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

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 15:43

f-16adf wrote:As far as which jet is better than which jet, F-14D vs SH. Like I said, I defer to the French Navy testimony. Even as LCDR Ruzicka said, the Super Hornet is the better turner/high Alpha jet, and the D Tomcat has better vertical performance. But putting A-A stores on the SH's canted pylons must also be factored in.


Sounds like the French Navy flew WVR only, which by all accounts isn't how air combat is going to go in the future. And even if it is, stick a 9x on the Tomcat and it's a mutual kill proposition. Low cost solution. No need for new engines, thrust vectoring etc etc...

But air to air combat well be mostly BVR, and BVR is another area where the F-14A/B/D/ST-21 (take your pic) really excels. The A/B/D could reach out and touch you farther than any other fighter of its day. People may argue the Navy's combat experience with the Phoenix invalidates that. But you can't count 3 to 4 USN misses and then discount the sheer number of successes the Iranian's had with the weapon. Including 1 Phoenix destroying 3 Mig-23's. One by one, every Iraqi aircraft fell to the Phoenix: Mig-21's, 23's, Mirage F1's... even the mighty Mig-25. Hell the Iraqi's so feared the F-14, they ran when painted by the AWG-9. Ever hear of anyone running from a Hornet?

And ST-21 would have properly carried AIM-120D's, which when launched at mach 1.3 would have had the Phoenix's extreme range, with a much better PK. I suspect 6 could have been carried in the tunnel, but even 4 semi-recessed would have been adequate. We're talking blistering speed, extreme range, a very robust sensor platform and missiles to match the range of the radar.

Something only the F-22 is now getting, 14 years after going IOC...
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 17:00

Like I always say, BVR combat is not just about who can launch further.
In fact it may never be about that. Its about what you can do within the BVR bubble.
Historically that bubble is around 20 NM wide.

The SHornet has a smaller RCS, AESA radar, better EW systems. The only thing the F-14D has going for it is speed and longer ranged missiles. So when you enter that BVR bubble, the SHornet has serious advantages over any Tomcat.

For anyone who will put the ST-21 in the conversation, please compare it to the Advanced Superhornet proposal. Thats a poor man's stealth fighter, no way the ST-21 will survive that fight.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 23:03

$100 million for SH, but no way is ASH a poor man's anything...
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 01:58

zero-one wrote:Like I always say, BVR combat is not just about who can launch further.
In fact it may never be about that. Its about what you can do within the BVR bubble.
Historically that bubble is around 20 NM wide.

The SHornet has a smaller RCS, AESA radar, better EW systems. The only thing the F-14D has going for it is speed and longer ranged missiles. So when you enter that BVR bubble, the SHornet has serious advantages over any Tomcat.

For anyone who will put the ST-21 in the conversation, please compare it to the Advanced Superhornet proposal. Thats a poor man's stealth fighter, no way the ST-21 will survive that fight.


LOL the super bug has a smaller RCS. Thats like saying its RCS is somehow relevantly small - which it absolutely is not. Anyone grasping at that straw is really desperate to make a case for the bug. I would love to see a bug loaded with fuel and munitions penetrate a modern battlespace as well as a f22 or f35. It can't. It never will. They could have saved money by simply not pretending to build a stealth fighter.

The new build tomcats with the AESA would have had the bugs breakfast, lunch, and dinner, BVR or wvr.

The new bug has no speed, no legs, and no maneuvering ability save for some high alpha trickery.

The AESA in the tomcat would have surely been the most powerful ever put in a fighter. 8 amraams and supercruise with super maneuverability and helmet cueing.

Longer range. Greater speed. More kinetic energy to impart into BVR shots. More powerful aesa.

I was around when the A single handedly took out 2 eagles. I would LOVE to see a single new bug take out 2 eagles of any type in a knife fight without hobs missiles. So those who say the new bug is a better fighter than what we would have had with the new tomcats - well if you want to argue with calculators and ms flight Sim, have at it. I can't argue against someone's emotions.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 02:18

crosshairs wrote:
zero-one wrote:Like I always say, BVR combat is not just about who can launch further.
In fact it may never be about that. Its about what you can do within the BVR bubble.
Historically that bubble is around 20 NM wide.

The SHornet has a smaller RCS, AESA radar, better EW systems. The only thing the F-14D has going for it is speed and longer ranged missiles. So when you enter that BVR bubble, the SHornet has serious advantages over any Tomcat.

For anyone who will put the ST-21 in the conversation, please compare it to the Advanced Superhornet proposal. Thats a poor man's stealth fighter, no way the ST-21 will survive that fight.


