Iran and their Tomcats (and U.S. surplus parts)

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post02 Sep 2008, 01:28

Actually much as I hate to say it, I'd rather see a Tomcat go out in a blaze of glory as a "QF-14" then be ground up into scrap (probably to be recycled as beer cans)! :pint:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post03 Sep 2008, 02:24

FlightDreamz wrote:Actually much as I hate to say it, I'd rather see a Tomcat go out in a blaze of glory as a "QF-14" then be ground up into scrap (probably to be recycled as beer cans)! :pint:


2 :thumb: !!!
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

maddog2840

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2004, 13:40

Unread post13 Dec 2008, 06:59

I would humbly offer a tiny little story that came out of Iraq a while ago which just might turn this Iranian Tomcat debate on it's head.

Anyone remember the story about the buried MiG-25 they found in the Iraqi desert? It circulated around as a "fluff" piece. Look how desparate the Iraqis are?? Why did they bury it? Silly, silly arabs.

There was something very special about that MiG-25. You see, it looked like a Foxbat on the outside. Inside were French avionics, French engines, French weapon systems. Think of "Pimp Your Ride". All old on the outside but new (and in this case deadly) on the inside.

AWG-9 and AIM-54 be damned. What threat would a "pimped" Tomcat be if it had state of the art guts? They've had nearly thirty years to work on it.

How many of those "flyable" IRIAF Tomcats are really...really operational.

You always get ready for the next war by training for the last. This whole debate on this thread is comparing current Iranian jets with the Naval standard of the 80's and 90's.

Can you imagine a Tomcat climbing into the fight looking like a Cold War Relic at yet armed to the teeth with the latest and greatest?
Vipers Fight while Raptors Train.
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post14 Dec 2008, 06:14

Actually, I COULD imagine that (kinda like an Iranian Tomcat 2000 http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14x.htm). Thrust vectoring engines would be an interesting performance upgrade on that aircraft (ala Russian SU-27 derivatives). Would make an good techno-novel or maybe an episode of J.A.G. if that was still on the air. :wink:
Never heard that the MiG-25 was retrofitted with French avionics and engines (wouldn't different engines DECREASE performance in that aircraft)? :shock:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline
User avatar

LinkF16SimDude

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
  • Location: SW Tenn.

Unread post14 Dec 2008, 22:23

FlightDreamz wrote:Never heard that the MiG-25 was retrofitted with French avionics and engines....

And you prolly never would've had it not been uncovered. It explains a lot of Chirac's recalcitrance before the war. :wink:
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
Offline

ptplauthor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 733
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2008, 00:09
  • Location: Titletown, USA

Unread post14 Dec 2008, 22:48

And you prolly never would've had it not been uncovered. It explains a lot of Chirac's recalcitrance before the war. Wink


I would not be surprised to see Iranian birds flying with French-made avionics, they've screwed up so many things--giving Israel Mirages and then turning around and giving Sodam Insane a nuclear reactor and then pi$$ing and moaning when the IAF flattens the place.

I don't care if one of their techies was in the building when the bombs fell--they shouldn't have been there in the first place!

Oh, how I would love to go on a tirade of French-bashing, but I don't want to get banned.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Offline

yakuza

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 205
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2008, 18:17

Unread post18 Jan 2011, 04:35

A look at an IRIAF F-14 Tomcat which is completely overhauled after 13 years in TAB-8 Isfahan and is now doing its FCF.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViF5CYww ... r_embedded

sorry farsi no english
Offline

Roscoe

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1308
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
  • Location: Las Vegas

Unread post18 Jan 2011, 06:13

falconfixer860261 wrote:There are controls as to who parts can be sold to and exported to. Specifically there are ITAR regulations governing this.

Exactly...laws will prohibit the sale of those parts. Not to say it can't happen, but I suspect folks will be keeping their eyes on those parts.

cutlassracer wrote:Since they are destroying all of them, wonder why not turn them into QF-14's and blow them out of the sky for fun and excitement. Seems to be ok for the Phantoms. This being our 14's not Irans, they'll meet thier fate soon enough.

Turning an aircraft into a drone is not trivial, and the limited size of the F-14 fleet means the cost per jet would be prohibitive.
Roscoe

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 752
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post25 Feb 2011, 22:57

Roscoe wrote:
falconfixer860261 wrote:There are controls as to who parts can be sold to and exported to. Specifically there are ITAR regulations governing this.

