Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "PeriscopeFilm" channel.

  1.  @Jimbo-in-Thailand  F-35s have been humiliating F-16s, Hornets, and Super Hornets for years now in BFM. The Dutch former F-16 pilots who converted to F-35A gave a great interview of how they dominated F-16C Aggressors out of Nellis for a week straight several years ago. The Aggressor Vipers showed up Day 1 with 2x370gal EFTs, having heard about the initial test report of F-35A AF-2, which was never produced. Production F-35As are thousands of pounds lighter, while having unrestricted flight control laws relative to AF-2 when it was 4g limited. They got beat repeatedly Day 1, so Day 2, they showed up with centerline 300gal tanks...still got beat more than not. This went on all week until they had stripped the F-16s of any external tanks to try to even it out, which helped a bit, but they still weren't dominant. During de-brief, the Viper drivers asked where the F-35s went after their BFM sorties. The Dutch said they were carrying GBUs the whole time and went out to practice drops in the Nellis training ranges after doing BFM because they had plenty of fuel and time. F-35A with 2x GBU LGBs, 2xAIM-120s, 2xAIM-9X is more maneuverable with much longer legs than an F-16C with no bombs. And none of that matters because a WVR fight would start with all-aspect AIM-9X. WVR fight wouldn't happen anyway because the F-16's sensor suite can't detect F-35s at BVR.
    12
  2. Would be interesting to see a historical work on how the employees and returning soldiers found employment after WWII. Much of it was in the automotive industry in the Detroit/Great Lakes region, and the US aerospace industry blossomed in the post-war era.
    9
  3.  @Jimbo-in-Thailand  F-35 just has so much power. It looks kinda porky, but if you ever see them live, their climb rate is really impressive. I've watched everything from F-4s to all of the teen series and Raptor dating back to the early 1970s at the Air Force Flight Test Center, Navy Weapons Test Centers, Miramar, El Toro, and bases in Europe and Korea. I was really surprised at how fast F-35As climb into the vertical. They don't have TVC, but because the center of thrust is so far ahead of the tailplanes, it has similar performance to a thrust-vectored design. It will out-yaw any of the teen fighters like a slick (no weapons) baby Hornet.
    5
  4.  @punman5392  None of these aircraft were designed to perform like this, so they were evaluating & validating their A2G/A2S strike capabilities and weapons for different strike mission sets. The F-4, F-111, & A-7 would also go on to perform these tasks. The F-16 replaced the F-4 & A-7 with these roles as a primary focus. The A-10 was developed for an entirely new role, to escort mass formations of Army Airmobile forces in helicopters being threatened by more armored chassis AAA platforms that the A-1 Skyraider had a hard time busting. The A-7D was perfectly capable of destroying these TGTs but was too fast for visual ID re-attack according to the constraints of the concept, so they wanted a heavier aircraft that could fly slow enough to re-attack within visual range, using AGM-65 missiles and a larger cannon with DU projectiles if missiles were expended.
    5
  5.  @Jimbo-in-Thailand  YF-17 looked better in all the metrics before they took them both out to Nevada to exploit against the MiG-21. YF-17 was a hot rod of a fighter that had excellent climb rate, ITR, STR, and superior post-stall maneuvering to any fighter at the time. YF-16 from defensive position could reverse a bit better, had a deceptive oblique profile, and was hard to detect in visual when slick, plus it shared the F100 motor with the existing F-15 fleet for economy of scale. It was also easier to sustain g with the 30° reclined seat. Both of them flew circles around the MiG-21, could out-climb and out-turn it. The YF-16 & YF-17 were never flown against each other in BFM. Navalized variants of each were explored, and the YF-17 was easier to navalize with heavier gear, folding wings, and had a lower landing speed due to the wing configuration and LERXs. YF-17 & F/A-18 is capable of fighting one-circle better than the YF-16/F-16. F-16 makes its money in the 2 circle fight since it likes to stay fast.
    3
  6. @Walter Alter Each Century series aircraft had a different mission. F-100 was the first supersonic fighter. F-101A Voodoo was meant to be a bomber escort for SAC, but once bombers exceeded its mission radius, they made the F-101B interceptor, and later RF-101 tactical photo recon bird. F-102A was supposed to be a better interceptor for bombers coming over the top, but didn't hit the speed they needed. F-104 was Kelly Johnson's answer to feedback from Korean War F-86 pilots, making a mach 2 interceptor with superior climb rate. F-105 was designed to be a supersonic tactical nuke strike fighter. F-106A was the maturation of the F-102A for Air Defense Command, could easily fly Mach 2 even with wing tanks. F-111 was a low level deep penetration/strike platform with terrain following radar so it could fly under threat radar coverage, while carrying both conventional or nuclear payloads.
    3
  7.  @enriquepadilla4154  Flying strike routes that were handed over to the North Vietnamese each night by LBJ proved to be dangerous, especially when they let the SA-2 SAM sites be installed without allowing F-105D pilots to strike them. Treason
    3
  8. F-14 internal fuel: 16,200lb External: 3,800lb Total: 20,000lb F-16 internal fuel: 7,000lb External w/2 EFTs: 5,000lb Total: 12,000lb In combat configurations, you're looking at a 5:3 ratio of fuel in the F-14 vs F-16, nowhere near a factor of 3-4. This is basic math. F-14 absolutely could carry more payload and had more endurance, but rarely carried a max A2A payload operationally.
    2
  9. CIA helped assassinate Diem, even though he was our ally and the only leader in South Vietnam to be able to rally the ARVN. North Vietnamese were astonished that "we" did that.
    1
  10.  @bobbycvsixfour5258  F-15 was superior to the F-14 in the BVR fight fighter vs fighter. F-14 community quietly had a ton of respect for USAF F-15 Grey Eagle drivers and did everything to glean what they could from them, even bringing select F-15C Weapons School Instructors into the F-16N program at TOPGUN to teach BVR employment of the Radar and how to manage the BVR timeline. F-14A/AWG-9 struggled to work over land, when it did work.
    1
  11.  @KLRGT500KR  Okie has openly stated that F-16 vs F-14 is the F-16's fight in WVR, should win it every time unless someone makes several BFM mistakes. Only way the F-14 wins is with a really high hour pilot who exceeds the limits against a really low hour Viper driver with limited BFM training. A decent Viper driver would be dominant against a highly-skilled, high hour Tomcat seat as a rule.
    1
  12.  @E303-i2q  APG-63 early model even was at least a generation ahead of the AWG-9, had superior detection range, tracking, and actual look-down/shoot-down capability. AWG-9 could only look-down/shoot-down over water, and had all sorts of problems, terrible reliability, sketchy clutter-rejection, lag-and-drag issues when the pilot would offset while the RIO tried to maintain tracks, and that was when it worked. Especially once they upgraded APG-63(V)1 with Digital Signals Processor in the late 1970s, it smoked the AWG-9 handily, and only continued to get better. There’s a reason why the F-14D got the F-15E’s Radar, basically an APG-70 with some over-water modes added called the APG-71. Tomcat community knew what Radar they wanted, and it wasn’t the AWG-9. I lived though all of this at AFFTC, China Lake Naval Weapons Test Center, and Point Mugu.
    1
  13.  @E303-i2q  First thing you learn about book numbers is that they aren't static, hard facts. For detection range, multiple factors come into play, starting with Radar altitude, TGT RCS, Radar power, receiver sensitivity, receiver analog-converter fidelity, receiver power amplifier capability, signals processor power, then the interface with the displays, which was also problematic in the RIO's seat in the F-14A/B.
    1
  14.  @enterchannelname676  AWG-9 wasn’t better than APG-63, as AWG-9 couldn’t look-down/shoot-down over land. It also didn’t have NCTR capabilities that were developed in the 1970s, since it was so old (started development in late 1950s). AWG-9 was great for detecting giant Tu-95s or Tu-22Ms over the water, not so great for fighter-sized targets feet-dry. It still had some major problems with lag and drag, clutter reaction, filtering, and reliability. APG-63 was the first truly-capable look-down/shoot-down FCR that actually worked, and only got better with the Digital Signals Processor introduced on the F-15C, and back-fitted into the F-15As. F-14 didn’t get DSP until it got the F-15E’s Radar in the form of the APG-70 with added over-water modes, called the APG-71. We worked on all this in the late 1980s/early 1990s. When TOPGUN got F-16Ns, guess who they asked to come in to teach them how to drive the APG-66 Radar in it (obsolete F-16A’s Radar, F-16Cs had the APG-68) to help them build their BVR set in that platform? Not F-16 Fighter Weapons School Instructors from Nellis. Not F/A-18 FWS Instructors as they were populated by former A-7E drivers. Not F-14 RIOs because they were already there and not used to using a modern solid state electronics FCR. They brought in F-15C Weapons Instructors from Nellis, who went through the conversion course for F-16 at Luke AFB, then got assigned to TOPGUN. F-15C with APG-63(V)1 and TEWS had far superior SA than the RIO with his antiquated AWG-9 and older ALR-45, and still had superior SA after the late block F-14As got ALR-67. F-14D with APG-71, TCS, IRST, LANTIRN, and ASPJ had superb SA. At least 3 of those systems came from a lot of work we did on F-15 CTF at Edwards, China Lake, White Sands, Eglin, and Nellis. Once we got the AIM-7M on F-15C, it changed the WEZ profile considerably, but F-14A got it too, as did the Bug. AIM-7M bridged the gap between AIM-7F and AIM0120A, and was a very capable missile that proved itself admirably in ODS. F-14As and A+s couldn’t even operate much in the mix due to NCTR limits. The F/A-18C had better NCTR than the F-14A, which was humiliating for the Tomcat community. The Navy blew hundreds of millions on the F401-PW-400 motor for the planned F-14B in the early 1970s, which makes me wonder if that money spent left it behind a bit in terms of avionics upgrades to keep it up-to-speed with the other teen series.
    1
  15.  @E303-i2q  Are you saying you have access to the F-14A Weapons Manual? Radar performance is not included in NAVAIR 01-F14A-1. You’ll notice that Section 8-1 is supplemental to the F-14A-1. Those manuals are highly controlled. Nobody is saying the F-14A couldn’t engage A2A targets over land. The AWG-9 was not set up to look-down/shoot-down over land. So to deal with that, it would get into lower altitude bands if it needed to to look-level/shoot-level, or look-up/shoot-up. It was perfectly capable of doing that. AWG-9 didn’t add WEZ to the AIM-7F or AIM-7M. Both AWG-9 and APG-63 had TGT detect and tracking range well beyond the max WEZ for all AIM-7 variants, including the longer stick -7M, so there is no advantage to the AWG-9/AIM-7 combo.
    1
  16. @TomcatE303  We worked on APG-63, APG-70, and APG-71. Nobody is going to talk any specific numbers with you, but when you accept the fact that the F-14D got an APG-63 variant with sea surface rejection features, and that was a huge upgrade for the F-14, it forces you to see the reality of which Radar was superior. Biggest complaints with AWG-9 were how laggy it was, required a whole separate crew member, during offsets, it would drag the contact, and was very glitchy, not reliable. MTBF on it was really low, especially off the carrier. You can still engage TGTs over land, but if you're at higher altitude trying to look down on them, the sea surface clutter reject firmware in AWG-9 did not perform well. Same problem with the E-2C. Both systems were meant for use over blue water in defense of the carrier.
    1
  17. @TomcatE303  Max detection ranges are conditions-dependant, based on TGT RCS, aspect, altitude, wx, and other factors that come into play. F-15A was quickly replaced with F-15C and APG-63 with PSP already starting in 1978. We moved F-15As to ANG units and back-filled PSP into them while Cs rolled off the line into operational units. APG-63 had better fidelity, resolution, and reliability. It also didn't lose track as easily as AWG-9 did. You have to understand that AWG-9 started development in the late 1950s on the Missileer, then went into F-111B in the early-mid 1960s. APG-63 development was really late 1960s into production in the early/mid '70s. It was solid state with the latest semiconductors and processors, so way ahead of AWG-9. I'm talking about the iceberg under the water you never see. Not the tip, which is inflated brochure specs. A single pilot is much more efficient running a then-modern Radar like APG-63. AWG-9 was so old, it required a separate crew member to employ it. F-15 driver could quickly manipulate the Radar and monitor TEWS and the HUD, make quick decisions about positioning in a fraction of the time it took an F-14 crew to coordinate via intercom. F-15 was a better BVR machine in many ways as a result. F-15E WSO is there to steer the LANTIRN TGT Pod, run the Radar Ground-Mapping Mode for strike profiles, and then drive weapons release and laser spot tracking for LGBs pre-GPS era. We were on the F-15 CTF primarily working on E model systems development. You're basically trying to tell someone who built houses for decades, how to pound a nail. Just for context.
    1
  18.  @E303-i2q  Now you're left having to explain why the F-14D got an APG-63 variant Radar as a major upgrade with APG-71. APG-70 is an APG-63 with PSP and more enhanced Radar Ground-Mapping modes for the WSO to scan and TGT select at distance, similarly to how the F-111 WSO worked. F-15E replaced the F-111. F-14D got an APG-70 with sea surface clutter rejection and interface with later block AIM-54C, called APG-71. By that time, F-15C had already gone through MSIP, which improved its BVR capabilities significantly. There were multiple major upgrade programs done very quietly in the F-15, so it was ahead of the F-14 in BVR capes throughout their service lives.
    1
  19. @TomcatE303  Sounds like you have it all figured out. Enjoy fanboidom.
    1
  20. Did he? Got a time stamp? I missed that.
    1
  21.  @zipz4777  Thanks. I watched the whole thing and missed that, but specifically remember the F-104s after it.
    1
  22. This is just one 10-year block for the F-14A from the first operational deployment in 1975 through 1984: 1975 F-14A Crashed into sea near Cubi Point after engine explosion. 13JAN1975 F-14A crashed into sea near Cubi Point after engine explosion. 24JUN1975 F-14A suffered engine fire on take-off from NAS Oceana. 05AUG1975 F-14A overran flight deck after arrester gear failure, JFK in the Mediterranean. 29OCT1975 F-14A was destroyed by engine fire aboard USS Enterprise 05MAR1976 F-14A crashed close to Pax River after entering a spin. 23MAR1976 F-14A crashed near NAS Miramar. 21JUN1976 F-14A crashed after inflight engine explosion. 14SEP1976 F-14A taxied off the deck of the JFK in the North Sea. 19DEC1976 F-14A crashed while landing aboard USS Enterprise. 22FEB1977 F-14A crashed near Pax River after entering stall testing TF30-P-414 28MAR1977 F-14A crashed after ramp strike on USS America. 19APR1977 F-14A lost after double engine flame-out during ACM near El Centro. 21JUN1977 F-14A crashed in Atlantic after engine failure. 26JUN1977 F-14A crashed on downwind leg in the pattern at NAS Miramar. 28JUN1977 F-14A crashed 85 miles sw of San Diego after total power failure. 03OCT1977 F-14A crashed into Atlantic after ramp strike on the USS Nimitz. 31OCT1977 F-14A crashed near NAS Oceana. 10NOV1977 F-14A mid-air collision with EA-6B over Agean Sea, total aircraft loss. 20MAR1978 F-14A crashed into the Atlantic off Florida coast. 25MAR1978 F-14A spun into sea while operating from USS Kitty Hawk. 27MAR1978 F-14A crashed into freeway near NAS Miramar. 15JUN1978 F-14A crashed into sea while flying off USS Constellation. 25AUG1978 F-14A lost at sea off coast of CA. 13SEP1978 F-14A crashed into sea after stall post-launch from USS Ranger. 05OCT1978 F-14A crashed into sea while flying off of USS Eisenhower. 25NOV1978 F-14A lost 100 miles off the coast of Pusan, Korea. 21MAY1979 F-14A crashed into sea flying off of Ike. 09SEP1979 F-14A crashed near Cubi Point 03NOV1979 F-14A crashed into Med while operating from Nimitz. 05DEC1979 F-14A mid-air collision with another F-14A off Puerto Rico, crashed into Caribbean. 03MAR1980 F-14A crashed near NAS Miramar. 06MAR1980 F-14A crashed on approach to the Ike. 01APR1980 F-14A crashed on approach to Nimitz. 03MAY1980 F-14A crashed off coast of Iran after launching from Nimitz. 13SEP1980 F-14A crashed during ACM with an A-7E, entered a flat spin. 04NOV1980 F-14A crashed in Pacific operating from Kitty Hawk. 24APR1981 F-14A crashed after take off from NAS Oceana. 26MAY1981 F-14A written off after EA-6B crashed on recovery. 26MAY1981 F-14A written off from same incident. 27JUN1981 F-14A crashed during pre-delivery flight from Calverton when it crashed into Atlantic off of Long Island, NY. 07SEP1981 F-14A written off after A-7E crashed into it on landing on Kitty Hawk. 29SEP1981 F-14A crashed into Arabian Sea after control difficulties, flying off USS America. 19DEC1981 F-14A lost in Indian Ocean after arresting gear failure from Connie. 06FEB1982 F-14A lost doing ACM off of JFK, pilot lost control. 06MAR1982 F-14A lost arresting gear failure off coast of Italy, Ike. 14JUN1982 F-14A crashed into Pacific off San Clemente Island. 29JUL1982 F-14A crashed at VA Beach after take off from Oceana. 20SEP1982 F-14A crashed in Med after loss of FLCS. 28FEB1983 F-14A crashed near Yuma proving grounds, AZ, crew ejected. 17MAR1983 F-14A mid-aired with another F-14A operating off the Ike near Puerto Rico. 17MAR1983 F-14A same incident 17MAR1983 F-14A Ike lost another that day, hydraulic failure and loss of FLCS. 09APR1983 F-14A crashed on approach to USS Carl Vinson. 30AUG1983 F-14A mid-aired with another F-14A doing ACM, crashed into sea off VA Capes. 30AUG1983 F-14A same incident as above 08NOV1983 F-14A crashed into Med near Cyprus while doing low level CAP mission. 11NOV1983 F-14A crashed into Med off coast of Lebanon, crew ejected. 18JAN1984 F-14A crashed into sea after total loss of power on single engine approach to CVN-65. 17JUN1984 F-14A substantial damage after port MLG collapsed on landing aboard CV-66. 20JUN1984 F-14A slid off #3 elevator on USS America into the sea (I met one of the maintainers who watched this incident happen.) 15JUL1984 F-14A lost after crew ejected over Arabian Sea. 08AUG1984 F-14A crashed out of NAS Cubi Point. 04SEP1984 F-14A crew ejected after inflight fire, A/C destroyed, NAS Miramar.
    1
  23.  @MasterChief773  The QF-80 Target drones were remotely controlled during these tests. We've been using RC fighters as TGT drones for generations now. Current target drones are QF-16Cs.
    1