LOL the super bug has a smaller RCS. Thats like saying its RCS is somehow relevantly small - which it absolutely is not. Anyone grasping at that straw is really desperate to make a case for the bug. I would love to see a bug loaded with fuel and munitions penetrate a modern battlespace as well as a f22 or f35. It can't. It never will. They could have saved money by simply not pretending to build a stealth fighter.

The new build tomcats with the AESA would have had the bugs breakfast, lunch, and dinner, BVR or wvr.

The new bug has no speed, no legs, and no maneuvering ability save for some high alpha trickery.

The AESA in the tomcat would have surely been the most powerful ever put in a fighter. 8 amraams and supercruise with super maneuverability and helmet cueing.

Longer range. Greater speed. More kinetic energy to impart into BVR shots. More powerful aesa.

I was around when the A single handedly took out 2 eagles. I would LOVE to see a single new bug take out 2 eagles of any type in a knife fight without hobs missiles. So those who say the new bug is a better fighter than what we would have had with the new tomcats - well if you want to argue with calculators and ms flight Sim, have at it. I can't argue against someone's emotions.

In an A2A configuration, the SH probably has an RCS of 3m^2 or smaller, depending on the configuration. A clean F-14 is probably 10m^2, much less with weapons. That still gives a SH a first look advantage. If we're going to argue about hypothetical configurations, the SH will always have a significant RCS advantage vs any Tomcat 21++++ variant. With CFTs, stealthy weapons pods, internal IRST, and the EPE motors, it would pose a very big challenge.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 09:21

Smaller RCS also means chaff and EW are that much more effective.

Tomcat A beating 2 Eagles is a big deal, but like you said, anyone can loose at any given day. Perhaps that was a Topgun instructor teaching a couple of 2nd Lieutenants how to mix it up.

Bottom line is, many many pilots consider the Bug family as better fighters than the F-14A-D.

And again if you will put the ST-21 in the conversation, pit it against the Advanced SuperHornet.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 09:32

crosshairs wrote:LOL the super bug has a smaller RCS. Thats like saying its RCS is somehow relevantly small - which it absolutely is not. Anyone grasping at that straw is really desperate to make a case for the bug. I would love to see a bug loaded with fuel and munitions penetrate a modern battlespace as well as a f22 or f35. It can't. It never will. They could have saved money by simply not pretending to build a stealth fighter.
The new build tomcats with the AESA would have had the bugs breakfast, lunch, and dinner, BVR or wvr.
The new bug has no speed, no legs, and no maneuvering ability save for some high alpha trickery.
The AESA in the tomcat would have surely been the most powerful ever put in a fighter. 8 amraams and supercruise with super maneuverability and helmet cueing.
Longer range. Greater speed. More kinetic energy to impart into BVR shots. More powerful aesa

F-18 SH was made with RCS reduction measures in mind, while it is not on the same level as F-22 or F-35, to say that it is not relevantly smaller than F-14D is not correct.
post-6-1429343666.gif

Smaller RCS is beneficial in various ways
jamming and rcs.PNG


Furthermore, if we assume TomCat with AESA was made, we should also assume F-18 got its engine replacement. F-18 got low wing sweep so very steep Cl/alpha curve, what it lacks is thrust
2.PNG



crosshairs wrote:I was around when the A single handedly took out 2 eagles. I would LOVE to see a single new bug take out 2 eagles of any type in a knife fight without hobs missiles. So those who say the new bug is a better fighter than what we would have had with the new tomcats - well if you want to argue with calculators and ms flight Sim, have at it. I can't argue against someone's emotions.

An exception shouldn't be taken as the rule.
In BFM exercise, we have seen T-38 defeat F-22 and F-4 and jaguar defeat Rafale, but that shouldn't be taken as evidence the former is better than the later
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 12:51

In the DACT exercises with the French Navy, as far as pilot experience was concerned. The Marine Rafale pilots had the least amount of time on their jets, since only the prior year coming from Super Etendards and earlier Crusaders. While the US Navy F-14D and F-18C pilots had far more respective experience on their aircraft. The SH was fairly new. But in this case, the pilots with the least experience (aka French Marine) came out victorious. It just shows they simply had a superior maneuvering jet.

And for Tomcat fans using that lame old excuse of the 6.5G limit for the F-14D doesn't add up. Since if you look at the NATOPS charts, Even if you strip off all the armament (due to the reduction in weight, the new Ps=0 curve is basically now near the -200fps line) it will only gain slightly over 1dps in STR (a liberal estimate). And looking at 5,10,15,25Kft charts,the area where the jet turns the best in this case ~.6-.65IMN, all still easily fall within that 6.5G limit. While for instantaneous maneuvering, anything above 7.5G, and the jet bleeds copious amounts of energy.




