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
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 862
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post11 Feb 2018, 17:29

rheonomic wrote:
f-16adf wrote:NOBODY HERE HATES THE TOMCAT.


I do! I do!




Nah, I don't believe you. :mrgreen:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 23:22

Legendary Air Combat Pioneer, Vietnam F-8E Fighter Jock and F-14 Pilot Joe “Hoser” Satrapa Has Died

https://theaviationist.com/2019/03/26/l ... a-has-died

During his time at Top Gun, CDR Joe “Hoser” Satrapa continued to add to his legacy of outlandish and remarkable true stories. During one training sortie intended to be a 2-on-2 engagement between two navy F-14s and two U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagles, one of the F-14s remained on the ground with a maintenance issue. Undaunted, “Hoser” Satrapa continued with the training sortie and engaged the two USAF F-15s alone, masquerading as a pair of F-14s instead of just one by pretending his back-seater was actually in another (non-existent) F-14 when he was actually seated behind Satrapa in the same F-14. The rest of the remarkable story is best recounted directly from one of Satrapa’s fellow pilots:

“The Eagles get tally of one [F-14] at the merge. They break their necks looking for the other Tomcat, which is still back on the ground at VF-101. ‘Hoser’, the master of the slow fight, maneuvers in for one gun kill, then another- both F-15s killed.”

“The F-15 pilots call, ‘Knock it off! Knock it off!’. The Eagle drivers are pissed when they realize the ‘two-ship’ of F-14s was only “Hoser” and his backseater in one Tomcat. Now it’s a known, 1 vs. 2 engagement and the F-15 Eagle drivers, one Major and Lt. Col, were hot to ‘kill’ Hoser’s lone F-14. Fight’s on! Picture afterburner spouting from the F-15s and ‘Hoser’ in his F-14 working his flaps in a ‘non-landing configuration’, cartwheeling and pivoting across the sky like Mary Lou Retton on steroids. He gets gun kill number 3, then number 4 against to the two F-15s”.

Another “Hoser” story alleged that Joe Satrapa nearly compromised a U.S. sales contract for F-15 Eagle fighters to Japan when he demonstrated his dogfighting superiority in the F-14 Tomcat against the F-15 Eagle. The incident was said to cause the Japanese to consider cancelling their F-15 orders in favor of the F-14 Tomcat.

Here’s what we wrote about this episode in a previous article on “Hoser” (also known as “Da-Hose” or “D-hose”):

[…] Hoser’s best experience during the AIMVAL/ACEVAL most probably came after the end of the trials. Even if Tomcat and Eagle drivers could not engage each other, Hoser and his RIO Bill “Hill Billy” Hill with Dan “Turk” Pentecost and Frank “Fearless” Schumacher onboard the second F-14, went 2 vs 2 against a couple of F-15 instructors from 415th Training Squadron (415th Flight Test Flight).

Both Eagles were gunned down and a gun camera film which showed the F-15 locked in the F-14 HUD almost caused Japan to revert its decision to buy the Eagle.




f-16adf wrote:Fast forward to 1974/75:
In the book "Hoser Here...Shoot" pg. 79, Hoser says "1v1, TA-4 with P-8 motor against pre Block 90 F-14 at 18k feet. VX-4 approximately 1974-75. One mile split, at 18k feet. Turkey airspeed 400 knots. Each engagement was as follows: the best game plan for F-14 was an immediate 8.5G pull to lead turn in the vertical, bleed to and hold zone five at 326 knots (best turn rate), roll to short extended six, VSL high (radar lock), idle, boards as the HUD guns solution appeared. No need for the Big Boys. It just can't get more simple! Bottom Line= out yank the other aircraft on initial move= energy for position any day!"

