper - The first two are good for stories and photos of the Tomcat's last contributions to military operations - most focuses on air-to-ground as the Tomcat didn't see much air action late in its life, due to a variety of factors. For good air-to-air tales, the Iranian Tomcats book is a great read. The Iranian Tomcat crews got to use the jet to its fighter potential like only a handful of Naval Aviators got the chance to do in combat. All are good, but the Iranian Tomcats book was probably the most interesting - I knew virtually nothing about the Iran-Iraq war and the fall of the Shah before I read that one. Jane's How to Fly and Fight in the F-14 Tomcat by David Rockwell - Has a good amount of information, though most of it is basic, and it's presented over the course of several fictional missions. A good read.

What Sabre is that?

...Bye-Bye, Baby! is an awesome book. Lots of great anecdotes from F-14 aircrew and outstanding photos. If you're a Tomcat fan, you should own it.

Ah, the 1st of April...a day for people who think they have a sense of humor to get the s**t beat out of them by people who are not in the mood.

Saw another vid, Caesar - maybe the one you were talking about, but it was 2 Tomcats vs an F-16 and an A-4. The F-16 in that one goes down pretty quickly to the lead F-14A. However, Dash 2 gets bagged by the A-4. Then, the F-14 and A-4 go at it and it sounds like somebody gets a kill, but then the "knock it off" comes over the radio. Can't make out the last bit. Does seem to support the two-place crew concept, at least for the second set of eyeballs, particularly when you're looking for something as small as an A-4/F-16. Though it seems like even with that advantage, Dash 2 lost sight of the A-4 quite a bit. Here:

Read about Hoser's trick, too. Good stuff. Disagree w/ streak's conclusion - switch the pilots and the F-16 still gets the F-14? I don't think you can say that for sure. Kinda odd, though, since streak then goes on to say that the pilots make the difference. Or perhaps he meant switch planes and the instructors would still win? I'd still rather fly a Tomcat.

Aggie, I apologize for some of the comments I made, I was out of line. As someone close to the project, presumably, perhaps you can better explain why most of what I hear in regards to the project - apart from how great the JSF is going to be - is how massive the costs and delays are.

I just got that.

Uh, I'm not sure that was the point, but in response to that, I think if you find the right person to have kids with, it shouldn't be an issue. *** In any event, Mustang, I'm sorry for your loss. That's really a terrible situation. Wish I could say something more meaningful.

Seems to be a trend recently.

Dunno, this bird looks pretty queer. (Those flimsy, little landing gear also tickle me.) Head on it looks like a Super Eaglet (Horngle?). This concept seems a bit weird to me. I guess SH sales have slowed significantly, if not stopped, so Boeing is looking to keep busy in the strike-fighter market. It doesn't seem like a great idea. AFAIK, even the Mud Hens carry extra tanks, so the increased range from CFTs doesn't seem like a huge selling point - particularly when you're not making use of all that space for fuel, because in a half-hearted effort to be "stealthy" you're stowing weapons in there. Only interest I can see in this is countries, other than the US, that operate F-15s or may be looking to trade up without shelling out for a ridiculously overblown p.o.s. like the Joint Strike f***-up. And really, are export versions going to give the best of the US avionics? Without that, all you're really getting is a minimal upgrade in the RCS department and a younger airframe. I guess that arrangement may work for some. Maybe Boeing is covering as many bases as possible. Other thoughts... I've not flown a SH, so I can't comment from experience, but it seems like it too was an overblown idea that was hit-and-miss enough to make it only a mediocre upgrade for the legacy Hornets, and not enough of the complete package to adequately replace the F-14D. This Silent Horngle seems like the same concept. Boeing was thinking "What can we do for cheap that will keep our heads above water?" I don't know why anyone thinks this new F-15 is a good idea. How about some sign of originality? Whoever said earlier that the Brits ought to build their own jet was right. I don't know what should be done about Lockheed-Martin. Seems like they are a bunch of incompetent assholes (and great flim-flam men). IIRC, something like 15 countries have orders for a dinky little jet that is probably a lot less than it's cracked up to be, and still they keep f***ing it away and the project gets more and more delayed, with costs rising all the time. The only reason they haven't fallen flat on their faces is that it'd be in the US's best interest to keep some competition in military aircraft design, and that all of these other countries are banking on this turd to at least show up at some point. Everybody who bought into L-M's sales pitch is getting what they deserve, unfortunately. We need to get the competition beefed up again, at least among US companies (but, hey, overseas advancements might induce us to action). Northrup-Grumman needs to get in on the act, too. Personally, I think the carrier decks look a little sparse without a sturdy Grumman strike-fighter (emphasis on the fighter). Instead of the "good ol' days" when military-minded folks pushed for the proper warfighting equipment (cost was a concern, but not the driving factor), we're letting the politicians and businessmen drive things. The politicians want things to happen for less money, the military let's them dictate, and the businessmen see a way to capitalize ($$$). So, the military gets stuff that is cheaper, but "cost-effective" (commonality of parts, etc.). So, they go to war with a "Swiss army knife;" sometimes you just need a machete and a club. I think we have advanced far enough to build a great machete and a great club and not have to worry about how much cheaper it is to fix the adequate Swiss army knife. I don't know. Just my rant.

False. But, one day soon perhaps. The person below me has logged a trap (IRL).

Back with the HARM/Mav targeting, etc., would the new ATFLIR do the same thing you used the LANTIRN for?

Explain #1 again - it's a little confusing. As far as #2 goes, you have two options. First, wait for the new and improved Tomcats to arrive - I'm sure with the weapons and tanks included. Second, download one of the big weapons packs (just not the WOI one from C5). The others should have all the goodies like AIM-54s and F-14 fuel tanks in there already. EDIT: Oh, I see what you're saying on the first one now. Do you have a weapons editor? Do you know how to use it? This might solve your Tomcat problems too. What to do: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=9323 .

Freakin' awesome.

Well, I agree there could be a better cue to the pilot that he has acquired a radar source with the HARM seeker. However, if you know there's a SAM or AAA radar out there, check your RWR. Then, point that direction and take a shot. Odds are the radar is on and looking for you, if not at you. So, the HARM will zorch off the rail, then after a few seconds, will make a bat-turn towards the radar, and shortly after - BOOM! Now there's a whole site of 6 SAM launchers with no radar to guide them. Clean-up or bypass the leftovers. With Mavs and JDAMs, you get better feedback on your targeting, but you have to get a lot closer, thus exposing yourself to greater chance of being shot at/shot down. With JDAMs you should be able to get away with high-altitude bombing, without exposing yourself to at least some SAMs. How high are you when dropping those? Also, have you tried using the ALE-50 to get closer?

I think then, you're probably not doing it right. Just load up on HARMs and have fun.

For a commie p.o.s. that I'll shoot out of the sky, I like the looks of it.

Cool. Although I never really studied the MiG-29, the pit in there seems very well done.

Ditto. Get with the gettin'.

Someone ought to re-do the physical model and make it actually a T-45, rather than a painted up Hawk. Needs beefed up gear, single ventral fin, hook, etc. That would be cool.

Well, if you're flying something like the U-2 or SR-71, I would think high-altitude would be the way to go. However, smaller recce jets usually operate in mid to low altitudes. The F-14 TARPS crews used to make mid-altitude recce runs in the Persian Gulf over various countries. RF-8s used to make low-altitude runs over Cuba and Vietnam. It's like this: flying low should shield you better from A/A threats because you'll be down in the weeds in among the ground clutter; however, if you're too low you open yourself up to all kinds of small arms fire, AAA, and SAMs. Flying high enough will keep you out of harms way from the small arms and AAA, some SAMs, and some kinds of enemy fighters, but, the bad guys can probably still launch some telephone poles up at you as well as the threat from high-alt/high-speed interceptors. In reality, a lot depends on what kind of pictures you need to take, and what kind of camera equipment you have. As to particular tactics, I don't know if I can help much. IIRC, 3000ft was the limit - any lower exposed you to small arms fire. Change altitude a lot to throw off the AAA - I think every 5-10secs in the threat area because the radar-guided AAA would take about that long to recompute the targeting solution on you and throw up more lead in your flight path. Don't fly directly below an overcast - the enemy knows how high the clouds are. Don't fly directly above an overcast - you can't see anything coming up to get you. Keep the speed up in the target area. One pass, haul ass.