Back when the F-14 and AIM-54 were being used, carrier groups

>>34816083
>AIM-54
The AIM-54 was of questionable quality. The vast majority ever fired in combat just fell away from the plane without lighting up. Eventually the Hornet, it's avionics and the AMRAAM came into service and outclassed it. Now with the AMRAAM-D and Meteor type weapons, we now have the same capability with a higher probability of a kill.

>>34816083
to add to
>>34816167
80's systems were notoriously slow, which is why you needed a wide enough space to react to threats. Now with Aegis, data-linking and better missiles, you can fire twice as many missile, faster and have a higher probability of killing whatever you're aiming at.

>>34816167
>>34816186

I get what you guys are saying, but why not just revamp those platforms with modern systems and reliability, instead of scrapping them for a system with less than half the range and a lower ammo capacity? No matter how good the response time becomes, having long range capability and being able to engage more targets is always good, isn't it?

Also, is the AEGIS system able to take down, say, a squad of Russian planes homing in before they are in range to fire their hyper sonic anti-ship missiles?

>>34816232
>SM-6
>256 mile range

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM

>>34816232
A single Arleigh Burke with 90 VLS cells has more missiles than an F-14 squadron

>>34816083
>when it comes to carrier group defense
Defence from what? The Russians and Chinese together have far less naval attack aircraft than the Soviets did in the 1980s.

>>34816083
The F-35 with contemporary AMRAAMs outranges a Tomcat.

>>34816278
>>34816291
>>34816339
>>34816384

TIL. This was the info I was looking for. Thanks

good thread

>>34816083
>Nowadays they rely on the AEGIS system, that uses ship-launched missiles with a range of about 100 nmi.

That is less than half of an SM-6's range. And an AIM-120D from a Super Hornet has a 'greater reach' than an AIM-54 from an F-14.

>>34816384
It's sensor fused and datalinked AESA and DAS are also way better for missile defence and can allow ships to take OTH shots against sea skimming antiship missiles.
The US army is looking at a similar capability:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-army-eyes-f-35-missile-defense-sensor

>>34816083
>AIM-54 has a range of about 100 nmi, from an F-14 that has a radius of 500 nmi from the carrier which it must return to within a few hours of launching
>SM-2 has a range of about 100 nmi from an AEGIS destroyer, which can be stationed on picket dozens to hundreds of miles away from the center of the CBG and remain there for weeks
It's not directly equivalent, but it's important to note that there are many AEGIS ships in a battle group and they can patrol an enormous area of sea, much in the way the carrier's own air wing does (only slower).

>>34816232
>Also, is the AEGIS system able to take down, say, a squad of Russian planes homing in before they are in range to fire their hyper sonic anti-ship missiles?
>>34816291
>A single Arleigh Burke with 90 VLS cells has more missiles than an F-14 squadron

The issue here is that Aegis has a shorter detection range than an airborne radar for low-altitude targets, due to the curve of the earth.

>>34817539
>The issue here is that Aegis has a shorter detection range than an airborne radar for low-altitude targets
But with CEC it won't matter.

>>34816232
>hyper sonic anti-ship
Those are a meme, missiles going hyper sonic burn so much fuel that they need to be within spitting distance to launch. They also can't maneuver for shit. Spamming highly maneuverable, high sub sonic missiles overwhelming defenses work better.

>>34816384
Tomcat looks cooler though and scares the Russians so checkmate

>>34816083
F-35C in A2A can go about 760nmi without having to refuel, and the AIM-120D has about the same range as a Phoenix.

And SM-3s have a range around 1300 miles.

File: C30A5838-0DF9-4257-BE7B-BC66416EE144-18099-000025D86D7837A5.jpg (84KB, 1199x848px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1199x848px

I wish America would just buy the flanker design and iron out all the maintence quirks then make it like 50 percent yuuuger.

>>34819124
This is a fucking stupid idea.

File: mm.jpg (54KB, 597x511px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 597x511px

>>34816435

File: naa-f-15-c.jpg (369KB, 1400x1076px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1400x1076px

>>34819124

Why do that when we could just build our own flanker ;^)

File: v6b7ma.jpg (27KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 512x288px

>>34816167

>The vast majority ever fired in combat just fell away from the plane without lighting up.

That happened exactly once.

>>34819124
Not you again.

File: 1473641122657.jpg (105KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1024x731px

>>34819124
Once the F-35C is fully operational it'll essentially be capable of doing the F-14s fleet interception role much, much more efficiently and bringing much more to the table, especially when talking about systems outside of the plane

File: 1470883331427.jpg (864KB, 3008x1960px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 3008x1960px

>>34820769
Meant for
>>34819102

Have a cat picc

File: jolly rogers flanker.jpg (95KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 2048x1365px

>>34819124

>>34816278
256 miles for exoatmospheric targets, and even then that's launching when the target is at 256 and closing.

There is zero chance of it intercepting aircraft at even half of that.

File: Russian_Bear_'H'_Aircraft_MOD_45158140.jpg (83KB, 1200x661px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1200x661px

>>34816167
AIM-54 was meant for this

>>34821372
Nope. Badgers and Backfires more than anything else. The idea was for the F-14s to dash towards the incoming bombers and get their missiles off far enough away that the bombers would have to turn back without firing their missiles. If any missiles were fired, the Tomcats would then go engage those.

>>34816232
Because the F-14 was a hangar queen that no amount of modernization could fix. Swing wings are very maintenance intensive.