Fast forward to late 1976 (a few weeks prior to AIM/ACE):
From the book "Roger Ball!" pg 353, "Hawk (in a F-5) ripped back on the throttles, thumbed out the speed brakes, dropped the maneuvering flaps, and reefed hard on the pole to avoid an overshoot. Too late, Hoser(in a F-14) had put so much G on the airplane and so quickly there was no way Hawk could match the turn. Hoser made an eye-watering move. He'd gone from six hundred knots to nothing in no time. The maneuver had broken two things: Hawk's tracking and probably Hoser's jet."

the story continues on pg . 354-355:
After Hawk landed, he asked Hoser, "Any by the way, I want to know how many Gs you pulled. I'v never seen anything like that in my life!"
Hoser shot back, "Only six. I only pulled six Gs! I got it right here on the meter."
Hawk: Ah BS, Hoser! I've never seen a Tomcat turn white with only six Gs in dry desert air."
Hoser: "Six and a half Gs, that's all I pulled."
"Hill Billy, (Hoser's RIO) still sitting in the rear cockpit, entered the discussion- and not on his pilot's side. "Sure Hoser!" Billy was clearly suffering. He had a stiff neck and slowly and carefully extricated himself from the rear cockpit. When he finally got both feet on the ground and headed for the maintenance shack, he hobbled like an old man."

Now why the big deal over the Gs that Hoser "PULLED"?? If the Tomcat would have been 9G sustainable, surely an additional 2.5-3G would have not been a big deal, right? Why does Hoser keep insisting on only 6.5G. Why, in the misconstrued figure he could have said "I pulled 9G" and this argument would have never ensued. HE NEVER SAID SUCH A THING. NOTHING IS MENTIONED OF A 9G LIMIT. HOWEVER A 6.5G LIMIT IS MENTIONED.

And remember HAWK Smith was the original VX-4 Tomcat pilot, surely he would know the ACTUAL G LIMITS OF THE PLANE THAT HE HAS TESTED THE MOST.

And the author of that book Capt. Donald E. Auten flew the Tomcat for many years; he was also a TOPGUN graduate and an adversary pilot. He never mentions a 9G limit?

Fast forward to 1981. In combat against Libya (an airforce that also had Mirage deltas ((that had no G limiter and a very high ITR))). Music said he did a 7G REVERSAL TURN, NOTHING IS MENTIONED ABOUT 9G.

What is the conclusion: It is quite possible that in the very early VX-4 days (early/mid 1970's) the CAT was authorized for 8.5G (again, nothing was ever mentioned about 9G sustainability). Consequently, in order to preserve air-frame integrity, over the next few years it was degraded downwards (to 7.5G then to the 6.5G). Remember by 1981, the F-14 was still a new jet, it certainly was not considered aging.

Most important of all, the first pilots to be 9G rated (sustained) in the centrifuge were F-16 Viper pilots. Not F-14 or F-15 pilots!!! That's because the F-16 was the first jet that brought out the problem of GLOC. It generated G much faster than the Eagle, Tomcat, or anything else at that time.
Attachments
FINAL212.jpg
Offline

firebase99

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 03 May 2017, 21:47

Unread post29 Mar 2019, 04:45

RIP Hoser...and Godspeed.

Read alot of his accounts. During AIMVEL/ACEVAL:
One of my favorite stories.....

"No dissertation on present-day section tactics, or on naval aviation in general, could be considered complete without a brace of "Hoser" stories. In the micro world of perhaps 400 Tomcat pilots, a few legendary gonzo maniacs are going to bubble to the surface. Joe "Hoser" Satrapa was already famous in Vietnam as a young and utterly fearless F-8 pilot who regularly carried a good forty pounds of lethal ordnance- leaning toward small automatic weapons and hand grenades- in case he was suddenly compelled to leave his aircraft and carry the battle directly to the little bad guys in the jungle.

Guns were Hoser's game in the air; he flew the four-gun Crusader - which many Navy pilots still regard as the [deleted] machine of all time- in Southeast Asia, and he'd never been forced to rely totally on missiles like his Navy Phantom cohorts. After negotiations that would shame the pro football draft, Hoser was dragooned back into the Tomcat front seat as a RAG guns instructor. This, after personal entreaties from the highest levels up and including Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, himself a Reserve naval aviator.

Many active pilots and RIOs well remember Hoser's delivery of manic harangues to fuzzy-cheeked newcomers from the RAG. In his patented Yosemite Sam voice he would whip the lads, and invariably himself, into a lethal frenzy: "Pull on the pole till the rivets pop and the RIO pukes! No kill like a guns kill! A Lima up the tailpipe is too good for any Gomer! Close with the miserable Commie [deleted] and put a few rounds of twenty-twenty-mike-mike through his canopy! If he hits the silk, gun his a$$ while he swings!" Hoser would then pace the corridor, bumping into hapless petty officers, muttering oaths, trying to re-align his internal INS.

Hoser also knew a thing or two about the element of surprise. During the much-maligned AIMVAL-ACEVAL fighter trials of a decade ago, Hoser was put in a 1 V 1 against a Navy Aggressor flying an F-5. As the two combatants sat side-by-side on the Nellis runway, awaiting tower clearance for a second takeoff, Hoser looked over at his opponent, reached his hand up over the control panel, and mimicked the cocking of machine guns in a World War I Spad. A thumbs up came from the other cockpit- guns it would be, the proverbial knife fight in a phone booth, forget the missiles. Both jets blasted off.

In the area, the fighters set up twenty miles apart for a head-on intercept under ground control. Seven miles from the merge, with closure well over 1000 knots, Hoser called "Fox One" - Sparrow missile away, no chance of a miss. As they flashed past each other, the furious F-5 driver radioed, "What the hell was that all about?" "Sorry." said Hoser, "lost my head. Let's set up again. Guns only, I promise."

Remember Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football? Again the two fighters streaked towards the pass, again at seven miles Hoser called "Fox One." The Aggressor was apoplectic; he was also coming up on bingo fuel state, a common situation in the short-legged F-5.

Hoser was first back to the club bar, nursing an end-of-the-day cold one as the flushed Aggressor stomped in. "Hoser, what the hell happened to credibility?" fumed the F-5 jock. Said Hoser, with accompanying thumb gestures, "Credibility is DOWN, kill ratio is UP!" It's a popular Top Gun story, and it's moral isn't lost on students or teachers. From 1 V 1 to forty-plane furball, expect anything. But never expect your enemy to be a sweet guy."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post30 Mar 2019, 14:42

rheonomic wrote:
f-16adf wrote:NOBODY HERE HATES THE TOMCAT.


I do! I do!


Seriously?

I don't know how you can. You can say the TF-30 killed a lot of aviators, but the F-14 isn't the only bird suffering from a bad engine/airframe mismatch. The F-14 was cutting edge in its day. No aircraft could approach it BVR, its AWG-9 and Phoenix missiles far out ranged anything else. You may argue that pairing was more bark then bight, but the Iranians would like to have a word with you.

It carried a lot of gas, was fast as hell and demonstrated the ability to grow in later years. For a fleet defender never conceived as a bomber, the Bombcat was mighty capable. Maintenance issues? OK, but not so bad the Navy couldn't meet its operational requirements. From fleet defense interceptor, to bomber to recon aircraft - it turned out to be mighty versatile.

And when push came to shove in the air to air arena, it performed admirably in dogfights. That, given BOTH USN and Iranian experience. It could dogfight with the best of them AND take down Mig-25's, then back into the swing role. Yes, it was expensive. Cutting edge tech doesn't come cheap.

Finally, it looked the part. Better than perhaps any other aircraft - ever. The Tomcat was absolutely menacing. While some people might scoff at that, the old adage "looks right, flies right" certainly applies. I love the F-14, and proud to say so. It served with distinction, and was incredibly successful - whether it was shooting down Mig-21's, 23's or 25's or flying the first bombing sorties into Afghanistan.

She is sorely missed...
Attachments
f-14.jpg
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3291
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post30 Mar 2019, 19:10

Well, the Main draw of the F-14 is kind of the same reason so many people preferred the YF-23 to the YF-22: looks. The F-14 has dangerous looking curves, while the F-15 just looks boxy.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post31 Mar 2019, 01:48

count_to_10 wrote:Well, the Main draw of the F-14 is kind of the same reason so many people preferred the YF-23 to the YF-22: looks. The F-14 has dangerous looking curves, while the F-15 just looks boxy.


The crusader was an awesome gun slinger, but with the tomcat, air combat become 4 dimensional. Datalinking!? Holy bleep! It was hamstrung by engines that were never planned on serving for the length of time they did. Once better engines were finally bought, the tomcat was everything it was planned on being in the 70s. Real shame the tomcat community got f'ed like that.

