F-14 Tomcat

[Scooterman]

Evan, I can try to cast them for ya.  Don't know how the fins would turn out, but maybe just the bodies and you do the fins in plastic?

Either way let me know........... B)  

[elmayerle]

Hmm, thanks for the info, Jeffry. I might consdier doing that as an alternative. Personally, I think the Vought ASAT would have a better visual presence, but I'm not wedded to the idea.  For an outre' build, I could use one of each.

Or I could re-engine the F-14 with two JSF engines and carry the Standards on the wing plons while the fuselage pallets had hte Vought ASAT's.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Evan;

It is your call on the load out, but considering the weight of all that ordnance and the launch altitude requirement for weapons release to engage the sattelite, I would go with one ASAT and minimum of self-protection AAM such as a pair of Sidewinders.  

In real life, it would be one sattelite engagement per mission.  You also need to consider the overall physical size of the missile, it apparently comes with an attached solid rocket motor booster to get it to the desired intercept altitude

so strapping that SM2/3 BMD/NAD missile on to two Phoenix pallets might just be the ticket...

some additional links for the two versions so far developed:

RIM-156 SM-2 Block IVA Navy Area Defense (NAD)

RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)

[tinlail]

Some people have even thought od using the F-14 for launching things in to orbit

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

[Captain Canada]

Ev, for all the talking you do about these cool ideas and models you're doing.....I'd suggest you start showing us some pics, before I launch an AEM-135 at you !



But seriously, that is one cool looking missile.....one would look good on the centreline of a rocket-equipped F-104 !

 

[Keith Diamond]

Yeah, I'd like to see pics of this one too.  I was working on a 1/48 Italeri F-16 last summer, and it had an unusual asymmetrical loadout.  It will have 2 AIM 120s, 2 AIM 9s, 2 AIM 7s, 1 wing tank and an ASAT to counter it on the other side.  Now I know it's pretty crazy and probably impossible to put an ASAT on a 16, especially if it counters the weight of a wing tank, but I just thought it would look pretty impressive.

[elmayerle]

Ev, for all the talking you do about these cool ideas and models you're doing.....I'd suggest you start showing us some pics, before I launch an AEM-135 at you !

The pics will come slowly as I don't have a digital camera and, too, as I've a number of other "irons in the fire" besides model building.  Fortunately, I don't see work really getting hectic for a while, yet.

[elmayerle]

Evan;

It is your call on the load out, but considering the weight of all that ordnance and the launch altitude requirement for weapons release to engage the sattelite, I would go with one ASAT and minimum of self-protection AAM such as a pair of Sidewinders.  

In real life, it would be one sattelite engagement per mission.  You also need to consider the overall physical size of the missile, it apparently comes with an attached solid rocket motor booster to get it to the desired intercept altitude
;so strapping that SM2/3 BMD/NAD missile on to two Phoenix pallets might just be the ticket...

some additional links for the two versions so far developed:

RIM-156 SM-2 Block IVA Navy Area Defense (NAD)

RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)

Actually, you need to compare the RIM-156 and RIM-161 with the ASM-135.  Both of the later versions appear to be more suitable than the original RIM-667 for air-launching since both have boosters some five feet shroter than the RIM-67's booster.  I think I'd either go with two missiles and a streamlined interface pod (which the ASAT F-15 has in place of its ammo drum) on a wing pylon or use one ASAT and have the streamlined interface pod on the other set of pallets.  Now to start sorting out the fine details.

[nev]

Well, that photo that Jeffry posted looks like a Standard ARM with a booster section, no?

[elmayerle]

Well, that photo that Jeffry posted looks like a Standard ARM with a booster section, no?

Yep, and basically it's the same airframe.  I would just use the later Standard variants because they've got a much more compact booster and much better electronics and software fits according to the available info.  The thing is, the Vought ASM is a smaller and lighter package still.

[Hobbes]

Interesting idea. I'd use just one missile, on a centreline pylon, to maximize performance (launch at the highest possible speed). But the pylons under the engines are better for display purposes...

[Jeffry Fontaine]

For  Nev;

The image provided is that of a Standard Missile Extended Range or SM (ER) for short. 

The whole family of Standard Missiles is derived from the original Tartar/Terrier family of weapons with the Tartar being the long range missile and the Terrier being the shorter ranged missile. 

There was an eventual merging of the two missiles into one common airframe which became the Standard Missile and it was based on the shape of the Terrier. 

The Standard Missile ARM was a development of the Standard Missile designed to home in on ship board radars that was further developed into the air-launched AGM-78 Standard ARM for use by the USAF and US Navy. 

The continued developement of the Standard Missile into the present family of weapons that are capable engaging surface targets in a direct fire mode, airborne targets at medium and extended ranges as well as the emerging theatre missile defense system for engaging incoming missile warheads and re-entry vehicles. 

I would hazard a guess that the Navy got the design right with the original Terrier design and stuck with it for the long haul due to the size requirements of the ships that were/are equipped with this weapon, it is far simpler to change the insides out (rocket motor, electronics, warhead, etc) than it is to redesign the outsides to fit an existing launcher or handling system. 

So good call in the identity of the missile, just that it is not the ARM version of the Standard Missile.

[elmayerle]

Interesting idea. I'd use just one missile, on a centreline pylon, to maximize performance (launch at the highest possible speed). But the pylons under the engines are better for display purposes...

Wel, I'm looking at something that could be mounted as needed and that pretty much imlpies using the existing Phoenix pallets much as the Bombcat does.  At this time, I'm undecided between two ASAT's with the interface package etc. replacing the M61 ammo drum as it does/did on the Celestial Eagle and one ASAT with the interface package etc. in a streamlined pod mounted on the other pallet set.

Unless they've got a double msision, two satellites coming over close after each other, I'll probably go with one missile and the streamlined pod to simplify fitting it to a standard F-14D or FA-14E (F-14D with upgraded engines and those "Tomcat 21" featuers that can be easily/quickly incorporated during manufacture or re-manufacture).

[Nigel Bunker]

So why didn't we get the Tomcats?

RAF



Fleet Air Arm

[Hatchet]

Ah, but you did