quick picture request of a fighter jet

bartboy9891

bartboy9891

I'm not Moe
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
9,121
Does anyone have a picture of a jet fighter flying low over a body of water and the water is being lifted in its wake? There is a specific picture i have in my mind, but any that fit the description will suffice. One that is 800x600 or so is the right size. thanks in advance
 
Mean that one :

http://www.angelfire.com/my/ronenk/Pictures/Mix/Tomcat.jpg

Tomcat.jpg


?
 
the picture doesnt work, but that is indeed the one! Thank you!
 
Viper007Bond said:
That's a painting. ;)

bartboy9891: if you want a real photo, this site will have everything you need: http://www.airliners.net/
Click to expand...
It might be a painting, but it was actually the exact picture i was looking for. Unless there is a picture of the real thing, i always thought this painting was the real deal.
 
Ahh the F-14 Tomcat.

*removes hat*

You will be missed *sniff*
 
The F/A-18E Super Hornet, officially. Actually there is nothing that can replace the Tomcat. It can carry more ordinance farther than any other carrier based platform, it can perform more missions than any other carrier based platform and it has the "Fecelator Factor" - enemy pilots shit themselves when they hear that one is in the area. Oh, and no other aircraft can carry the AIM-54 Phoenix missile.
 
Blind_Io said:
The F/A-18E Super Hornet, officially. Actually there is nothing that can replace the Tomcat. It can carry more ordinance farther than any other carrier based platform, it can perform more missions than any other carrier based platform and it has the "Fecelator Factor" - enemy pilots shit themselves when they hear that one is in the area. Oh, and no other aircraft can carry the AIM-54 Phoenix missile.
Click to expand...

If it was so good , why did they replace it ?.
 
The F-14 was a very old airframe, the design started in the late 50s or early 60s if I remember right. The Tomcat was originally designed to intercept and shoot down Soviet aircraft that threatened our carrier battle groups. Over the years the engines were updated, the avionics, radar and so forth. A variety of sensor pods can be fitted to give the Tomcat a reconnaissance and ground attack mission capability as well. The big reason this amazing aircraft was retired is that it just got too old. The repairs and maintenance to keep these old birds in the air is just astronomical. One estimate put it at 100 man-hours of repair and maintenance for every 1 hour of flight. The Tomcat aged to be a hangar-queen. It's sad to see it go with no real replacement in the lineup, but I guess they think the F/A-18 can do the job of the F-14. It can't, it just can't hold the fuel or ordinance the big old Grumman can. This is also the first time since before WWII that our carriers have been without some "Grumman Iron" on the deck.
 
I thought they were replacing it with the JSF (fighter/bomber) or Raptor (fighter)? Both of those can go supersonic without using an afterburner, unlike the current generation planes.
 
The decision to retire the F-14 was made long before the JSF had passed it's testing, or a design was even approved.

The F-22 is an air dominance fighter and is not carrier-based, the F-14 was a multi-role workhorse. The Raptor is highly specialized while the F-14 can do several jobs: fighter, interceptor, recon and fighter-bomber.

The JSF is going to augment the F/A-18, however it simply isn't big enough to carry the weapon load that the F-14 could. I doubt the JSF could lug even a single AIM-54 into the air, even if you could mount it to the aircraft. The F-14 could carry six at a time in addition to other medium range air to air missiles. The thing was a flying gun-rack.
 
Ah, you're right. It's replacing the F-16, A-10, Harrier, and the F-18 A through D as well as other lesser used planes. It'll only complement the F-18 E and F versions.

It's still able to carry a buttload of bombs though. I mean, that's a big reason they went with the single engine design.
 
Last edited:
Well, it depends on the mission. The capability of the Lighting II depends on how much fuel is in it, you might load it up with munitions but you would have to take off on fumes and tank in mid-air just to get off the ground. Also, to make use of the stealth capabilities of the Lighting II, you can't mount any weapons on the external hardpoints, which reduces what you can carry.

It can't replace the A-10. No pussy-ass fragile little stealth pointy-nosed mach-snot F-designation Lighting II can replace the flying tank of the A-10. Nothing that can't rain down depleted uranium doom at 3,900 rounds a minute will do the job. Nothing can replace the A-10. Ever. End of Line.
 
lol, I know, the A-10 owns all. Sadly it's slow and loud. :(

As for stealth, the idea is the Raptor clears the way and the Lighting II then bombs the hell outta shit, meaning that stealth isn't always needed and it can always drop the bombs and go into stealth mode (right?).
 
Actually, the F-22 can deal with air targets, but the biggest threat is SAM missiles.

Dropping the bombs will help, but it still leaves the exposed mounting points which are more than enough to lock on to. When no bombs are mounted externally the rails are removed and plugs are used to cover the mounting points, leaving a smooth skin that won't bounce radar back.

Read Skunk Works, when designing the F-117 (also due to be retired) they compared the radar cross section of the plane to various size ball bearings' radar reflection for comparative analysis of changes made to the aircraft. That gives you some idea of how sensitive modern radar can be to even the smallest blemish on the aircraft.

As for the A-10: it's supposed to be slow. You can't spot targets doing Mach 3 with your hair on fire. They need to be able to fly at low speed close to the ground so they can clear the way for the guys on foot and in vehicles. The A-10 can take an incredible beating before going down, it can take most anything they throw at it and it would probably just annoy the pilot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top