Eh marketing lies
1 Like
Yeah, should have 60 to 70 second reload rates
1 Like
any predictions about where USS Iowa would be?
I’d guess lost like US mains usually are :P
The most Primitive F-14 variant racking up more kills than all the F-15s combined:
The F-14 did have a tendency to kill pilots it deemed unworthy though so I agree it can’t be “the best” fighter jet.
1 Like
makes me wonder though how giga-huge the H-45 “Der Fuhrer” would be compared to everything else xD
Mostly unconfirmed + several lost in a2a
You’re never going to get “confirmed” kills in middle eastern engagements. Even the lowest estimates of kills ~110 are still higher than the F-15’s kill count. And less than 5 were ever lost in AtA kills (None in American service and 2-3 in Iranian service). Several is not the correct term. “A Few” works better.
So 110 kills and 2-3 losses a2a, still worse than F-15.
And also, they can have confirmed kills in middle east because that’s where most of the F-15’s kills come from (Israel and ODS)
I meant besides Israel and Desert Storm. It’s easy to count kills when we’re allies with the people fighting. When it’s between Iran/Iraq though, we can’t tell.
*Minimum of 130 kills (Iran reports 160) plus 3 and 2-3 losses while having no AWACS support, no airframe support, and no NCTR. I know you love the F-15, but it was very coddled in terms of getting it’s kills. AWACS and Tankers were favoring Airforce jets and the Navy wasn’t allowed to deploy far into combat zones. I’m not saying the F-15 didn’t earn those kills. The F-15 having NCTR was the reason it could do so well in the strict ROE. It was technologically more advanced to the F-14A.
This is why I think the Sea Harrier’s 23 - 0 record from the Falklands was so impressive. They were without a doubt the underdog in most respects (logistics, support, etc) and did so when outnumbered 10 - 1. Heck, most of the pilots were exhausted running multiple sorties per day.
2 Likes
What about all the Israeli kills then? And didnt Iranians use F-14 as sort of AWACS due to its very powerful radar? Not to mention that Navy had its own AWACS and aerial refuelers
Didn’t the Argentines only give enough fuel to go there and back?
Hey, US designers snorted their fair share of fat lines also.
My favorite being the Tillman Battleships aka “Maximum Battleships” that were designed in the mid to late 1910s, of which one variant was drawn up with 4 sextuple mount 16” turrets and another had 5 triple mount 18” turrets.
Oh ik, i am very very familiar with the tillmans and i actually managed to redesign one to actually make it plausible by accident
1 Like
They were forced to operate from the mainland because the FAA kept Port Stanely rather thorough surpressed which did limit their range, but too keep the Carriers as safe as possible, the Harriers were also operating at the edge of their endurance and couldnt remain on CAP for all that long either.
So in that respect, both nations had a similar handicap.
That being said, the Argentine air force did have a limited A2A refueling capability that they used to great effect with the Super Etendards and they attacked from unexpected directions more than once.
The biggest deciding factor was a reluctance of the Argentine commanders to allow engagements between the 2 airfroces, more than 400 sorties were aborted because a SHar CAP was in the way and a big part of that was a conception that the SHars were much better than they were, especially when they saw Aim-9Ls attached to the SHars long before the taskforce arrived
Israel had AWACS during that time. E-2s and the Arava 201.
Yes, however a dedicated AWAC is much better and streamlined. In my opinion, it just shows the capability of the F-14 even more.
Yes they did, but the Air force has many more and are generally prioritized more. Especially in combat.
Even then, Brits probably had much better shot at getting close to carrier and being rescued if they ran out of gas than Argentines, it was basically guaranteed death stranded in the Atlantic for them if they stuck around to fight.
SHar lining up shots with AIM-9L or even earlier ones on A-4’s and Super Etendard that immediately had to turn and run, slowing them down and giving Sidewinder a nice rear aspect shots is still good work by the pilots, but wasn’t as risky for Brits to do CAP than Argentines to stick around
One Argentine A-4 pilot was shot down and made it to one of the many islands in that area and survived the war. Suffice to say it wasnt necessarily that big of an issue given most of the combat happened over or around the islands rather than in the middle of the occean. Especially as many of the A-4 and Dagger runs used the Main islands to mask their approach
I don’t mean shot down. I mean if they did stay for extended time to fight the harriers, even if they won, they would still most likely run out of fuel over the ocean on the way back