As far as the 2 on 1 was concerned, I think the pilot was Hoser. So no surprise here. All his prior time was on Crusaders, a little on the Viggie, and some time on Phantom's at VX-4. He also had many years with the F-14 prior to AIM/ACE. For over a decade, one must remember, the Navy F-8 Crusader pilots were generally FAR, FAR better ACM tacticians than any of their USAF contemporaries. They were probably the best in the world (except for Israeli pilots).

I remember reading that in 1972, after the F-4E Rivet Haste upgrade,the USAF invited USN TOPGUN Crusader pilots for ACM prior to being shipped back to SEA. And the results from those BFM fights were that the NAVY Crusader guys gave a sound beating to the AF Phantom pilots. So like I said, Hoser was a great pilot. And with him coming from mainly fighters, the Crusader community, and years of VX-4/TOPGUN experience; I am not at all surprised that he was victorious against 2 F-15 Eagles.
Last edited by f-16adf on 05 Apr 2019, 13:59, edited 5 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5453
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 12:58

garrya wrote:Furthermore, if we assume TomCat with AESA was made, we should also assume F-18 got its engine replacement. F-18 got low wing sweep so very steep Cl/alpha curve, what it lacks is thrust
2.PNG


As reality has shown however, the Super Hornet has never received an EPE engine (despite talking about it for nearly two decades).
"There I was. . ."
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 13:36

There is no EPE simply because nobody wants to pay the bill. ;)
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5453
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 14:36

madrat wrote:There is no EPE simply because nobody wants to pay the bill. ;)


But the idea of a Super Hornet having the power of TWO F-105s is too awesome.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 16:03

sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:There is no EPE simply because nobody wants to pay the bill. ;)


But the idea of a Super Hornet having the power of TWO F-105s is too awesome.


If you grant the Super Duper with up-rated F-414's with 26,000lbs of thrust, you have to likewise grant the ST-21 with GE F-110-129's, each developing 30,000lbs of thrust and capable of thrust vectoring. And if that wasn't enough, there were pplans to use the F-119 as well. There simply is no comparison between those two, and the ST-21 would be easily capable of super-cruise - something no Hornet anywhere (with any engines) is going to be able to accomplish. You could stick F-119's in it, and super-cruise would still be questionable (due to canted pylons,creating stupid amounts of drag). For reference, the F-119 performance was described as follows,"I was told that the Tomcat's super-cruise ability with these advanced engines would be limited more by heat accumulation than speed itself (think numbers over mach two)."

The ST-21 therefore would have a MUCH greater speed/altitude advantage. And this is the important part: Would dictate the terms and be able to engage and disengage at will. The monster AESA (MUCH bigger than what SDH will carry) will be more than capable of detecting/tracking any SH variation, RCS reduction measures or not. With thrust vectoring, HOBS missiles, JHMCS and advanced AMRAAM's, it would dominate both BVR and WVR. It could also simply out last any Hornet, given it has much better persistence/longer legs.

It would be equally adept at the air to ground role, carrying much heavier loads and a lot farther (with more bring back weight) than any Hornet. Recon? It could do that too, and be a lot more survivable due to its blazing speed/altitude advantage. Want more? You'll get more...

" Even without thrust vectoring, the aerodynamic enhancements found on the ASF-14 would allow the jet to reach over 77 degrees of sustained AoA, but thrust vectoring was also to be part of the new design which would have made it the most maneuverable fighter of all time. Additionally, the ASF-14 would have been built with a top of the line self defense and countermeasure suite along with ability to perform "wild weasel" suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions."

Finally, I get back again to speed and range. Had we procured the ST-21, we'd have 2 squadrons sitting on USN carriers today, soon to welcome the F-35C. How much more relevant would the ST-21 be in the South China Sea, vs. any Hornet? Fleet air defense is now a BIG issue, bigger even than the former Soviet threat. The ST-21's monster AESA, supercruise and especially her long, long legs would be tailor made. Given its launch energy, it would have (by far) the longest range AAM's of any fighter, save perhaps the F-22. Those AIM-120D's would even out-range AIM-120D's fired from F-35C's, and the ST-21 could certainly carry more of them. It would remove the fleet air defense burden from the F-35C, allowing it to do what it does best - strike, SEAD/DEAD and shaping the battlefield.

So much win, in such a capable airframe..
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 16:46

There is nothing to stop Northrop Grumman resurrecting it and modernizing it with stealth as their bid for the F/A-XX requirement. After all we already know the basic airframe is carrier capable and Cheney is gone and soon Shanahan too to remove their Boeing thumbs on the scales.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 18:10

Yes, there is something preventing it. Tooling and documentation was scuttled under Rumsfeld.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 18:33

There is no "modernizing" an F-14 as a VLO platform. It would have to be designed from the ground up as such.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests