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

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3268
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Apr 2019, 19:07

mixelflick wrote:
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..

There was never any plan to install F-119s on the Tomcat 21. The proposed engines were the F-110-129. F-119s simply wouldn't fit. As for avionics, you're still comparing 90s era avionics with 2020s era for ASH. Lower RCS/situational awareness > M1.3 supercruise. Have we learned nothing from F-22 and F-35 pilots? There's also zero evidence that an F-14 could carry more AAMs. It's got fewer hard points due to the swing wings. The ASF-14 isn't even up for comparison, as no models were ever built. At least the Tomcat 21 was based on existing airframes. If we're going down that road, why limit the ASH to current designs.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3442
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post06 Apr 2019, 13:13

There was never any plan to install F-119s on the Tomcat 21. The proposed engines were the F-110-129. F-119s simply wouldn't fit. As for avionics, you're still comparing 90s era avionics with 2020s era for ASH. Lower RCS/situational awareness > M1.3 supercruise. Have we learned nothing from F-22 and F-35 pilots? There's also zero evidence that an F-14 could carry more AAMs. It's got fewer hard points due to the swing wings. The ASF-14 isn't even up for comparison, as no models were ever built. At least the Tomcat 21 was based on existing airframes. If we're going down that road, why limit the ASH to current designs.[/quote]

The ASF-14 should most certainly be on the table, and there were plans to incorporate the F-119. But even discounting those, an F-110-129 powered F-14 would be superior. Supercruise isn't helpful? Is that why we designed it on the F-22, and the Russians and Chinese are trying like hell to get it for their SU-57 and J-20? It doesn't impart greater launch energy to every air to air and air to ground weapon used? It doesn't allow you to get into/out of a contested area faster? It doesn't greatly complicate enemy SAM systems and shrink their detection/targeting/engagement window? Please.

Supercruise is damn important/useful, and any attempt to claim otherwise is simply attempting to cover for said F-18 deficiences. Even assuming the most powerful F-414's, no variant of the F-18 is going to super-cruise. Not with that wing/draggy airframe. Not with most external stores being slung under its wings'. And certainly NOT with external pylons canted outward, crushing speed, range and performance.

As far as avionics and SA, you can bet whatever advancements came down the pike it would have been modified to carry them. Also, there is evidence Grumman engineers experimented with up to 6 AMRAAM's in "the tunnel". Read about that in an article, still looking for it. It also may have fewer hardpoints, but at least they're not canted outward, inviting parasitic drag and destroying performance.

Feel free to cite any Hornet variation you'd like. There's no way any of them can hold a candle to the F-14 in its envisioned, more advanced versions. Even the Super Duper, ASH etc Hornet can't come close. The F-14 had the superior airframe, range, speed, radar, weapons, can carry more farther, faster and to a much greater altitude. And in many of these metrics (that damn sure matter) like speed and range, we're not talking about small or marginal advantages - they're HUGE. Advantages that allow the ST21/ASF-14 to absolutely toy with the SH, engaging/disengaging at will and making it much more survivable. Put it this way, if I was an SU-27 driver I'd much rather go up against an F-18 of any sort, vs. ST-21 or ASF-14. Every day of the week and twice on Saturdays/Sundays.

It's an absolute crime the F-18 was pushed down the Navy's throat. Bad, bad decision...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5405
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Apr 2019, 14:21

And, again, the F110 showed itself capable of much higher than 30,000lbs thrust. Let's also not forget it was tested with 3D TVC.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post06 Apr 2019, 15:00

Are you people really moving this discussion into a "what might have been" direction?

That is a trivial discussion since it will forever involve never-used and non-maintainable technology. You cannot make your case based on empty assumptions about infinite resources.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5405
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Apr 2019, 15:57

botsing wrote:Are you people really moving this discussion into a "what might have been" direction?

That is a trivial discussion since it will forever involve never-used and non-maintainable technology.


Why would an F110 in an F-14 be less maintainable than an F414 in a SH? Why would an AESA in an F-14 be less maintainable than an AESA in a SH?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post06 Apr 2019, 16:23

sferrin wrote:Why would an F110 in an F-14 be less maintainable than an F414 in a SH? Why would an AESA in an F-14 be less maintainable than an AESA in a SH?

Yes, why would they? :roll:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 700
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post06 Apr 2019, 17:57

Most people tend to forget that at that time, circa 1990, three very important events were happening simultaneously.

1. Fall of Berlin Wall/End of Cold War.
2. We (the US) had very large budget deficits/4 trillion dollar national debt.
3. We (the US) were at the beginning of the early 1990's recession.


I guess because of declining defense spending Cheney decided to end Tomcat funding(production/modernization; in his opinion I believe he said the jet was outdated, if I remember correctly) for a the F/A-18C. I am not saying that the F/A-18C was more capable. It however, was more modern, cost less to maintain, and was shared with the USMC.

