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

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 05:28

zero-one wrote: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.


Forward?

You got something backwards. The more forward the wings are, the more unstable a plane is.

And F-14 is on of the very few planes where you actually CAN move the wings.

On F-14, the stability depends greatly on the wing position. On wings back it's very stable.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 07:14

f-16adf wrote: 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.

Do you have a link for this?
i believe you but I just want to see their exact words.

i have a few photos of Raptors in the gun sights of SHornets and we all know that french magazine statement of Raptors having little trouble killing Rafales with guns.

I think the SHornet's is a hard aircraft to master in ACM. its a little below average in an energy fight and its most potent asset, slow speed nose authority is hard to master. but once you do, it can be very very deadly in ACM.

is it a stretch for me to say that SHornet is the best ACM aircraft the US navy ever had. if you were to put all naval jets, F-8, F-4, F-14, A-4, F/A-18, put them in typical air combat configuration but they can only use guns, which one would you pick?

No reports on the F-35C yet but if Billy Flynn is right and it is the best turning F-35, then we may have a new ACM king on the carrier deck.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 07:16

hkultala wrote:
zero-one wrote: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.


Forward?

You got something backwards. The more forward the wings are, the more unstable a plane is.


is this right? the Flankers wing are way back, the Raptors wings are already touching the exhaust pipe, so are the lightnings.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 14:21

Never heard those results from said French pilots, was news to me.

I can believe they found the F-14 easiest of the 3 to beat, that's not its strength (although it can for sure dogfight). Also, I'm fairly certain the ST-21 would have fared differently. The most excess power of any of the American 3 (by far). The fastest (by far). Likely the most maneuverable too, particularly if it was ordered with thrust vectoring.

Nobody will ever know though, because the Navy just HAD to have the SH (or DoD, depending upon who you believe). Getting back to the topic at hand, I feel the ST-21 would have even had it all over the F-15X, EX or whatever Boeing is calling the latest Eagle. Probably handily too. Bigger radar, a lot longer legs, much faster and capable of carrying longer ranged missiles.

Looked at strictly as a platform, I think the Tomcat had more growth potential - and that was evident in ST-21...
Attachments
Super Tomcast 21.jpg
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 14:35

French source: http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/pages/do ... fMyo.99:if




Translated from French:

Faced with the F-14 and F-18C (USS Stennis and Roosevelt) in 2002

F-14 in the HUD of a Rafale
Just operational in the Flotilla 12F, the Rafale battle against the F-14 Tomcat and F-18 Hornet in Basic Fighter Maneuvering (BFM) measurements:

"... Against the Tomcat, it's a real butcher's shop ... The Rafale is incomparably more manageable than the heavy F-14 and we take advantage of the commitment ..."

"... in the face of the F-18, the task is more complicated but thanks to the flight controls, the weight / thrust ratio and its low wing load, it quickly shows its superiority ... The fighting often starts at 10000 ft and 400 kts to finish at 5000 ft and 150 kts ... The Rafale is very agile, especially at low speed ... "

Source Air Fan n ° 282



link on this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&p=385050



The event was published in a Combat Aircraft Mag from that time. It was more in detail. I, at one time, had that issue (and remember reading it vividly).
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 14:59

I think if I was to choose the "greatest" Naval fighter of all time (all around), it would no doubt be the F-14 Tomcat (and that is very hard for me to say, since my favorite Naval jet is the F-4 Phantom).

But, people have to remember the time. It was the Cold War, and the various proxy Wars between the USA and the USSR. From 1975-1990, the Tomcat was always there (with its long range Aim-54, very long range AWG-9 TWS PD radar, and to provide cover for the Intruders and Corsairs ((VF squadrons were strictly A-A)). If the USA needed to flex its muscles the question was: Where is the nearest carrier?


Sure, the F-18A/C is the better dog-fighter. But there were few Hornet squadrons in 1985 (and zero Charlie squadrons until 1989, if I remember correctly). The Aim-7F/M didn't have anywhere near the range of the Phoenix. And the Sparrow was single shot CW. Additionally, Hornet squadrons were "VFA" not "VF", meaning they were split between A-A and A-G. Not so with the F-14 units.



And if it was my choice, I would rather have the F-14 as my go to fleet defense interceptor (circa 1975-90) than the Phantom or Hornet.
Attachments
F-14A underside.jpg
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4547
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 15:10

zero-one wrote:I think the SHornet's is a hard aircraft to master in ACM. its a little below average in an energy fight and its most potent asset, slow speed nose authority is hard to master. but once you do, it can be very very deadly in ACM.

So you seem to have something a little out of scope here. In ACM the SHornet, as an airframe, is only lacking in thrust. It has pitch, roll, and yaw control at double digit airspeeds and unless the pilot wants to they never need to touch the rudder pedals. It will literally point it's nose wherever the pilot tells it to. It is a very easy jet to fly (so is the classic hornet). The only hard part to master is knowing WHEN to give a big pull and bleed off speed.

For all the talk of a mythical ST21 with a complete airframe redesign and TVC F119 motors everyone seems to be missing the fact that the F/A-18E with F414EPE engines would be stellar in ALL aspects of ACM and that is only an advance on the existing engines, not a whole redesign.

The Tomcat may have had capability, but it was truly hard to master. Prone to dutch roll, roll reversal, loads of drag, had to be flown using rudder input almost exclusively above certain AoA. Sure the B/D Tomcats had thrust, but you had to stop turning to use it.
Last edited by sprstdlyscottsmn on 02 Apr 2019, 16:53, edited 1 time in total.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 15:20

And most F-14BD Tomcat fans don't get the fact that the Tomcat is HEAVY to begin with. Say around 42,000lbs empty if not more. Then they sit and scratch their heads when they compare the F-14A perf supp to the F-14B perf supp and see that ITR generally goes down, and STR only goes up around .8dps to maybe 1dps.

Well, they should take a look at the F-15E w/-220 vs F-15E w/-229 manuals. Clean, the -229 powered jets even with that thrust addition, only see about ~1-1.25dps increase.

Conclusion: Even with much more thrust, you still can't change HEAVY.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 755
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 16:26

zero-one wrote:
hkultala wrote:
zero-one wrote: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.


Forward?

You got something backwards. The more forward the wings are, the more unstable a plane is.


is this right? the Flankers wing are way back, the Raptors wings are already touching the exhaust pipe, so are the lightnings.


Stability is based on positions of CG and aerodynamic center. Unstable has CG behind aerodynamic center. :roll:
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4547
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 16:56

zero-one, you may want to go through this thread...

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=52948
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 18:24

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So you seem to have something a little out of scope here. In ACM the SHornet, as an airframe, is only lacking in thrust. It has pitch, roll, and yaw control at double digit airspeeds and unless the pilot wants to they never need to touch the rudder pedals. It will literally point it's nose wherever the pilot tells it to. It is a very easy jet to fly (so is the classic hornet). The only hard part to master is knowing WHEN to give a big pull and bleed off speed.

.


Sorry, I didn't mean it was hard to fly. I've heard pilots call it a very forgiving aircraft.

What I mean is, traditionally ACM is all about E-M, perhaps thats the best and easiest way to fight.

But the F/A-18, though certainly not deficient, is certainly not exceptional compared to other high end fighters. But because its exceptional in such a unique way its harder to master.

I think actual Hornet pilots can say it better
Dogfighting with the Hornet requires finesse and an above average ability to visualize the jet in three dimensions and manage your energy state. It is highly maneuverable, with the ability to point the nose virtually anywhere. It is a lot of fun to fight, but hard to master against a similar aircraft.

The downside to the Hornet is its power limitation. It is severely underpowered, and although you can get slow and threaten other aircraft with the nose, doing so can leave you without follow-on options. It is very unforgiving of pilots who ham-fist and bleed away all their energy.

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs ... part-four/
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 755
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 19:01

mixelflick wrote:Never heard those results from said French pilots, was news to me.

I can believe they found the F-14 easiest of the 3 to beat, that's not its strength (although it can for sure dogfight). Also, I'm fairly certain the ST-21 would have fared differently. The most excess power of any of the American 3 (by far). The fastest (by far). Likely the most maneuverable too, particularly if it was ordered with thrust vectoring.

Nobody will ever know though, because the Navy just HAD to have the SH (or DoD, depending upon who you believe). Getting back to the topic at hand, I feel the ST-21 would have even had it all over the F-15X, EX or whatever Boeing is calling the latest Eagle. Probably handily too. Bigger radar, a lot longer legs, much faster and capable of carrying longer ranged missiles.

Looked at strictly as a platform, I think the Tomcat had more growth potential - and that was evident in ST-21...


ST-21 engines aren't that much more powerful. F110-GE-129 only has 1,000 pounds more thrust than F110-GE-400.

Tomcat is probably overall better airframe but you're coming across as fanboy by way exaggerating what it can do.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5458
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 19:52

disconnectedradical wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Never heard those results from said French pilots, was news to me.

I can believe they found the F-14 easiest of the 3 to beat, that's not its strength (although it can for sure dogfight). Also, I'm fairly certain the ST-21 would have fared differently. The most excess power of any of the American 3 (by far). The fastest (by far). Likely the most maneuverable too, particularly if it was ordered with thrust vectoring.

Nobody will ever know though, because the Navy just HAD to have the SH (or DoD, depending upon who you believe). Getting back to the topic at hand, I feel the ST-21 would have even had it all over the F-15X, EX or whatever Boeing is calling the latest Eagle. Probably handily too. Bigger radar, a lot longer legs, much faster and capable of carrying longer ranged missiles.

Looked at strictly as a platform, I think the Tomcat had more growth potential - and that was evident in ST-21...


ST-21 engines aren't that much more powerful. F110-GE-129 only has 1,000 pounds more thrust than F110-GE-400..


What I read was that it would have had "improved" -129s, i.e. -132s, and that engine has been tested at up to 36,500lbs of thrust.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4547
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 20:09

sferrin wrote:
What I read was that it would have had "improved" -129s, i.e. -132s, and that engine has been tested at up to 36,500lbs of thrust.

Tested and rated are two very different things. If it was going to be rated for 36,500lbt it would be called a -136. the -132 is rated for ~32,000 and has been run up to 36,500 in testing on a stand, much the same way that the F135 is rated for 43,000lbt but has been tested to 50,000 on a stand to show that there is still growth available.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5458
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 21:50

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:
What I read was that it would have had "improved" -129s, i.e. -132s, and that engine has been tested at up to 36,500lbs of thrust.

Tested and rated are two very different things. If it was going to be rated for 36,500lbt it would be called a -136. the -132 is rated for ~32,000 and has been run up to 36,500 in testing on a stand, much the same way that the F135 is rated for 43,000lbt but has been tested to 50,000 on a stand to show that there is still growth available.


I don't believe I claimed the -132 was a 36k engine out of the box. I stated that it had been run at that power. It was in a GE press release as an indicator of the potential of the -132. It's extremely unlikely that they cracked a few beers and said, "take out all the stops and run the f--ker as hard as she can go for 5 minutes". Same for the P&W -232 run at 37,100lbs. Their target audience wasn't a broom-pusher deep in the bowels of a CVN who didn't know any better.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests