Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Russian TU-95 Bear bombers "buzz" USN Carrier

  • 12-02-2008 12:07am
    #1
    Steyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭


    http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1305007,00.html


    US Alert Over Russian Bombers
    Updated:22:56, Monday February 11, 2008

    US fighter jets have been scrambled after two Russian bombers buzzed a US aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific.
    The TU-95 Bear bombers flew over at an altitude of 2,000ft.


Comments

  • #2
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    I think they are just asking to get shot down, I can't believe the USN actually let them get within 50 miles of the carrier after being intercepted 500 miles out.

    I bet the USN are sorry they retired the F-14 now. Its got it first job offer back.:D


  • #3
    DILLIGAF
    Closed Accounts Posts: 383 ✭✭DILLIGAF


    Captain Chaos wrote: »

    I bet the USN are sorry they retired the F-14 now. Its got it first job offer back.:D

    How would have an f-14 been any better then what they currently use? I'm not being cheeky at all I just don't know much about aviation!Are they smaller/faster/lighter then the current issue? Are the using F-22's now or am I way behind?


  • #4
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    This is a little off topic but, the F-14 is/was better at long range interception than the F/A-18s.

    The Hornet has all the latest systems and goodies but it cannot go as far as the F-14 could because the F-14 carried more internal fuel and had a less draggy airframe than the F/A-18 even though it is larger.

    The F/A-18 can carry up to 5 external tanks with more go juice but that slows down a fighter that is not the fastest in the world to begin with and with all that external fuel it limits weapon space, even with 3 or 2 tanks which is the norm it would need a mid air refuel on the way there and back on a 500 mile intercept.

    An F-14 could have performed the intercept quicker and further out with the same support, possibly out to 1,000 miles.

    I could go into alot of detail about the Tomcat and Hornet but this is not really the place to go into it, it would need a different topic. There are alot of technical and political aspects and there are many, many arguements about why the F-14 was retired two years ago for an all F/A-18 fighter fleet in the Navy on other aviation sites around the net.

    (F-22s are used by the USAF, not the Navy. The USN could have had a navalised type of fighter like the F-22 but thats another big can of worms.)


  • #5
    Steyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    This is a little off topic but, the F-14 is/was better at long range interception than the F/A-18s.

    The Hornet has all the latest systems and goodies but it cannot go as far as the F-14 could because the F-14 carried more internal fuel and had a less draggy airframe than the F/A-18 even though it is larger.
    An F-14 could have performed the intercept quicker and further out with the same support, possibly out to 1,000 miles.

    Amazing really considering the USN and everybody else still considered the Tomcat to be "underpowered". What a beast!


  • #6
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    The F-14A's were underpowered with the TF30s, when they got the GE F110 engines in the F-14B and D models it became a real beast.

    The F-14A with TF30s were tested up to Mach 2.4, possibly could have gone faster but the buffeting was too severe. They were red lined at M2.38 in service. Not bad for the underpowered Tomcat. I don't know what the F110 powered Tomcats could do. I don't know if they tried to see if it could go faster.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Well, turn and turn about.

    Last week.

    _russere_fly_br_dte_690524a.jpg

    NTM


  • #8
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Is the Kuz still on patrol in the Med or is it still part of that large scale Russian Navy exercise? Interesting to see that not one of the 22 or so Su-33s were on the flight deck.


  • #9
    Catcher86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 161 ✭✭Catcher86


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    (F-22s are used by the USAF, not the Navy. The USN could have had a navalised type of fighter like the F-22 but thats another big can of worms.)

    Are Navy not getting the F-35 to replace the harrier. (Though it is rumoured that its funding is getting cut).


  • #10
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Catcher86 wrote: »
    Are Navy not getting the F-35 to replace the harrier. (Though it is rumoured that its funding is getting cut).

    The USAF are getting the F-35A, the USMC, RAF and RN are getting the F-35B which will replace the Harrier in all three services, the USN are getting the F-35C which will replace some of the older Hornets and complement the Superhornets.

    The funding for the fighter is not gone just the numbers that they planned on getting will be less due to lack of funding.

    The F-22 is in a different league compared to the F-35 in performance.


Advertisement