Iranian F-14 Tomcat with HAWK missile [Video] September 8, 2006 Posted by Murdoc Hard to tell, but it sure looks like it could be what they claim. Iran sure is showing off the military hardware lately. (via Alert 5) Updated: September 8, 2006 at 1:04 pm ◀ Chinese DDG in Pearl [Photo] Why isn’t Israel bombing and invading again, by the way? ▶ Comments I dont think its a Hawk. Looks more like an older Russian AAM or french model semi active radar homing model Looks like a pre-fab crater to me, complete with smoke and secondaries. So, even iffin’ it is a Hawk, the Iranians have married a 30 year old missile to a 30 year old jet? There must be hundreds of USAF, USN, even USMC pilots who would love a crack at that thing. What if Iran never really expects to launch a HAWK (or any air-to-air missile) from F-5 or F-14? Maybe they just want to demonstrate that they can carry and launch a more generic 15 foot/1500 lb weapon from the bottom of a jet–. Anyone know where they are getting the spare parts to keep F-14’s flying? I just got an email showing pictures of the last U.S. carrier launch, so they are phasing out. Just a quick look at the vid. The missiles carried do not appear to be the same size – could be an optical illusion. In any event, the configuration make me doubt its carrying hawks. Putting a 1300 lb missile on the wing mounts is pushing the pylons max load. Toss in the additional aerostress, and you are going to have some serious problems. Well if you put something heavier than the design weight under the pylon, that limits your G loadings, right? Say a pylon can take 1000kg and is rated up to 9Gs. At rest 1000kg exerts 1000N of force. Pulling 9Gs with a 1000kg weight is puts 9000N of stress on the pylon, the equivalent of having a 9000kg weight at rest (1G). If you want to hang a 2000kg weight under the pylon, it should hold (seeing as it’s capable of handling 9000N, at least for a while) but if you pull more than 4.5Gs then you would be exceeding the design capabilities and would risk bending the airframe or worse. The real questions in my mind are whether launching the missile is safe (a Tomcat shot itself down during trials with the Sparrow) and whether it’s at all useful to have a 30 year old semi-active missile, even if it does have a long range. Someone with a fire-and-forget missile will probably eat you for lunch. I’m with GeekLethal. I’m not impressed. I’m more impressed that they’ve managed to keep one or two of the Tomcats airworthy after all these years. i am not impressed with being able to carry the missle(which may or may not have been launched) as i am with the f-14 still being able to fly. I pulled some of the deeper photos off of you tube. http://youtube.com/watch?v=q6GNwRuwsRY This is definitively a Hawk attached to the inner pylon or a new pylon of a F-14. A couple of things to note, and question: 1. Does mating a Hawk to a Tomcat do any good? A Hawk requires a positive lock throughout it’s flight. If it loses lock, it self destructs. The lock could be provided either optically or through doppler feeds which means two things the tomcat has to be radiating the during the entire engagement and it has to be able to manuver in such a manner as to provide a positive lock. 2. Take a hard look at the mating location of this missile, about 2:30 into the clip or at about 1:45 in the clip. Do any of the aviators out there think that if the Tomcat sweeps it’s wings back that it would induce some really interesting flight dynamics? My opinion is that while they have successfully mated the missile to the airframe, it is not a weapon that could be feasibly deployed. Remember a Hawk battery is composed of four distinct radars, and an optical tracking mechanism just to insure that it can maintain a lock throughout jamming and high manuverability environments. Even with all of these components in place I still have had my battery defeated by wild weasels. Nicholas – The wieght issue is not just a G loading issue. The Tomcat was supposed to max out with 6 phonix missiles – but when it did so it caused all sorts of maintence issues when landing. (overstressed the plyon and landing gear.) Other issues involve electrical drain, cooling, and ejector strength. For example: The Navy had to strip out the old BRU-10’s because they were the ejectors were not strong enough to handle the ML-80’s. I’m not all that familar with HAWKS, but I would imagine they would be power hogs. The hawk no longer needs a positive lock in order to shoot. It two has been updated to a fire and forget system. I know this personally and vouch for it. Tested at WSMR by myself and team members.