There were other programs than the F-14 that were cancelled in that era. The NATF, A-12, AAAM, A-6F just to name a few. So lets not forget the state of the world and our country in the early 1990's. When Clinton took office in January 1993, he and Les Aspin initiated larger cuts. And the lack of Defense spending/modernization continued with Bush 43; even more so under Barack Obama. All that equipment (or lack of it) is now very old and burned out from being in constant use since August 1990.

A US Navy with less money, was not going to reinvest itself in a F-14 derivative-and program that was axed some years earlier. So they had to make due with what they had (mid-late 1990's), and that was with the Hornet and subsequent Super Hornet. So that's what we have today-
Last edited by f-16adf on 06 Apr 2019, 21:25, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1259
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post06 Apr 2019, 19:07

If there is anything intrinsically superior about the fast, maneuverable, rangy Super Tomcat concept and it can be modernized for Stealth by Northrop its time will come again when F/A-XX comes calling. It might look more like Su-57 than F-14 then but its heritage will be clear.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 700
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post06 Apr 2019, 19:21

It goes beyond radar blocker for the fan blades. The F-14's intakes are at sharp 90 degree angles (like the F-15's), you really cannot change that. That is generally considered a grave hazard for RCS. You also have "near" 90 degree vertical tails, h-stabs not in-line with the main wing, and ventral fins. So basically too much is sticking out.

If there is ever any more funds, the Navy should start with clean sheet concepts. And put the F-14 and F-18 (and their derivatives) to the grave. They were both great, but it's time to move on. I am willing to bet the F-35C will also have a stellar legacy, but only time will tell.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3268
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 00:03

mixelflick wrote:[



The ASF-14 should most certainly be on the table, and there were plans to incorporate the F-119. But even discounting those, an F-110-129 powered F-14 would be superior. Supercruise isn't helpful? Is that why we designed it on the F-22, and the Russians and Chinese are trying like hell to get it for their SU-57 and J-20? It doesn't impart greater launch energy to every air to air and air to ground weapon used? It doesn't allow you to get into/out of a contested area faster? It doesn't greatly complicate enemy SAM systems and shrink their detection/targeting/engagement window? Please.

I didn't say supercruise wasn't helpful, but with an RCS the size of the F-14, you're not going to be flying anywhere near non-permissive environments. A smaller RCS combined with situational awareness, is a more important capability, though.

Supercruise is damn important/useful, and any attempt to claim otherwise is simply attempting to cover for said F-18 deficiences. Even assuming the most powerful F-414's, no variant of the F-18 is going to super-cruise. Not with that wing/draggy airframe. Not with most external stores being slung under its wings'. And certainly NOT with external pylons canted outward, crushing speed, range and performance.

Why are you comparing highly modified F-14s that we're never developed, with unmodified Super Hornets? The ASH did away with canted pylons, added CFTs, and stealthy/less draggy weapons pods, in addition to boosting thrust to nearly 27,000lbs. This won't make it supercruise, but it's acceleration will be eye watering, and it's combat speed will be considerably faster.


Feel free to cite any Hornet variation you'd like. There's no way any of them can hold a candle to the F-14 in its envisioned, more advanced versions. Even the Super Duper, ASH etc Hornet can't come close.


You're still comparing avionics of 90s generation vs what's available in the 2020s. Sure, you can upgrade, but let's look at the F-22 vs the F-35. The F-14 concepts weren't envisioned with superior avionics to the F-22, and the F-22 is still having to play catch up to the F-35. The ASH would already come with the latest gee whiz upgrades. You've read too much Dale Brown.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2178
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 10:52

Hold on, is the ST-21's super-cruise capability in a combat configuration.
There are a ton of fighters that claim to be capable of breaking the barrier with dry power when totally clean, F-15E, Su-35, Rafale and even the Gripen.

Well even with the RCS of a barn door and then some, super-cruise and super maneuverability will certainly be useful. But I still think the top 3 most important traits of a combat aircraft these days are
1. Stealth
2. Avionics
3. Kinematic performance.

Pilots seem to agree with this as well,So even if the ST-21 beats the ASH in number 3, it is beaten hands down in 1 and possibly number 2 as well.

And its not like the ST-21 has such an overwhelming advantage over the ASH, its still not a Raptor. At best, a combat configured ST-21 will still carry EFTs, external weapons, jamming pods, so even with GE-129 motors it could just be somewhere around F-35A performance levels, maybe even lower.

I personally consider is the F-35A as the 2nd best performer in combat configuration among NATO planes. ASH with nothing more than a Stealth weapons pod and CFTs could also be somewhere along those lines.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3442
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 13:43

Never heard of Dale Brown.

And the ST-21 carrying EFT's, laughable. It has so much internal fuel, there's no need to. But you'd for sure need it in the ASH. ASH stealthy? Maybe, but since it was added as an afterthought (and not designed in) it won't be very. Certainly not enough to hide from the ST-21's monster AESA.