The other thing that hamstrung the tomcat was hydraulics and it ruined readiness rates. Swing wing issues were few, so that's not what is meant. The damned thing had more moving parts than a rube Goldberg contraption.

My understanding is that anyone could fly an eagle. Tomcat, not so!

Pilot versus pilot in my opinion. Anyone can be beaten on any day. Even Phantoms were whipping the tar out of the eagles nearly 50/50 in early days.

Electronics, wiring, fbw, hydraulics and a lot of other things were going to make the tomcat the envy of the USAF. Would have outnumbered raptor 3:1 +. There was talk of eventually giving both pilot and Rio helmet mounted cueing so that in theory the front seater and Rio could look at separate targets, and fire on them in a fight. It would have really put having 2 sets of eyeballs to good use.

Tomcat 21 would have dominated everything save for 5th gen.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post31 Mar 2019, 13:51

crosshairs wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Well, the Main draw of the F-14 is kind of the same reason so many people preferred the YF-23 to the YF-22: looks. The F-14 has dangerous looking curves, while the F-15 just looks boxy.


The crusader was an awesome gun slinger, but with the tomcat, air combat become 4 dimensional. Datalinking!? Holy bleep! It was hamstrung by engines that were never planned on serving for the length of time they did. Once better engines were finally bought, the tomcat was everything it was planned on being in the 70s. Real shame the tomcat community got f'ed like that.

The other thing that hamstrung the tomcat was hydraulics and it ruined readiness rates. Swing wing issues were few, so that's not what is meant. The damned thing had more moving parts than a rube Goldberg contraption.

My understanding is that anyone could fly an eagle. Tomcat, not so!

Pilot versus pilot in my opinion. Anyone can be beaten on any day. Even Phantoms were whipping the tar out of the eagles nearly 50/50 in early days.

Electronics, wiring, fbw, hydraulics and a lot of other things were going to make the tomcat the envy of the USAF. Would have outnumbered raptor 3:1 +. There was talk of eventually giving both pilot and Rio helmet mounted cueing so that in theory the front seater and Rio could look at separate targets, and fire on them in a fight. It would have really put having 2 sets of eyeballs to good use.

Tomcat 21 would have dominated everything save for 5th gen.


100% agree on this last point. I said as much in another thread, yet SH fans would have none of it. The FACT of the matter is that Tomcat 21 (and in some cases, F-14D) vastly outperformed the SH in many important metrics. It would have been stupid fast (mach 1.3 supercruise), have TONS more gas/range, thrust vectoring engines for high alpha and good God, the radar/weapons systems. Would have crushed SH all day long and twice on Sundays. But NO.... the SH was the better plane. Hogwash..

The Navy really missed the boat with ST21. Had they pulled the trigger on it, we'd STILL have a naval fighter today that would have out-matched anything the Russians/Chinese could put up. It would have thoroughly trounced any Flanker, including the SU-35 and up-rated SU-30's. Instead, SH's are at best equal to late model Flankers in some respects, and thoroughly out-classed by them in speed, range, altitude, high AOA and other performance parameters.

I'll shed no tears when it finally flies off into the sunset, as I consider it a black eye on naval aviation that continues to this day.
Offline

Tiger05

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 00:15

mixelflick wrote:
crosshairs wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Well, the Main draw of the F-14 is kind of the same reason so many people preferred the YF-23 to the YF-22: looks. The F-14 has dangerous looking curves, while the F-15 just looks boxy.


The crusader was an awesome gun slinger, but with the tomcat, air combat become 4 dimensional. Datalinking!? Holy bleep! It was hamstrung by engines that were never planned on serving for the length of time they did. Once better engines were finally bought, the tomcat was everything it was planned on being in the 70s. Real shame the tomcat community got f'ed like that.

The other thing that hamstrung the tomcat was hydraulics and it ruined readiness rates. Swing wing issues were few, so that's not what is meant. The damned thing had more moving parts than a rube Goldberg contraption.

My understanding is that anyone could fly an eagle. Tomcat, not so!

Pilot versus pilot in my opinion. Anyone can be beaten on any day. Even Phantoms were whipping the tar out of the eagles nearly 50/50 in early days.

Electronics, wiring, fbw, hydraulics and a lot of other things were going to make the tomcat the envy of the USAF. Would have outnumbered raptor 3:1 +. There was talk of eventually giving both pilot and Rio helmet mounted cueing so that in theory the front seater and Rio could look at separate targets, and fire on them in a fight. It would have really put having 2 sets of eyeballs to good use.

Tomcat 21 would have dominated everything save for 5th gen.


100% agree on this last point. I said as much in another thread, yet SH fans would have none of it. The FACT of the matter is that Tomcat 21 (and in some cases, F-14D) vastly outperformed the SH in many important metrics. It would have been stupid fast (mach 1.3 supercruise), have TONS more gas/range, thrust vectoring engines for high alpha and good God, the radar/weapons systems. Would have crushed SH all day long and twice on Sundays. But NO.... the SH was the better plane. Hogwash..

The Navy really missed the boat with ST21. Had they pulled the trigger on it, we'd STILL have a naval fighter today that would have out-matched anything the Russians/Chinese could put up. It would have thoroughly trounced any Flanker, including the SU-35 and up-rated SU-30's. Instead, SH's are at best equal to late model Flankers in some respects, and thoroughly out-classed by them in speed, range, altitude, high AOA and other performance parameters.

I'll shed no tears when it finally flies off into the sunset, as I consider it a black eye on naval aviation that continues to this day.


Well, remember it was the DoD, not the Navy, that chose the SH. It was very much pushed on them. They were told in no uncertain terms that it was either the SH or nothing at all. Apparently industrial base reasons played a major role in that decision. McDD was seen as being potentially in difficulty in this new post-Cold War world of slimmer defense budgets and reduced procurement. The SH was essentially a bone throw at them to keep them busy. Grumman on the other hand was a smaller company that lacked political support and was therefore seen as more expendable. The rest is history...

Its interesting to note that back in '91-'92 the Navy was still strongly backing the Tomcat and favored continuing F-14D procurement but their request for more was denied.

Agreed that the ST21 could have been something. Its a crying shame that the F-14's potential was never fully explored. I think it still had a lot of room for growth in that regard. I find it a bit sobering when you look at fighters from
the same era (early-mid 70s) than the F-14 like the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 or Su-27 and you notice that they all are still in production nowadays and thriving with new versions and upgrades being unveiled while the F-14 was send to an early grave... Sad. In an ideal world, the Tomcat (in significantly upgraded form) would still be around today.
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 01:57

2nd most frustrating day of my life was when we learned tomcats fate had been sealed. The airframe had so much potential that an eagle or a raptor or anything to this day could not approach. There were plans on the drawing boards for them to carry smallish alcms and self escort. Yes it was pita to land on a rolling deck. Yes it lacked stealth. But tell me how many stealth fighters china and Russia have today? We envisioned flying doritos knocking down air defenses and tomcats doing everything else. We got a supersized bug with tiny engines.

In an ideal world the USA would not have scrapped the peacekeeper, midgetman, tomcat, seawolf, agm129, capped the raptor at 185 and the spirit at 21. Our military today was basically engineered during the days of van Halen and led zeppelin.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2354
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 02:51

If Super Hornet was in the F-14 weight class then I'm not so sure anyone goes away upset with the F-14 retirement. And the Super Hornet is actually 'super'. Now throw F119 in the Tomcat frame and add some reshaping to give it stealthy LO features and we have no reason for Super Bug.
Image
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2193
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 07:54

The F-14's wings are too far forward on the fuselage, it will never be an unstable platform. So even with F-119s, it won't be able to maximize it.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2354
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 12:41

Supercruise engines with wings back coupled to a big radar, contemporary helmet cued AIM-9X missiles, and AMRAAM aren't going to overcome its need to avoid dogfights. The Super Hornet selling point was RCS reduction. Without mitigation of the large RCS, the Tomcat had little relevance in - and absolutely no business - getting into a turning battle.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 14:18

madrat wrote:Supercruise engines with wings back coupled to a big radar, contemporary helmet cued AIM-9X missiles, and AMRAAM aren't going to overcome its need to avoid dogfights. The Super Hornet selling point was RCS reduction. Without mitigation of the large RCS, the Tomcat had little relevance in - and absolutely no business - getting into a turning battle.


Couple of points... If the Navy/DoD was worried about losing McDonnell Douglas as part of the industrial base, giving them the SH contract didn't help. They eventually got swallowed up by Boeing, and the great McDD heritage of building world beating fighters disappeared. All Boeing can do now it put up tired old versions of updated F-15's and 18's. We laugh at Mig because it can't move past the Mig-29 airframe, but it's the same situation now with Boeing. Those fantastic McDD engineers apparently weren't retained, and Boeing's ability to build a world class fighter is questionable. As in, REAL questionable..

2nd, how can the SH selling point have been RCS reduction? OK, maybe clean it has a lower signature. But even moreso than other aircraft, the F-18 is ALWAYS lugging around a substantial amount of external stores. Almost always it flies with fuel tanks (because it has short legs), and it lugs plenty of JDAM's, LGB's and AMRAAM's on a typical mission.

The ST21 would have been a beast with superlative BVR and WVR capabilities. Whatever nose pointing authority the SH has would have been trounced by a thrust vectoring F-14, as its low speed handling even without thrust vectoring is legendary. Talk to any F-15 pilot that's fought one: "We don't get slow in the gents with F-14's...". More importantly, it would re-gain energy a LOT faster than SH. It's really a moot discussion, since the Tomcat would clean up BVR and HOBS missiles would be doing most of the turning/nose pointing WVR.

And insofar as strike/recon missions is concerned? Forget about it. The F-14D (never mind ST21) handily outperformed the SH in the strike role. MUCH better range, could carry a wide array of air to ground weapons and protect itself FAR better than the SH ever could. ST21 would have just trounced it even further, given the extra gas and more efficient engines it would carry.

In summary, ST21 was the right plane at the right time. It couldn't be beat on its own merit/metrics, so only politics brought it down. Sad, sad day for Naval aviation IMO...
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 15:09

Instead of taking Navy guys opinions about the F-14 being the greatest and conversely, Air Force guys opinions about the F-14 being a piece of crap. Lets look at what a third party had to say about the F-14D, F-18E, and F-18C. That third party is the French Navy. They, in their Marine Rafales, fought all three Navy jets back in the summer of 2002. Additionally, these French Marine pilots only had a short time on the Rafale. Their conclusions about all three in WVR dog-fights? They spanked all of them; but they found the heavy F-14D to be the easiest to beat, followed by the Super Hornet, and lastly concluded the legacy F-18C the most difficult opponent out of the group. Now these French guys have no need to lie about the outcome. They do not have an anti Grumman F-14 bias and a pro Hornet or USAF favoring. I believe them, and I think most should too-


Is the F-14D a great jet? Yes. Is it a good dog-fighter (in the right hands say Nance, Snort, or Hoser) absolutely! But what it is not is the ultimate ACM platform of the teen series. It was not a routine 9G sustaining machine like the F-16. Even in Jello's recent interview with a F-14B pilot and RIO. The Tomcat pilot said that the "F-14 was built/designed around 7.5G." And in the NAVAIR F-14AAD-1 manual on pg. 2-18, bottom left corner: "FEMS will record aircraft overstress when it determines that normal acceleration has exceeded: 1. 7.5G with landing gear UP and Mach greater than .24"

Additionally, an F-14B with 50% internal fuel, 4 Aim-7, 2 Aim-9 at 10,000ft and at a "simulated" 9G loading will bleed around -2100fps, while an F-16CJ at the same altitude and 9G with 50% internal fuel, 4 Aim-120, 2 Aim-9 only bleeds slightly over -1000fps. And if you do some math and figure out the deceleration of the F-14B at that loading (starting at about 450KCAS), by the time he is down to Mach .3 he is nearly out of energy and basically at landing speeds. And has only completed a little over 158 degrees of turn.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2354
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 00:28

I'm pretty sure a Super Hornet with excess thrust would turn legendary F-14 maneuvering into an outdated iconic myth from the past.
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests