Iranians... You should go home

[Hound]

Looks like the F22 is getting to show its stuff:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/19/us-pilot-scares-iranians-top-gun-worthy-stunt-you-/



The U.S. Air Force has a message for Iran: Don't mess with our drones.

In what only can be described as a scene out of Tom Cruise's "Top Gun," Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, Air Force chief of staff, describes how F-22 stealth jets scared off Iranian jets from a U.S. drone flying in international airspace.

The Aviationist reports that in March a U.S. MQ-1 drone came close to being intercepted by an Iranian F-4 Phantom combat plane, but the Iranian aircraft stopped short after a warning by an American pilot.

"He [the Raptor pilot] flew under their aircraft [the F-4s] to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said 'you really ought to go home,'" Gen. Welsh said.

According to The Aviationist, the Iranians came within 16 miles of the drone.

[spqrzilla]

By now, Iranian F4 Phantoms probably sound like a ghetto Chevy Impala driving down the street on broken suspension springs and a space saver spare.

[speedysst]

Come on now, don't dis the Phantom. Its always been one of my favorite combat aircraft. I still remember building a model of one in my youth. Then I flew it off my parents deck.

[centrarchidae]

Come on now, don't dis the Phantom. Its always been one of my favorite combat aircraft. I still remember building a model of one in my youth. Then I flew it off my parents deck.

And the remaining Iranian spare parts supply probably also came out of a Testors box.

[thvigil11]

The F4 was great in its day, but was still the heaviest airframe for a fighter that the US ever fielded. Originally it was designed as a missle carrier, not a dogfighter.

[Irving]

Why hasn't Iran switched to the Toyota Tacoma by now?

[thvigil11]

Why hasn't Iran switched to the Toyota Tacoma by now?

In those parts of the world, its all about the Hilux

[ZERO THEORY]

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/images/f4%201.gif
http://aviation.watergeek.eu/images/f-4b/3395-f-4b_hi-res_cockpit.jpg


Impressive, huh? Oh, wait.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-19990601-f-0000l-001.jpg
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/f-22-raptor-16.jpg

[Hound]

The F4 was great in its day, but was still the heaviest airframe for a fighter that the US ever fielded. Originally it was designed as a missle carrier, not a dogfighter.

My recruiter for the Navy was an F4 mechanic. He put it as "The F4 is proof that with enough thrust a brick can be made to fly"

[SuperiorDG]

Read this story sometime back. This happened like a year ago.

[TFOGGER]

Goddamnit, Maverick...


http://youtu.be/kf_bCOoXK24

[JMBD2112]

Come on now, don't dis the Phantom. Its always been one of my favorite combat aircraft. I still remember building a model of one in my youth. Then I flew it off my parents deck.

Same here, but I punched a hole in my dad's brand new leather recliner with mine, its fate was met by a hammer

[Sharpienads]

In those parts of the world, its all about the Hilux

The Hilux is pretty BA. Wouldn't mind having one for myself.

[thvigil11]

The Hilux is pretty BA. Wouldn't mind having one for myself.
You got that right. That's why every rebellious area in the world features these things with a old 60, DSHK or some other MG mounted in the back. There were rumours that they would get introduced here, but I never was able to confirm anything. I think Canada imported a few though.

[Ridge]

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/images/f4%201.gif
http://aviation.watergeek.eu/images/f-4b/3395-f-4b_hi-res_cockpit.jpg


Impressive, huh? Oh, wait.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-19990601-f-0000l-001.jpg
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/f-22-raptor-16.jpg

I like how your F-4 cockpit shot is from a video game. Best guess would be Wings Over Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wings_Over_Europe)

[<MADDOG>]

The F4 was great in its day, but was still the heaviest airframe for a fighter that the US ever fielded. Originally it was designed as a missle carrier, not a dogfighter.

Unloaded, didn't the Thud weight more?

[Colorado Osprey]

F-4's didn't quite have the heaviest airframe ever.

Thud 27.5k empty-- although technically a light bomber
Phantom 30k empty
F-22 Raptor 43k empty 83.5k gross

Gross maximum take off weight and the Phantom was still heavier 52.5k vs 61.8k.

Even the F-14 weighed 40k empty 61k gross

If you want to include fighter bombers-- F-111 46k empty 91.5k gross
Starts to make the phantom look steam-lined and slim, eh?

Heaviest fighter ever fielded.. Tu-28 Fiddler, 54k empty 96k gross


What is the lightest modern fighter now flying?
I don't include the F-5's as modern... and is the F-16 really considered modern these days?
Really the only modern light weights are the Saab JAS39 Gripen 12.6k empty and the Taiwan F-CK-1 Ching-kuo 14.3k empty

[Gman]

When I was a kid, I was driving on my learners' permit on a family vacation trip from Portland, OR to Northern CA. I was heading down I-5 and a pair of F-4s came tearing over the coastal side mountains, across the highway in front of me, and back over the mountains on the eastern side of the valley. They were terrain following at low altitude. The only response I could come up with was, "Allright. I didn't expect that."

The F-4 was like an anti-stealth fighter. Picking up the black exhaust gas made visual detection pretty easy.

I still like fighters built to dogfight. Putting a gun on the F-4 was an afterthought. Today seems to be more like Nintendo-warfare -- point, click and ship beyond visual range.

[RMAC757]

When I was a kid, I was driving on my learners' permit on a family vacation trip from Portland, OR to Northern CA. I was heading down I-5 and a pair of F-4s came tearing over the coastal side mountains, across the highway in front of me, and back over the mountains on the eastern side of the valley. They were terrain following at low altitude. The only response I could come up with was, "Allright. I didn't expect that."

The F-4 was like an anti-stealth fighter. Picking up the black exhaust gas made visual detection pretty easy.

I still like fighters built to dogfight. Putting a gun on the F-4 was an afterthought. Today seems to be more like Nintendo-warfare -- point, click and ship beyond visual range.

Your right about that. The days of a swarming fishbowl are over. Stealth and missile technology have made Beyond Visual Range Shots the norm now. In my opinion we spend too much money on some of these programs. We've spent $68 billion dollars on 188 F-22 aircraft. Way too few to shift any global balance of power and it's just a stopgap for the F-35. This is why I love the older planes. P-51's to F-8's. Hell, my favorite plane is the A-1 Skyraider. Raw power, stick and rudder.

[Mick-Boy]

The pilot (according to the article I first read on it) was Lt. Col. Kevin "Showtime" Sutterfield. Clearly a man with a sense of panache.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/17/welsh-f22-flew-to-drones-rescue-off-iran-coast.html

[RMAC757]

The pilot (according to the article I first read on it) was Lt. Col. Kevin "Showtime" Sutterfield. Clearly a man with a sense of panache.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/17/welsh-f22-flew-to-drones-rescue-off-iran-coast.html

That move was straight ninja. Dude got close enough to check out their weapon loads?! I wonder how many of the Iranian F-14's are still flying. From what I understand there's a few still going. They'll make nice "big" targets.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I always loved the F-4 because it just looks mean. It has an aura of raw power and menace that no other plane of its era can match.

I agree, there's a grace and elegance in older planes like the P-51, P-38, Spitfire, even the F4U Corsair, but the only other plane that gives me a similar "I'm going to f--- you up" vibe is the A-10 and THAT plane just radiates mean-and-ugly like Mr. T in Rocky II.


We've spent $68 billion dollars on 188 F-22 aircraft. Way too few to shift any global balance of power and it's just a stopgap for the F-35.

This one I disagree with you on. First off, they have different roles. If we're talking about keeping air-to-air superiority and delivery iron precisely and securely on target at extended ranges, the F-22 is the way to go. Forget the F-35. I'd be happy with a mix that maintained 200+ F-22s and kept upgraded F-16s for the short-range non-drone air-to-ground attack role. Second, we don't have to have fleets of them -- these aren't MiG-17s. As you said, the days of the swarming fishbowl are over but there is still a place for delivering crippling air-to-air as well as air-to-ground attacks and defending AWACS and JSTARS in the air -- and the best single platform for that right now is the F-22.

The F-35 on the other hand took every negative lesson we should have learned from McNamara's abortion (the F-111) and stood them on their head. TPTB should have taken the notion of a single airframe to do everything (air-to-air defense, Close Air Support, Tactical Air Support, etc.) and thrown the salesmen out of the room. F-35 is a helluva technological feat in all three variations but a ton of money spent trying to get a jack-of-all-trades to be master-of-most.

NB: I'm not a fighter pilot so my opinion isn't worth spit at Shaw, Langley, etc. -- but then, neither is anyone else's ... [blah-blah]

[RMAC757]

I always loved the F-4 because it just looks mean. It has an aura of raw power and menace that no other plane of its era can match.

I agree, there's a grace and elegance in older planes like the P-51, P-38, Spitfire, even the F4U Corsair, but the only other plane that gives me a similar "I'm going to f--- you up" vibe is the A-10 and THAT plane just radiates mean-and-ugly like Mr. T in Rocky II.



This one I disagree with you on. First off, they have different roles. If we're talking about keeping air-to-air superiority and delivery iron precisely and securely on target at extended ranges, the F-22 is the way to go. Forget the F-35. I'd be happy with a mix that maintained 200+ F-22s and kept upgraded F-16s for the short-range non-drone air-to-ground attack role. Second, we don't have to have fleets of them -- these aren't MiG-17s. As you said, the days of the swarming fishbowl are over but there is still a place for delivering crippling air-to-air as well as air-to-ground attacks and defending AWACS and JSTARS in the air -- and the best single platform for that right now is the F-22.

The F-35 on the other hand took every negative lesson we should have learned from McNamara's abortion (the F-111) and stood them on their head. TPTB should have taken the notion of a single airframe to do everything (air-to-air defense, Close Air Support, Tactical Air Support, etc.) and thrown the salesmen out of the room. F-35 is a helluva technological feat in all three variations but a ton of money spent trying to get a jack-of-all-trades to be master-of-most.

NB: I'm not a fighter pilot so my opinion isn't worth spit at Shaw, Langley, etc. -- but then, neither is anyone else's ... [blah-blah]


I don't fly fighters either but I like to pretend the A320 is kind of like one. Aloha, I like your analogy but I still think we went too small and too expensive on the F-22 program. The cost per unit is just too high for its purpose. It was designed as a straight Air to Air platform, even if they decide to add some Small diameter munitions on them. There's just not enough and the current threats we face necessitate a greater ground role. It's nice to have a couple F-22's walk into the block and scare off a bunch of bad kids. But if we went full on war with another major power like China, they wouldn't even make a dent. Using the Raptor as an asset protection for Astars etc. is an expensive bodyguard. One that could be easily filled with F-15 Silent Eagles or another upgraded variant for a fraction of the cost. The Eagle is still one hell of an Airplane that has some very cool new upgrades. The original ATF project number was 750 and we ended up with 183 F-22's. Obviously this was a decision based on the evolution of the F-35. I think you may be a little off on the F-35 as a dual role aircraft. Just look at how the F-18 streamlined carrier aviation. It performs basically every role effectively from electronic warfare, fleet protection to ground attack. If the F-35 lives up to the hype, it should be at the top of the class. I'm not a fan of a single engine on such an expensive fighter ( 120 million+ Cost per plane ) or the STOVL B model which will end up getting cancelled and the Marines will still be stuck buying off more old Harriers from Great Britain. I'm sure the Navy guys aren't too happy about the prospect of flying a Single Engine aircraft off a carrier. Overall though, from what I've read this thing should be a beast and actually serve a purpose in our current conflicts unlike the Raptor which has done almost nothing for the last decade as we fought 2 wars.

[Gman]

The F-15 is a great aircraft at a fraction of the cost of the F-22.

The F-35 is never going to fulfill its promise. I'm not a big fan of a one-size-fits-all approach. Just look at how well the government is doing with Obamacare. [dig]

[Aloha_Shooter]

RMAC, I don't think you'd find many people in the USAF who would argue the F-22 buy was too small. Hell, we lost a very good CSAF and SECAF over that very issue. As always, the unit cost went up when we decreased the total buy and we were left repeating the mistake we made with F-15/F-16. The F-16 was sold to Congress as being substantially lower cost than the F-15 but at the end of the day, unit costs were close enough that we could have reduced the total number of squadrons but outfit them all with F-15s instead of F-16s and probably had a more effective force overall.

FWIW, the F-22 hasn't had a chance in the wars we've been waging. It wasn't IOC in time. Think about whether you'd rather have 4-5 squadrons of F-22s or F-35s at hand to protect your forces as the PRC is fielding 5th and 6th generation fighters -- 1 squadron of F-22s ensuring AWACS and JSTARS are kept safe would enable F-16s to safely hit ground targets (the raison d'etre for the F-35) and protect ground forces from aerial assault. Heck, a single fight of F-22s demolishing the enemy will keep them out of our way for quite a while -- and using Total Force planning, you have a lot of freedom to act elsewhere when you own the high ground.

As I intimated, I'd rather have a F-22/F-16 mix than F-15/F-35 (of course, F-22/F-15E would be even better). WRT F-18s, talk to Navy guys ... the Naval aviators I knew were happier with the "outdated" F-14s than F-18s. A single airframe certainly simplifies logistics but so would a single rifle system -- know any ground pounders who think we should get rid of everything but the M-4/M-15 platform?

[RMAC757]

RMAC, I don't think you'd find many people in the USAF who would argue the F-22 buy was too small. Hell, we lost a very good CSAF and SECAF over that very issue. As always, the unit cost went up when we decreased the total buy and we were left repeating the mistake we made with F-15/F-16. The F-16 was sold to Congress as being substantially lower cost than the F-15 but at the end of the day, unit costs were close enough that we could have reduced the total number of squadrons but outfit them all with F-15s instead of F-16s and probably had a more effective force overall.

FWIW, the F-22 hasn't had a chance in the wars we've been waging. It wasn't IOC in time. Think about whether you'd rather have 4-5 squadrons of F-22s or F-35s at hand to protect your forces as the PRC is fielding 5th and 6th generation fighters -- 1 squadron of F-22s ensuring AWACS and JSTARS are kept safe would enable F-16s to safely hit ground targets (the raison d'etre for the F-35) and protect ground forces from aerial assault. Heck, a single fight of F-22s demolishing the enemy will keep them out of our way for quite a while -- and using Total Force planning, you have a lot of freedom to act elsewhere when you own the high ground.

As I intimated, I'd rather have a F-22/F-16 mix than F-15/F-35 (of course, F-22/F-15E would be even better). WRT F-18s, talk to Navy guys ... the Naval aviators I knew were happier with the "outdated" F-14s than F-18s. A single airframe certainly simplifies logistics but so would a single rifle system -- know any ground pounders who think we should get rid of everything but the M-4/M-15 platform?

The airline I work for is often referred to as "The Hornet Mafia" for all of the Navy guys I work with. The head of our training department is a retired "Top Gun" instructor. Most of them, with the exception of the Marines who's jets are always broken down, love the Hornet. The Super Hornet is a much more capable aircraft than the Tomcat in today's climate and an almost entirely different plane than the original 1st generation F-18. The F-14 was built around a single missile, the Phoenix. Even the hybridized "Bomb Cat" B models were built as an after thought. A stop gap for the retirement of the A-6. It was an effective solution but the airplane itself was extremely expensive to maintain and fly. It's really not fair to compare Jets and rifles. We use our aircraft as "platforms" for other systems. These systems are what make us better. It's why our F-15's are not Israel's or Korea's F-15's. The deal breaker is the F-35's strike capability and it's ability to evade advanced radar. It allows it to be autonomous on missions leaving "protection" aircraft at home. As much as I think the F-22 is a great plane, it doesn't do much for our guys on the ground in today's wars. The cost of that program was enough to actually equip our ground guys with the equipment they need to fight the asymmetric warfare we've been muddled in. BTW I don't just fly them, I one of those dorks who actually still loves airplanes.