The bottom line is the ST-21 would have been the better choice for the USN, instead of the SH. By a country mile. And that's the comparison we SHOULD be making is ST-21 to SH. Because at that point in time, those two variants were what was proposed by Grumman/Boeing. Not the ASH. It would have out run, out-gunned and outlasted the SH under any scenario you'd care to mention.

I will concede that ST-21 or any derivative of the F-14 should not be put forth for F/A-XX. That needs to be a clean sheet stealth design, and Grumman (I know they've been bought) had little expertise in that area. As for its other metrics though, they match up well. F/A-XX should be capable of super-cruise. It should have LONG legs. It should have a massive AESA. It should be capable of high alpha, until it's shown its no longer needed. The ST-21 was capable of 77 degree AOA and that was WITHOUT thrust vectoring engines. So it's possible F/A-XX can do the same, without incurring the costs of thrust vectoring. When you add it all up (minus the stealth), ST-21 was that far ahead of its time.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2178
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 17:28

Again:

F-14D = Super Hornet
ST-21 = Advanced Super Hornet.

Please stop comparing the ST-21 to the SH?
ASH was supposed to be VLO or at least LO, It was proposed as a viable alternative to the F-35C when budgets were tight and it was in danger of being put under the chopping block. Why would they compromise that by saying it requires EFTs?

Sure it could carry them if LO was not necessary, but unlike every other NATO 4th gen (all F-14 variants included) where EFT were absolutely required, the F/A-18 ASH had them really as just an option. I have never seen a NATO 4th gen fly a mission without EFTs, in fact the only 4th gen that has been seen doing missions without EFTs is the Flanker. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

But since the ST-21 is nowhere near LO, there is no logical reason for it not to carry EFTs, so just like all other F-14s that flew before it, the ST-21 will also be required to carry EFTs.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3268
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 21:42

mixelflick wrote:Never heard of Dale Brown.

And the ST-21 carrying EFT's, laughable. It has so much internal fuel, there's no need to. But you'd for sure need it in the ASH. ASH stealthy? Maybe, but since it was added as an afterthought (and not designed in) it won't be very. Certainly not enough to hide from the ST-21's monster AESA.

The bottom line is the ST-21 would have been the better choice for the USN, instead of the SH. By a country mile. And that's the comparison we SHOULD be making is ST-21 to SH. Because at that point in time, those two variants were what was proposed by Grumman/Boeing. Not the ASH. It would have out run, out-gunned and outlasted the SH under any scenario you'd care to mention.

I will concede that ST-21 or any derivative of the F-14 should not be put forth for F/A-XX. That needs to be a clean sheet stealth design, and Grumman (I know they've been bought) had little expertise in that area. As for its other metrics though, they match up well. F/A-XX should be capable of super-cruise. It should have LONG legs. It should have a massive AESA. It should be capable of high alpha, until it's shown its no longer needed. The ST-21 was capable of 77 degree AOA and that was WITHOUT thrust vectoring engines. So it's possible F/A-XX can do the same, without incurring the costs of thrust vectoring. When you add it all up (minus the stealth), ST-21 was that far ahead of its time.


The ASH wouldn't be using EFTs, either. Secondly, while the ST-21 has a bigger radar, the RCS difference still gives the ASH first look advantages. We're talking 1m^2 (or less) vs 10m^2 (or more). There isn't enough power/gain/sensitivity/aperture size on the ST-21 to offset the difference. It suffers the same issues as the F-15X.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2178
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 10:00

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-14-to ... rspective/
F-14 vs F-15
the General Electric F110-GE-400 turbofans boosted the performance of the F-14B and D models. Nevertheless as explained by LCDR Joe “Smokin” Ruzicka, who was the Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) to fly the last F-14 Demonstration before the Tomcat was retired by the U.S. Navy in 2006, to Tyler Rogoway for foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com, the worst adversary for the F-14 in a mock dogfight remained the F-15C, since the Eagle was “more capable in that area than the Tomcat. You have to remember, the F-15C has a 9G turning capability versus 6.5 to 7.0 G for the Tomcat.


https://theaviationist.com/2012/11/21/tomcat-vs-hornet/
Tomcat vs Super Hornet
In close air combat, the Super Hornet is much maneuverable (with a good authority at slow speed and high AOA – angle of attack) and, even if it lacks the AIM-54 Phoenix for the long distances in BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements, it has got the JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder for the dogfights which the F-14 didn’t integrate.


You can make an argument that the F-14 was probably the least capable ACM platform among the teen series. It was more than capable of winning in the right hands but it required more skill and experience IMO.

So are ST-21 advocates saying that with redesigned LEX and 129 motors it suddenly jumps next to the Raptor on this scale?
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests