A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighter Role

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

avon1944

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2004, 02:03

Unread post10 Jul 2009, 07:43

I read somewhere (I think... in one of Clancy's books) a F-15C pilot stated that the performance of the F-14 Tomcat was similar to the F-15E in dog-fighting ability. How close in accuracy is this statement?
Offline

Kryptid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 343
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 01:16

Unread post11 Jul 2009, 22:54

Under ideal circumstances for both aircraft, the F-15E is probably more maneuverable than any F-14 model. It has a higher G-limit, more powerful engines, a lighter empty weight, and a higher rate of climb. It's empty weight is only slightly heavier than the F-15C.

If both planes are fully-loaded (not good for maneuvering), then the F-15E and F-14D would actually have comparable thrust-to-weight ratios.

With the wings fully unswept, the F-14 models might have better low speed maneuverability than the F-15E, however.
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post13 Jul 2009, 22:56

Depends of fuel load (assuming similar pilots), but my money is on the F-15E, even against a D-model F-14. You can burn fuel, but you can't burn that extra 10,000 lbs of structural weight.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post26 Oct 2009, 00:17

Can't the F-15E operate with the CFTs removed?
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post26 Oct 2009, 14:20

discofishing wrote:Can't the F-15E operate with the CFTs removed?


Yes, but it takes maintenance crews to remove them, they aren't jettisonable.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/F-15E_CFT.jpg
Offline

henshao

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 01:24

Unread post09 Feb 2010, 18:48

F-15E has bigger wings, less weight, and more thrust than the F-14D. F-15 has AMRAAMs (if you count that as 'performance'). Backseater can probably see a little better from the Eagle. G limits are probably similar, slight edge to the Eagle. Tomcat if I recall has slightly more ammo for his gun. Swing wings probably means the Tomcat handles better as you get close to stall speed, and a slower turn is a tighter turn.

All in all, their performance is similar from a strategic standpoint. Tactically, the Eagle is where you want to be.

In fact, I think that pilot may have been trying to insult the Beagle by saying it dogfights "like a tomcat," because a F-15C would have little trouble with an F-14A within visual range, unless the pilot was way out of his depth.
Online

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2353
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post03 Mar 2010, 08:01

F-14 has more lifting surfaces, over 50% more, so the wing loading is in the F-14's favor. The F-14D - with the bigger engines - were probably superior to the F-15C at the time. Technically the F-14D was awaiting formal certification for the AMRAAM, the capacity was there. No way the best F-14D can take on the upgraded F-15C that will enjoy AESA, JHMCS, AIM-9X, plus numerous upgrades to their ecm suite.

The F-15 has survived contact with the enemy, its taken hits and flew home, and it has the most important edge of all. It survived the cutting block.
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post03 Mar 2010, 23:26

Yes, but it takes maintenance crews to remove them, they aren't jettisonable.



That's why I mentioned the word "removed" and not "jettisoned". I've seen video of F-15Is performing at air shows without their CFTs. I figure the F-15E would have better performance without CFTs.
Offline

henshao

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 01:24

Unread post04 Mar 2010, 03:08

madrat wrote:F-14 has more lifting surfaces, over 50% more, so the wing loading is in the F-14's favor. The F-14D - with the bigger engines - were probably superior to the F-15C at the time. Technically the F-14D was awaiting formal certification for the AMRAAM, the capacity was there. No way the best F-14D can take on the upgraded F-15C that will enjoy AESA, JHMCS, AIM-9X, plus numerous upgrades to their ecm suite.

The F-15 has survived contact with the enemy, its taken hits and flew home, and it has the most important edge of all. It survived the cutting block.


I notice that the F-15's lifting body is often overlooked. If you ask an outsider looking in, I'd say that the "pancake" fuselage tunnel section of the F-14's fuselage had little to do with wing area, and a whole lot more to do with providing a place to actually carry those 1000lb missiles. You sure weren't carrying 4 of them on the wings, and you can't mount them on your landing gear doors...
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post04 Mar 2010, 10:50

FWIW, I'd like to see an optional 'single-seat' F-15SE proposal along with 33k lb class power. That should help push it through any depreciative CFT-related performance? Regarding F-14 vs F-15... as good a one as it is... it's an endless debate really, even when compared in finite variant vs variant. I mean, we'd surely have an F-14D+ (or ++) today, to compare against the Golden Eagle. Neither aircraft could be upgraded fast enough to its deserved abilities, IMO. Always something else to fund down the pike a la JSF, or Super Hornet, etc, etc. Heck, the F-35A itself will probably see delays in incorporating block V and even VI due to funding strategies vis-a-vis newer follow-on development programs (manned or unmanned), right?? Nature of the beast.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Online