Exactly...laws will prohibit the sale of those parts. Not to say it can't happen, but I suspect folks will be keeping their eyes on those parts.


Sadly, folks, you are being too optimistic about our ability to control those parts. The Iranians have always found ways to get their hands on at least some of them, because they want them real bad and are willing to pay quite a lot to get them. In a free society there are too many cracks in the system.

With the Tomcat being prematurely retired, there would be even less scrutiny on parts, and the US is absolutely terrified of what could be done with the Iranian Tomcats air to air or otherwise (did you know that the AIM-54 was designed with a secondary anti-shipping role? Getting hit by a 900 lb. missile doing M2+ with a 135 lb. warhead will put you on the bottom real fast) if they get to full capability. So, the best way to insure that parts don't get into their hands is to destroy said parts. They even pulled control columns out of some Tomcats given to museums. Some museums that got Tomcats remarked they had never seen planes that had gotten demilled so fast after they arrived.
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post26 Feb 2011, 19:40

aaam
Some museums that got Tomcats remarked they had never seen planes that had gotten demilled so fast after they arrived.

I can confirm that, as I was recently at the <a>Cradle of Aviation museum</a> and out of the F-14's on display (they had an F-14 simulator which unfortunately wasn't open to the public when I was there). One was marked "on loan from U.S. Navy" and the cockpit appeared intact but was locked down with clear plexiglass bolted over the instruments, controls and part of the seat.
Didn't know about the AiM-54 anti-shipping role. But I remember a sea-sparrow misfire a while back did a number on a Turkish destroyer. See <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976682,00.html">this Time article</a> and <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/human-error-blamed-for-us-friendly-fire-tragedy-1555277.html">here.</a> Hate to think what the Phoenix would do.

And Roscoe you're points on the cost's of turning an F-14 into a QF-14 drone are well taken (I really should have thought of that sooner)! :doh:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post10 May 2011, 08:20

Here is an interesting Grumman documentary from the 1970s, when Iran was still our best pal in the region. It serves as an insight into how the US goes about selling top-of-the-line hardware to other nations. One should think about the possible consequences of having Turkey so closely involved with the F-35 program while watching this.

This is only part #1, but y'all can just follow the links through the other three. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfbz50gw ... ideo_title
Offline

launcherman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2011, 09:45
  • Location: Seymour Johnson AFB, NC

Unread post12 May 2011, 13:35

It all depends on what parts are key to this thing flying. Did the techs take all the tech data with them too? They say they are flyable? but have they flown them? Hydraulic, fuel and engine systems do not age well if they are not used. With the F-14's swingwing that must be some massive hydro system. Ask some F-111 guys, that was probably the worst part about that aircraft to work on. But I guess with any "part" the Iranians could attempt to reverse engineer them and manufacture them themselves. Schematics could be remapped, software could be a problem I guess. Have the Iranians sunk that much money into the F-14 program or put it in other things?
2W1X1
357 TFTS 90-92
8MS 93-94
4EMS 94-97
372TRS 97-01
48EMS 01-04
21A
33MXS 05-06
58AMU 06-07
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post12 May 2011, 22:48

launcherman wrote:It all depends on what parts are key to this thing flying. Did the techs take all the tech data with them too? They say they are flyable? but have they flown them? Hydraulic, fuel and engine systems do not age well if they are not used. With the F-14's swingwing that must be some massive hydro system. Ask some F-111 guys, that was probably the worst part about that aircraft to work on. But I guess with any "part" the Iranians could attempt to reverse engineer them and manufacture them themselves. Schematics could be remapped, software could be a problem I guess. Have the Iranians sunk that much money into the F-14 program or put it in other things?


They've managed to keep around 20 flying. Whether or not they are combat capable anymore is anyone's guess.
Offline

launcherman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2011, 09:45
  • Location: Seymour Johnson AFB, NC

Unread post13 May 2011, 12:38

Do we know they are FLYING them or are they just reporting flyable status?

Anyone from Janes on here?
2W1X1
357 TFTS 90-92
8MS 93-94
4EMS 94-97
372TRS 97-01
48EMS 01-04
21A
33MXS 05-06
58AMU 06-07
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post13 May 2011, 15:30

launcherman wrote:Do we know they are FLYING them or are they just reporting flyable status?

Anyone from Janes on here?


I'm not with Janes or any other organization, but I'm fairly sure the planes still show up at parades and airshows. Or course, that doesn't mean much in a country that welds 55 gallon drums together on a truck and calls it an S-300 system.
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest