Yeah sure it must be 12-15 even with simple sat images it is verified there was more than 30 10 yrs ago...and no F-16 dont have even chance against F-14..no matter what block we are talking about,even in close range combat F-14 turn angle,climb rate ,and every other ascpect is better than even F-16...F-14 can make 7G turn at mach 2..while in same time can fly at extremly low speed and turn at far better angle than F-16..ofcourse in practice F-5 can take out MIG-25 but those are extremly rare cases..if we talk about some situation where pilots with same capabilities are on both side and with similar assets on ground,nope..F-16 is ittle child for big boys..F-18 would never replace F-14 if they didnt fake some test documents,and main reason F-14 is retired in 2006 was Dick Cheney obsesion with Iran F-14 fleet after they find out some civilian contractors shiped F-14 parts and AIM54C components to Iran...Yes price was high and US was already planed to replace F-14 but only because they thought threat that required them is not any more there..but as I said,that beast was 40-50$ bilion in 1979..when F-4 cost was 2-3$ bilion..you cant put F-16,no matter which block in same basket....F-16 can lunch 2 AIM-120 in same timeand older variant have to wait till first AMRAAM became active to lunch second...few 14 overall capability is better than 12 F-16..but you people just dont get it,I would like to put you on battlefied for few days..to see how 3 T-34-85 + 1 T-55 eat alive 2 M-84 with only one lost T-34 (M-84 MBT is made in Yugoslavia on T-72 basis,with little better perfomance than T-72A)..those are 3 85mm gun + one 100mm gun vs two 125mm guns with autoloader..even M-84 was at that time MBT few years old,it simple doesnt matter because on battlefield it is overall capability of whole battle group is what matters,it would eat alive any of those old MBTs 1 on 1...But thing is F-14 is better even on 1 on 1,and if you go to any US military you will find out more about any of those platforms...You think one super power like US,would scrap whole its F-14 fleet and all parts..if it is not such big threat?? Even in museums there is just few F-14 left...I dont have a link,but I would point you to You Tube where you can find F-14 presentation,it is new presentation few years old where now some declasified documents are available.people who speak are cheef of F-14 project and few other people that worked on F-14 and some other platforms,it is interesting because they compare F-14 and few different platform...They used new and revolutionary tech on F-14,so that it could serve more 20 yrs without been obsolete in any aspect. They had to built titanium welding facility just for 14,and 6 materials used on F-14 was not used ever before..I will try to find...
I dont know if F14 retirement was due to what you are saying (stopping Iran's ways to get spare parts and components of such a powerful platform) or simply that the wheel of Military Indrustrial Complex had to be turning and turning, draining resources and resources of the american taxpayers in a never-ending-story, so USA decided to change a mighty high-tech platform for a less mighty platform (Hornets/SuperHornets) only to favour the Military Ind. Complex ethernal hunger, not for technical reasons.
Also it's important to note USA decided to favour SuperHornets instead of building an even more powerful Tomcat platform, the SuperTomcat, which would have been a decades long air dominant plane.
IMHO I think Iran doesnt URGENTLY need put their hands on a SU-30 SM or a SU-35 in order to learn how to build a top class fighter (other thing is to get soon some tens of SU-30 or SU-35 to boost its Air Force in a quick way, but it would suppose many $billions and also it would suppose to deal with Russian delays, and excuses, and delays...as with S-300).
Iran HAS today a top class fighter, F-14, to learn from, and to build a fighter using some of the specs from this mighty platform.
Even Vladimir Antonov designed the SU-27 based on the F-14 design (pancake fuselage, wide tunnel engines separation, in order to create extremely high lift and maneuverability) , so we could tell SU-27-30-35 are the soviet-russian equivalent to the F-14 (not the F-15 as usually said).
There are even rumours Iran gave one F-14 to the URSS in exchange of military HW during the beginning of Iran-Irak war. This story (rumours) suits with the fact Vladimir Antonov and Sukhoi had many problems with initial T-10 prototypes (precursors of final SU-27) , until final prototype in 1981. Who knows...but SU-27-30-35 are sons of the mighty F-14.
Talking about Iran maintaining >40 operational Tomcats even being hyper-sanctioned to any kind of aid, and knowing the extremely complex an F-14 is... it's very naive to think this has been achieved by "cannibalization"
F-14 is so cmplex for sure Iran has developed its own spare parts, components, etc even with TF-30 parts. I'm sure about that.
So if Iran has reached that level of tech-development, it's obvious Iran is able to build a fighter class in its own, maybe not as powerful as an F-14 but enough for its own needs. Even with a turbojet!!!
Having modern avionics, moders EW suite, modern radars, modern AAM... this turbojet fighter would be well capable.
No need to fall in the turbofan trap, designed from and for the western-Russia-China military industrial complexes, not for countries like Iran.
I read post 19 and yours and laughed.
When I was active duty, my first jet was the F-111. Now, the 'Vark is more agile than most people, including those in the Air Force, realized. Wings swept, both the 'Vark and the 'Cat are very similar in performance, with the 'Cat a slight advantage because it was designed with more air-air mission than the 'Vark. Then when I transferred to the F-16, it was like moving from a limo to an open wheeled racer. For most pilots, their initial exposure to 9g was in training, then they get assigned to whatever aircraft. Those who are assigned to tankers/transports will not see 9g again. But for those who moved to the F-16 from other jets, they found out quickly enough that to get 9g in instantaneous turn was as simple as flicking the right wrist. Or just thinking about moving the right wrist. In BFM, how quickly can a jet change heading is more important than how long it can sustain a particular g in a turn. Nobody want to fight a Viper. Sure, everybody talk smack about their fighters. But there is always that slight hesitancy when they look at their schedule and see that little jet as adversary training. When I was on the F-111 and stationed in the UK, our squadron gone up against NATO F-16s and the best we can do is go low and pushed the throttle. Nothing else. Post 19 was hilarious. You guys talk about BFM as if it is two-dimensional. And we hope Iranian pilots continues to think like you guys do here on PDF.
So for you and your pal in post 19, did you guys know that there are biplanes that can out turn the F-16? How long and how well Iran maintains the F-14 is irrelevant. Too much time passed the same way the Sopwith Camel and the P-51. I have no problems betting the house on the F-16 against Iranian F-14s any day. And all the bookies in Vegas, Atlantic City, and Macao will back me up.
Well, your F-111 was designed and built to do some tasks, and none of them was being an air superiority fighter, nor was having high maneuverability .
On the contrary, F-14 was designed based on the VAFX/VFX program, and its main goals (obviously achieved) were:
- Air superiority
- Fleet Air Defence FADF
- Attack Escort
- Air to Ground Attack
- Long loiter time
- Range
- Approach speed to the carrier
Note THE FIRST ONE, the first priority, was air superiority (with visual maneuvering close combat in mind) .
So get luck with your F-16 and your bookies in Vegas, Atlantic City, and Macao.
theaviationist.com
www.alibaba.ir
www.eghtesadonline.com