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2353
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post04 Mar 2010, 21:01

The F-15E is already having problems because some of its control surfaces were understrength in the present reiteration. Giving it more powerful engines might backfire and require even more redesign than the proposal at hand for F-15SE. Seems like giving it more thrust is then going to bite back in two ways, the airframe will have lower G limits and the engines will burn fuel at a higher rate therefore its range will decrease.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post05 Mar 2010, 10:41

Yes, I'm in the camp favoring 'even more redesign to the proposed F-15SE'... and two, perhaps arguably a 33k lb upgrade might enable cruise at higher speeds, using similar fule burn rate than a -220/229 pushing to keep up at same cruise speed? Same could apply for certain take-off performances, loaded, taking off/climbing in mil power, vs AB with a 220/229? Just speculating of course, who knows.. cheers -
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 902
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post26 Feb 2011, 01:06

henshao wrote:
madrat wrote:F-14 has more lifting surfaces, over 50% more, so the wing loading is in the F-14's favor. The F-14D - with the bigger engines - were probably superior to the F-15C at the time. Technically the F-14D was awaiting formal certification for the AMRAAM, the capacity was there. No way the best F-14D can take on the upgraded F-15C that will enjoy AESA, JHMCS, AIM-9X, plus numerous upgrades to their ecm suite.

The F-15 has survived contact with the enemy, its taken hits and flew home, and it has the most important edge of all. It survived the cutting block.


I notice that the F-15's lifting body is often overlooked. If you ask an outsider looking in, I'd say that the "pancake" fuselage tunnel section of the F-14's fuselage had little to do with wing area, and a whole lot more to do with providing a place to actually carry those 1000lb missiles. You sure weren't carrying 4 of them on the wings, and you can't mount them on your landing gear doors...



Ah, ah, ah...

If you're comparing the F-15C of the future (with AESA, etc) against the F-14D, you'd have to compare it with the -D as it would exist today, not as it existed in 1990. All those things you posit on the F-15C (I thought we were talking F-15E here), would be on the F-14D, plus integrated IRST and TCS. Also, don't forget the -14D would have a larger antenna and more powerful radar. For ECM purposes, it would probably have an evolved version of the AN/ALQ-165. Plus, its use of the two crew concept is superior to that of the F-15D. Regarding AIM-120, don't forget the F-14 was the first a/c to fire one. The reason it was never made operational on the F-14 was that when LANTIRN was integrated through the back door on the F-14D (where it could actually use it better than could the F-15E), NAVAIR would not fund making it operational, development of new capabilities being reserved for the Super Bug. The Tomcat community offered to give up AIM-120 capability if in return those monies could be redirected to putting LANTIRN on instead. And that's what happened.

Regarding the wings, on the Tomcat they optimize themselves to what the aircraft is doing at the time. This does give rise to an unanticipated "tell" in close in ACM, though. Watching what the wings do gives away what the pilot's intentions are. Regarding the wing loading and the "tunnel", the way Grumman chose to mount four AIM-54s was unique to their design. The other competitors also could do it , but they didn't create a tunnel to do it. While the F-15 does get some lift from the fuselage, but it does not enjoy the lifting body effect that occurs from the Tomcat's tunnel. To be specific, the wing area of the F--14 is 565 sq ft. However the tunnel, most notably with the wings aft adds in effect and additional 443 sq. ft. Of course, extra lift means extra drag at times, so until the Tomcat was freed from the curse of the miserable TF30 engines and given the thrust it was designed for, it couldn't fully exploit this.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post26 Feb 2011, 04:15

Good post on all points, aaam.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2128
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post26 Feb 2011, 18:17

madrat wrote:The F-15E is already having problems because some of its control surfaces were understrength in the present reiteration. Giving it more powerful engines might backfire and require even more redesign than the proposal at hand for F-15SE. Seems like giving it more thrust is then going to bite back in two ways, the airframe will have lower G limits and the engines will burn fuel at a higher rate therefore its range will decrease.


Why would more thrust lead to lower g limits? Please explain.
Next

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests